You are here

Human evolution: initial steps toward an hourglass figure in the female

The female hourglass figure obviously reflects sexual selection.  However, sexual selection acts on male-female differences to start with.  Therefore, what prompted shape differences in the first place?  Boguslaw Pawlowski and Marzena Grabarczyk have written a paper on this, and it is addressed here.

The paper refers to the center of mass of a body, which is the point around which the mass of the body is equally distributed.  For instance, most of the mass of a human body lies away from a finger tip.  Therefore, the center of mass of a human body is not going to be in the fingers, but somewhere in the abdominal region.

The authors have proposed that when our ancestors started walking upright, walking became more challenging for females in the later stages of pregnancy and those carrying babies (in the front) as these conditions shift the center of mass upward and forward, and the women would surely have to walk to obtain food.  This challenge can be eased by adding more mass to the hips (more protruding buttocks, wider hips) and thighs (e.g., more fat deposition on the thighs), as well as reducing upper body mass, thereby shifting the center of mass toward the rear and downward.  Hominid females with relatively bigger hips for a given waist size and somewhat lesser upper body mass than others would be at an advantage with respect to foraging during the later stages of pregnancy and when carrying infants in front, and the males more attracted toward such females would enjoy better reproductive success.  This would lead to a greater frequency of Hominid females shifted toward the modern human female form as well as a greater proportion of hominid males with a preference for females having bigger hips relative to waist size and reduced upper body mass in the form of a smaller musculoskeletal upper body frame.  Modern human male preference for large female breasts is not inconsistent with the advantage of reduced upper body mass to the ancestral Hominid females because the prominence of female breasts is due to fat, which doesn’t weigh much; a reduction of skeletal and muscular mass would compensate for an increase in breast size many times over.

To assess the feasibility of the proposal above, the authors obtained various body measurements, including center of mass, in a sample of young women and assessed the correlations between the measurements.  A low center of mass, adjusted for height, corresponded to narrower shoulders, a lower waist-to-hip ratio and greater thigh circumference, but not the following variables: trunk length, chest circumference, lower limb length, hip width, hip circumference, waist circumference and body mass.  Therefore, the position of the center of mass was correlated with three variables relevant to a feminine look and consistent with the authors’ proposal above, namely shoulder width, waist-to-hip ratio and thigh circumference.  Although hip width is relevant to an hourglass/feminine look, since the region where hip width is measured is very close to the center of mass, the lack of correlation should not be surprising, but one sees correlations with parts of the body distant from the center of mass, namely shoulders and thighs.  In other words, the data are consistent with the authors’ contention.


Pawlowski B, Grabarczyk M. Center of body mass and the evolution of female body shape. Am J Hum Biol. 2003 Mar-Apr;15(2):144-50. (zip)

Abstract: Among primates, the genus Homo has a unique sexual dimorphism in general body shape. The stenotypic female "hourglass figure" has often been attributed to sexual selection. Sexual dimorphism both in shape and in position of the center of body mass (CoM) emerges during puberty and is related to hormonal influences. These are only the proximal and not the ultimate causes of this feature. This article explores the hypothesis that the evolutionary (i.e., ultimate) reason for female body shape and male preference for a lower waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) is due to the acquisition of bipedal locomotion and different biomechanical constraints on each sex. The demands of pregnancy and subsequently carrying infants may have more tightly constrained CoM in females than in males. A lower-position of CoM relative to height (RCoM=(CoM/height)*100%) would contribute to better stability during pregnancy and infant carrying. Using body measurements from 119 female students, we show that RCoM correlates negatively with only maximal thigh circumference and positively with only WHR and shoulder width. The relationship between RCoM and traits that best characterize female body shape seems to confirm a hypothesis of biomechanical selection pressure that may have acted on Homo female morphology, thus contributing to sexual dimorphism.



I found another site that was talking about gays dictating women's size,, in a blog titled "To Be or Not To Be: Gay, Lesbian, Transgendered," and then searched and found you.

As a model/athlete, at 18% bodyfat my agent told me I needed to lose in my hips -- needless to say, I didn't get rid of my hips, I got rid of my agent!

I am a classic, Sophia Loren hourglass. My waist has always been 12 inches smaller than my bust and hips since I was twelve! My bust and hips have always been the same.

An artist asked me to model for a Vargas tribute (the famous 40s pin-up artist -- not nude)and he was the first one I heard say this about gays setting the fashion standard. It makes so much sense.

It's definitely not fun when the only place you can see your body type these days is in pornography -- which is disgusting and so sad to me because it wrecks relationships, and is so disrespectful. Or Anna Nicole Smith or faked-out Pamela Anderson -- pathetic and so embarrassing!

I'm always cheering on any intelligent, self-respecting women I see like me in the public eye, but they are so rare. I can tell in a second who is a natural hour-glass but is starving herself to be thinner. I can also easily spot a boob job with 100% accuracy. (By the way, Tyra Banks is real.)

I have to say Erik, while your efforts are much appreciated, and participants, while it's great you are considering alternative definitions of beauty, for some reason, women in general seem to seek external approval and want to squish themselves into numbers. I see that happening here. From one squish to another? Ladies, your mirror needs to be your magazine and your guide -- not Erik, not anyone else. Honestly, greet your body naked in the mirror every morning, ("Hi body, you're looking great!") run around your house naked, exercise naked and watch yourself in the mirror -- love your body! Appreciate your body!

Erik, I know, you're a guy, and you appreciate women's beautiful bodies, which women appreciate, (though the very young-looking, blondes seem to be significantly over-represented here) and I see you trying to assure participants that not being a classic hour glass doesn't mean they are not attractive.

After teaching wanna-be models about fitness and nutrition I learned to veer away from these "perfection" landmines, and refused to go down that path when I identified someone who was wanting an external formula for who they should be in order to be: loved, validated, successful, attractive, etc., etc., etc. Please encourage ladies to love themselves because classic hour-glass or any other formula can be as impossible as skinny. You're in danger of just switching formulas! Heterosexual men used to be in charge of women's fashion (hour-glass sex symbols) and now gay men are in charge of women's fashion. How about women being in charge of women's fashion? Then we could see the whole beautiful kaleidescope of women's beauty!

You've alluded to some great solutions -- one that could be accentuated, and is necessary for this to be successful, is our cultural messages to our daughters about self-respect, self-worth and healthy self-image in the first place. In other words, we can't just suggest a different look in a magazine, we must raise women who don't need to look at a magazine at all to feel great about themselves.
This falls in the mother and the father arena -- mothers how's your self-image, what kind of role model are you for your daughters? Specifically tell your daughters how amazing they are -- they listen, trust me. Fathers, how do you treat women? What value do women have to you? What kind of role model are you for respecting & valuing women for who they are? Specifically tell your daughters how beautiful they are -- so they don't fall for that line from the first player that comes along! They listen, trust me!

Anyway, there's my two cents...

Monique: I know that I am not the only person to have figured out the gay factor as an explanation for why high-fashion models are typically very skinny, but thank you for pointing out the link. I am pleased to know that you decided not to lose the healthy amount of body fat that you possess, but other women may have little opportunity for success apart from fashion modeling, for which they will have to become skinny in the first place.

I myself lament the fact that I have had to mostly resort to nude models to obtain examples of feminine beauty. On the other hand, feminine women are uncommon in porn because most of them are not inclined toward promiscuity. The vast majority of the nude models shown in the attractive women section do not comprise of porn stars. If you believe Tyra Banks has always had natural breasts, then explain this.

As far as I know women in general do not seek external approval of their looks. Many women have a strong innate sense of aesthetics and know how attractive they are based on this sense; they do not primarily judge their attractiveness in terms of how others perceive them. But then there are women who are largely dependent on others to assess how attractive they are.

There is certainly nothing within this site that should be taken as women feeling less worthy, less successful, less loved and less validated if they fail to meet the standards for feminine beauty. Good looks last for a short time whereas people’s personality and nature last a lifetime. Surely, no woman should have the immaturity to derive a sense of worth or belonging from how attractive she is. The arguments within this site have nothing to do with acceptability vs. non-acceptability per se of different looks in women, but of appropriate looks – from an aesthetics perspective – among models in various settings and contestants in beauty pageants catering to the general public. There are numerous scenarios where a person’s attractiveness does not matter or should not matter, and nobody should base a general sense of worth upon how attractive she is.

As far as switching formulas go, men and women in general judge female attractiveness similarly. Therefore, if heterosexual women were in charge of women’s fashion, then mindful of the necessity of high-fashion wear conveying a sense of exclusivity [or else the elite would not patronize it], they will have to use a narrow range of physical variation among their models, which will need to be difficult to attain for most women, and this narrow range will obviously be one of feminine beauty.

Anyway, if you have an hourglass figure and are an attractive women, then please consider submitting your pictures to me; I sorely need non-nude pictures of attractive women.

"...Other women may have little chance for success apart from fashion modeling..." Huh? What world do you live in? Where are women's choices for success limited to fashion modeling?

Tyra - ahhh, Erik, you're letting the camera fool you! I would look the same in different clothes, angles & lighting! The smaller the triangles the larger the breasts appear! Not only can I tell from looking at Tyra that they're real, but she also had a gynecologist do a breast ultrasound on national TV. Don't trash Tyra -- she's always been "real" about the smoke and mirrors of the fashion industry -- she's on your side! Early on, she published a book with unretouched photos of herself, cellulite and all, encouraging women to love their bodies! She's probably done more for girls (and women's) self-image than anyone else (Jamie Curtis is awesome, too). I appreciate her efforts, and I love seeing someone shaped like me in the public eye. (Of course, you're going to say she's masculine. If so, it's certainly not from being too skinny!)

Trading formulas -- I found a place on your site talking about WHR formulas and then couldn't find it again, where girls (I think one's name was Laurie) were basically asking you to "bless" them as hourglass, ie. the most desireable. You told this girl in particular that she doesn't qualify because her waist is only 9" smaller than her bust and hips. It was obvious that she was getting upset, and was one of the MANY girls and women that I've encountered who were not given positive self-image messages growing up and who seek external approval.

I don't see evidence in research, including yours presented here, that women are as confining in their definitions of beauty for women as males (gay or straight) are.

Your justification for straight vs. gay male participation in defining the parameters of a woman's body for modeling in the fashion industry, rather than leaving that to women, is that wealthy women are the real audience, therefore, the parameters must be hard to achieve or they won't buy it, and straight men have the correct formula. Huh?

Remember the Hans Christian Andersen fairytale The Emperor's New Clothes? I guess you're saying that wealthy women seek more external approval than anyone else!

Maybe that's true, which is sad, because there are so many worthy things they could be doing with their money that would feed their self-worth rather than trying to look like a size 0 adolescent pretty boy OR a WHR 7 hour-glass.

Maybe women running the fashion industry could rescue wealthy women from this scourge as well! Maybe straight men should just trust women to know how they want to dress & be, just giving their yummy approval to their mates on the side!

Oh, PS -- I'm sure I'm not the only woman who doesn't want to forward pictures to be placed among all the porn shots -- sorry! Like Sophia Loren, I have never modeled nude. I don't want to be thrown among women who do pose nude -- and not for art --but for porn!

I also do not want to be seen as promoting your trading one very narrow formula for another, because I disagree with that! You're trying to define genetics! I didn't "make" myself an hour-glass or beautiful, I was just blessed and born with it.

It is not my intention to intimidate other women -- that happens enough to me in real life and makes me feel very sad. In addition to being a classic hour-glass, I have been told I look like Linda Carter, Xena, and more recently Catherine Zeta-Jones. I have to work at getting women who may feel insecure about themselves (which is way too many!) to let down their wall and realize I just want to be "one of the girls." I have to joke with them and compliment them (genuinely, of course) to get them to let down their guard, or retract their claws.

If it is the intention of the fashion industry, and wealthy women, to intimidate in this way, then something is seriously wrong with all of them!

Monique: Damn! Unless regular feminine and attractive women start sending me their pictures to put them in the attractive women section, how am I supposed to reduce or eliminate my reliance on nude models? Once again, most of the nude models shown in the attractive women section have posed for art, not porn, and only a rare few have done porn work. Besides, I could put your pictures on a page free of nude models. Speaking of reversing formulas, as I have said before, this site is about promoting feminine beauty in settings where it is required. The message is not that “women should look like this,” i.e., there is no reversal of formula, and please keep in mind that most people, including most women, have an intrinsic preference for feminine beauty, i.e., I am not imposing a new formula on people. You are not helping me at all by refusing to have yourself featured here.

You don’t want to intimidate women with your looks? What is this? Are the athletes participating in the Olympics intimidating the masses with their athletic prowess? Are scientists in the limelight that are working on solving complex scientific problems intimidating others with their intelligence? Beauty is a gift of the Gods, and meant as eye candy for the masses. Thou shalt not deprive others of a balm meant for troubled souls. The wise do not displease the Gods. Would you rather have sick-looking high-fashion models or feminine beauty inspire women?

Regarding the quote about other women having little chance for success apart from fashion modeling, given the strong and overwhelming public preference for feminine beauty, some masculinized women who are capable of becoming very skinny with dieting will have little choice for success apart from fashion modeling in a gay-dominated fashion industry. Look up Iselin Vollen Steiro and ask yourself if she would make it in modeling if gays didn’t dominate the fashion business. Some masculinized women may not make it big without the means to model in a gay-dominated fashion business.

I don’t think that I am being fooled with respect to Tyra. Here are two more pictures of her breasts: 1, 2. Do they seriously look natural to you? Masculinized women who happen to be as slender as Tyra at the time the pictures were taken do not have such large breasts, and certainly not fake-looking ones. Tyra Banks’ supposed proving on her TV show that she has natural breasts could very well have been staged since she was not independently evaluated by multiple physicians who were not known to each other and randomly selected by a neutral party. Regarding her book and her being real, see if you can find her acknowledging the major work she has had on her nose. I am not trashing Tyra; pointing out some truths that do not flatter her is not trashing her.

Regarding Laurie in a separate thread, I told her that she should consider herself to have an hourglass figure, just not one that meets high standards. Lying would not help; phony self-esteem is no good because it wouldn’t take much to reduce it; mere exposure to beauty would reduce phony high esteem. Do not assume that women with a negative opinion of their looks have ended up so because they were not given sufficient “positive self-image messages” while growing up. People have a basic aesthetic sense and will be disappointed in their looks if they do not meet their own aesthetic standards. It is true that some women are more dependent on assessing how attractive they are based on how others view them, but at least the beauty standard being promoted here is natural and healthy.

Your understanding that men are more confining than women with respect to what they regard as female beauty is based on an incorrect understanding of this site. In order for this site to have a strong impact, sufficiently high standards are needed, and high standards translate to a narrow range of women selected as examples of feminine beauty. The narrowness reflects neither my preference nor that of heterosexual men in general. In the general population, men and women rate female attractiveness similarly, as has been shown for:


Facial attractiveness –


Rhodes, G., The evolutionary psychology of facial beauty, Annu Rev Psychol, 57, 199 (2006).

Waist-hip proportions –


Streeter, S. A., and McBurney, D. H., Waist-hip ratio and attractiveness: new evidence and a critique of a "critical test" Evol Hum Behav, 24, 88 (2003).

Henss, R., Waist-to-hip ratio and female attractiveness. Evidence from photographic stimuli and methodological considerations, Personal Individ Diff, 28, 501 (2000).

Henss, R., Waist-to-hip ratio and attractiveness. Replication and extension, Pers Individ Diff, 19, 479 (1995).

Furnham, A., Tan, T., and McManus, C., Waist-to-hip ratio and preferences for body shape: a replication and extension, Pers Individ Diff, 22, 539 (1997).

Overall physique –


Tovee, M. J., and Cornelissen, P. L., Female and male perceptions of female physical attractiveness in front-view and profile, Br J Psychol, 92 Part 2, 391 (2001).

Smith, K. L., Cornelissen, P. L., and Tovée, M. J., Color 3D bodies and judgements of human female attractiveness, Evol Hum Behav, 28, 48 (2007).

I have addressed many of the studies above already, and will discuss the unaddressed ones later. The important point of the studies above is that your impression that straight men have the correct formula for targeting wealthy women is incorrect since the aesthetic preferences of straight men also happen to be those of straight women. It is not a question of wealthy women seeking more external approval, but the necessity of suggesting exclusivity in order to build a brand name, which, among other things, requires a narrow range and difficult to achieve looks in models. With respect to majority preferences, the most appropriate standard, and a healthy one at that, is one of feminine beauty with an emphasis on high aesthetic standards. You could always use ordinary-looking women to sell clothes, and this could be part of a fashion alternative, but this will not work for high fashion.

There is only one "God" (don't ever tell him I called him that, he'll take advantage) that I need to show my pictures to or be eye candy for and I wake up with him every morning!

High fashion this and high fashion that -- I guess I just don't care about high fashion, I care about people.

I care about immpressionable girls thinking they have to look like a size 0 or a WHR 7, and stop doing well in math to attract a guy.

I'm concerned when I hear a 17 year old boy in a gym criticize an incredibly fit instructor because she has a little cellulite and he thinks she should be perfect like he sees in magazines.

I'm concerned that these messages affect men's and women's expectations and harm their ability to connect.

I'm thankful for Tyra -- I don't know about her nose, but I have to laugh at your breast pictures -- have you really ever seen real breasts in person? Careful, someone might pull back the curtain on a virgin "wizard of oz" here! (Though being a virgin is a virtue -- it certainly wouldn't qualify you as a judge of real female breasts! What's sad is the idea of any man being the judge of any female's breasts except his mate's!)

Oh, and Catherine Zeta-Jones is Welsh, not "South American"!

High fashion -- yada, yada, yada, blah, blah, blah! If the "emperors" want to go around in the underwear gays have made for them, let them. We only need to be concerned if it affects the rest of us.

Monique: Tyra’s pictures shown clearly reveal breast implants, and if you are a self-proclaimed expert on detecting breast implants, then I don’t see how you have failed to observe this. It seems like you don’t want to accept it because Tyra in your estimation has been “honest” about her looks and possibly a good role model, but Tyra has only admitted to minor work like hair straightening, hair dyeing, colored contacts, fake eyelashes and shaving her moustache.

Most women have a reasonable idea of how attractive they are, and would not be adversely affected by this site, but of those who are, at least this site is promoting looks consistent with health, fertility and fecundity, i.e., these looks cannot be acquired by indulging in negative health behaviors.

Not all 17-year-old boys are like your hypothetical example. Most men do not mind a little cellulite. For instance, a woman that I went out with had some cellulite, which you could observe if you squeezed her buttocks or upper thighs, but not otherwise. She was concerned about it, but I told her that I would much rather she have the fat on her, a healthy amount by the way, so that I enjoy massaging it rather than lose the fat to avoid the appearance of cellulite under any circumstances.

I have described Catherine Zeta Jones as Welsh and don’t see the point of your comment. It may be related to your superficial reading of my describing her pre-transformation looks as those of a South American Hispanic. Even her transformation has been of limited help. I had a difficult time convincing my roommate that the lead actress in The Mask of Zorro is Welsh, not a Latina.

Gay fashion designers are affecting the “rest of us” in numerous negative ways, as well-documented within this site. It is time for you to be concerned about their aesthetic preferences.

Sorry, but woman with a moustache is masculinized?

By the way, my measurements are 86-64-91. Is my body feminine or masculinized?

The 17 year old guy was not hypothetical, I was standing there!

Laurie in the WHR section of this website was not hypothetical, when she was obviously seeking your approval of her figure -- which just makes me feel sad.

If you think Tyra's breasts are not real, then you would say the same thing about me in the same light and clothing (or lack thereof) -- that's what makes this all so stupid!

Now that getting breasts is commonplace, people, if they're rude enough, ask if mine are real -- which just cracks me up! The few true hour-glass women now can find a bikini top that's bigger than a little triangle with support, which was a great plus for me, but a lot of people (you included) cannot tell the difference between real and fake!

Erik, what you're not hearing is that I am concerned about men's confining aesthetic preferences, period, whether the man is gay or straight! Opinions are one thing -- this all is entirely another!

As women, we just don't do this crap to you guys! I'm saying it is not appropriate for you to define what is or isn't feminine or not! It's fine to offer your "preferences" or opinions, but this site goes much further than that.

If women did this to men -- good luck!

I speak for women in general when I say we're tired of it! Whether the guys are gay or straight!

Being appreciated and being molded are two entirely different things, which you just don't seem to understand.

Elise: You do not see a whole lot of feminine women with a mustache. Your measurements are not informative about masculinity-femininity. A number of masculinized high-fashion models have your measurements, but if you are a couple of inches shorter and have prominent breasts, i.e., a much smaller rib cage, then your appearance will be in the normal-to-feminine range.

Monique: If you are going to be bothered by individual cases like Laurie’s or the teenage male’s, then good luck living a contended life. It is not possible for everyone to be pleased or make all individuals conform to the behavior you like. Feminine women generally appreciate this site, and your case is curious. Do you so strongly empathize with unattractive women that you are disturbed by this site, in spite of being a woman that, judging by your self-description, would be classified as attractive by the standards of this site?

I don’t suppose that all women with large breasts have fake breasts; I have shown multiple women with naturally larger breasts than Tyra’s within this site. However, there are reasons why Tyra’s breasts at their peak in her Sports Illustrated shoot from years ago cannot be accepted as natural. In the first picture series that I cited, you can see very large breasts on the right even though she hasn’t gained weight elsewhere compared to her picture with much smaller breasts. For a slender woman to naturally have breasts as large as Tyra’s at her peak, she has to have the genetics to preferentially deposit body fat in her breasts, i.e., if the woman gains weight, her breasts should grow much larger. Here are recent pictures of Tyra having gained at least 30 pounds compared to her modeling days, but her breasts are not notably larger, though they look more natural because she has more fat in the top region of her breasts. How do you explain this? The second pair of pictures that I cited show very odd-looking large breasts in a woman that is lying down; they are obviously fake. Here is another picture of her fake breasts.

I have heard your concern about “men confining aesthetic preferences,” but you have ignored my response that men and women judge female attractiveness similarly; men are no more confining than women with respect to judging women’s physical attractiveness, and women are not being “molded” into believing that feminine beauty is desirable. What do you mean women “don’t do this crap” to men? Heterosexual women are much more particular than heterosexual men when it comes to whom they are willing to be intimately involved with, though not necessarily with respect to looks.

But there are lots of exceptions. How can you explain, for example, that masculinized Kate Moss is only 168 cm tall? She´s 10 cm shorter than Gisele, but has wider hips than Gisele.Gisele´s hips - 34 inches, Kate´s hips - 35 inches.

And my ribcage is about 75 cm and my bust about 85 cm. What does it mean?Do I have prominent breasts? I don´t know where are those borders in characterization of masculinity and feminity.

When is the ribcage defined as ´´small´´?

Sorry, I made a mistake, Kate Moss is even 11 cm shorter than Gisele and I meant femininity, not feminity.

Erik, you should post a pic of yourself so we can judge just how masculine you must be!!!
You must be a 7 feet tall very muscular macho man with a 12 inch penis, right? If not, we must put into question the sexuality of the woman that goes out with you.

Saying that women with larger breasts are "more feminine" than women with smaller breasts is like saying that men with bigger penises are "more masculine" than men with smaller penises. Then we can go on to a racial debate by asserting that Negroid men are on average more masculine than Caucasian men, just like you implied that Caucasian women were more feminine than non-Caucasian women......

Plenty of people know that secondary sexual characteristics are produced by sex hormones and are also affected by genes. Different races and ethnicities having different expressions. Ie, Brazilian women tend to have smaller breasts, yet bigger backside than most American women.

Like masculinity, feminity is not just about physical appereance, but also about behavior. Stereotipically feminine behavior is very attractive to most men, irregardless of how sensitive to testosterone the women in question happens to be.

It is also very interesting to know, however, that the most feminine woman out there, is often biologically male. As in the cases of women with Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, which are completely insensitive to male hormones.

Sexuality is very complex, something you try to understand, yet fail miserably at it.

Elise: Based on the measurements that you mentioned, you appear to have an A cup, i.e., small breasts. This does not necessarily make you masculine as there are small-breasted feminine women around. How tall you are would make a difference. Your masculinity-femininity can be best assessed by looking at you, and if you want me to assess it, email me your pictures; hide/remove your face if you wish. As far as the borders of masculinity-femininity or the relative size of the rib cage go, this is best assessed by comparing yourself to women in general, and you know better than me how you compare to the average woman.

Shorter height and wider hips do not necessarily imply greater femininity; you need to look at the overall appearance. On the other hand, Giselle Bundchen has a more masculine physique than does Kate Moss.

BS talks...: Look at who is writing B.S.! The most feminine women are often biologically male? How can a woman be a biological male? The condition you have mentioned, complete androgen sensitivity syndrome in a 46-XY individual, is an intersex condition; people with this disorder are neither male nor female, and they are a few inches taller than women, on average, because there are some genes on the Y chromosome that make men larger than women, and these genes are operational in these individuals.

I certainly haven’t implied anything along the lines of only women with 32E-20-37 measurements or more feminine proportions as feminine. Therefore, your coming up with the giant, muscular and foot-long man as the threshold of masculinity is a ridiculous caricature of my arguments.

Your remaining points suggest that you have either not read this site or are deliberately misrepresenting it. I have shown numerous examples of women with smaller breasts looking more feminine than women with larger breasts. I have not described white women as more feminine than non-white women, but cited evidence that among the most overall feminine-looking women, white women are overrepresented, and have pointed out the ethnicity confound in comparisons across populations on numerous occasions. Additionally, I have said repeatedly that this site is about looks, not behavior.

Take sex/gender and sexuality 101 before writing more on it.

CAIS women are biologically male from a scientific standpoint, there is no argument about that. They are not hermaphrodites, but biological males that failed to virilize due to the insensitivity of their androgen receptors. The reason it is considered an intersex condition, is because they are phenotipically female, and their gender identity is often female as well.

They tend to be more feminine than most biological females because they have absolutely no sensitivity to male hormones, unlike biological females. For example, they are completely hairless, except for the hair in the scalp. While they do tend to be taller, many are of normal female height and proportions.

How can a woman be biologically male? If a person's gender identity is female, then that person is a woman. For example, CAIS women.
You want me to take a sex/gender class, but you don't even know the difference between sex and gender???????

You have certainly implied that women with higher than average WHRs, larger breasts and childish facial features are more feminine. Guess what, the road goes both ways. Just like you come up with this ideas of what feminine women should look like and which men are attracted to them, the same can be said about men. Men that are taller, more muscular, and with bigger penises than average, are the most masculine, and "life-time exclusive heterosexual women" would certainly prefer them over less virile men. Fortunately it is not as simple as that, and when it comes down to whom and what turn us on, behavior is just very important too.

While I disagree with you and actually think that Mongoloid women tend to be the most feminine. The same thing you said about white women can be said about black men. Among the most overall masculine men, black men are over-represented.

And you are the one that needs to get a sex ed. class, and stop misleading people by pretending your opinions are facts. Get a life!

BS talks...: 46-XY individuals with CAIS are not biologically male from a scientific standpoint, and I have not said that they are hermaphrodites. These individuals do not have a sex and are thus known as intersex; only some intersex individuals are hermaphrodites. You answer the question how a woman can be biologically male by saying that if a person’s gender identity is female, then that person is a woman! Sex is assigned based on concordance of external appearance with karyotype (chromosomal configuration pertaining to number, form, size), and this concordance is found in a little over 99.98% of humans. Sex is not assigned based on what one’s gender identity is. Therefore, if a member of the male sex believes that he is a woman, then this person has a male sex but female gender identity, and is not describable as a woman unless one is specifically referring to psychological gender. 46-XY individuals with CAIS are not women as in those belonging to the female sex, but they do have a female gender identity. Don’t tell me that I do not know the difference between sex and gender. Once again, this site is not concerned with the femininity of behavior, and you have continued to espouse B.S.

Your statement, “You have certainly implied that women with higher than average WHRs, larger breasts and childish facial features are more feminine” is incorrect. I have implied:


Women with lower than average WHRs, larger breasts and less masculine facial features are more feminine, on average, than other women.

Don’t accuse me of making the argument what feminine women should look like; all I have done is to point out what feminine women look like. It is obvious that heterosexual women generally prefer men with above average masculinity as in men who are taller, more muscular and better endowed than average. It is also obvious that behavior is important in partner choice, too, and that behavior/personality considerations compete with looks and people will compromise on looks in exchange for other desirable features, but the fact remains that controlling for non-looks variables, heterosexual women will typically prefer men with somewhat above average masculinity. Heterosexual men will not have a problem if others point this out, but if I point out that heterosexual men prefer above average femininity in women, you seem to have a problem with it.

Your bringing in the masculinity of males is not relevant, but unlike my extensive citations showing white women to be overrepresented among the overall most feminine-looking women, you have not cited any literature about sub-Saharan African men being overrepresented among the overall most masculine men. As far as I see it, one is looking at a mixed bag. Whereas West African men have more bone mass than Northern European men, among professional male bodybuilders, the most muscular men are disproportionately white. Whereas young West African men have somewhat higher testosterone levels than young white men in general, I know of one study where the most masculine 2nd-digit to 4th-digit finger-length ratio, a proxy for prenatal testosterone exposure, was the most masculine among white Finnish men, followed by West Africans and below them other white men. If you look at the champions in weightlifting, powerlifting, martial arts, miscellaneous strength competitions, and now even heavyweight boxing, white men are the champions overwhelmingly. Therefore, why should one believe your statement regarding the masculinity of sub-Saharan African men?

I believe what BS is trying to say is that it is known (although stereotypical) that Asian women are more feminine (small, dainty bodies and youthful faces) and black males are more masculine (larger penis, taller, etc.) Although this is a generalization, for the most part it is true, and I think he/she finds it as amusing as I do that you always try to promote European women to be more feminine than non-whites and European men to be more masculine. What YOU consider to be feminine/masculine isn't neccessarily what everyone else would, either. For example, femininity to me is in DELICATE features, and not how big a woman's breasts are. If a woman has small breasts, it doesn't mean she is less feminine than a larger breasted woman, and the same thing goes for men with muscular figures.

It's also quite amusing that you generalize white women to be the most feminine when they happen to be the most overweight. Big and chunky (or curvy as they like to call themselves)doesn't equal feminine. This is coming from someone who is white, but also has Latina blood, and I can assure you from comparing the women on my mother's side to the ones on my father's, my good genes DO come from my Latina mother. Both of my aunts on my father's side are overweight, while my mother as well as her sisters are very fit. My two aunts on my dad's side also has a shitload of cellulite, and their pastey complexion doesn't exactly help it either.

As for black men, I have come across many statistics where they are proven to be the most well endowed (down there) as well as the most athletic. If you question this, I will be happy to link a few reliable sources for your ohhhh so scientific website *rolls eyes*

That should say "have a shitload of cellulite."

Sarah: Do not misrepresent my arguments or make me repeat what should be clear. You have obviously read enough of this site to have come across my response to similar arguments before. Shorter or more slender bodies do not imply greater femininity unless you can show that they result from increased feminization. I have already pointed out that the sex steroid profiles of European women are more feminine than those of Asian women, i.e., what you allege to be more feminine traits of Asian women are not more feminine traits but ethnic traits unrelated to feminization. Nobody should be accusing me of judging femininity in term of single features such as breast size. I have had to repeatedly point out that the argument that you are objecting to is not about actual femininity but about how feminine one looks, which is decided by overall appearance. Women of which ethnic group are most likely to have an hourglass figure? Haven’t you noticed that European women have, on average, smaller faces, narrower noses, smaller jaws, smaller teeth and smaller cheekbones than East Asian women? So who has more delicate facial features, on average? There are obese women in all ethnic groups, and white women, especially Northern Europeans, are less prone to obesity than women in most populations (including Hispanics) except a few such as Northeast Asians, but controlling for ancestry, obese women are more masculine, i.e., don’t bring obese women into the picture.

Don’t bring men into the debate since this site is not about them. Look up the statistics on who wins the most Olympics gold medals and top honors in weight lifting, powerlifting, wrestling, martial arts and miscellaneous strength competitions. White men. So don’t tell me that sub-Saharan African men are more athletic; they just dominate a small minority of sports. As far as endowment goes, the difference between white and sub-Saharan African men is small, which I believe is in favor of the latter. There are studies where no difference has been found (example). Besides, African-American and white men are well-matched for height. Like I said before, the differences between these groups is a mixed bag, and it does not follow that West African men are more masculine unless you have a compelling argument to make.


Looks like I hit a sore spot in old Erik here. I would quote some sentences in your response but your page will not allow me to highlight so I'll just address them loosely.

No, I haven't noticed that European women have smaller facial features than Asian ones. I actually see the exact opposite. If that is what YOU really see, then that is only from your experience/opinion. It is not factual. Sorry buddy.

By worldly standards, women of East Asian descent DO have smaller and more delicate features. That is why they are stereotyped to always look childish and younger than they are, and even older Asian women look much more youthful than older white women. As for noses, white women may generally have more NARROW noses, but Asian noses tend to be smaller and less protruding. Their cheekbones are also generally less sharp and their chins more rounded than the average white female's.

Your idea of what "feminization" (is that even a word?) is only YOUR opinion. European women may have longer legs, as one of your silly articles provided as a "fact", but that is because they are generally taller. Taller doesn't equal "feminization." That's why those fashion models you hate so much and consider to be so masculine are tall, along with their masculinized faces.

When you generalize based on racial features, you have to consider the fact that you yourself have not seen every single women out there in this world, so you cannot say that on average, most European women are this, most black women are that, etc etc. You only base your evidence on pictures of certain women you see on the internet, and you pick and choose which ones to feature.

For example, here is a photo of Dawn Yang, who happens to be full Asian and has long legs despite how short she is.

Here is a photo of her face which is a very excellent representation of femininity:

Their delicate and feminine facial features are why Asian women are always typecasted as "cute" - they have very similar facial features to those of children. Their short stature and slim bodies also add to their supposed cuteness. They also are less insusceptable to cellulite than white women, and have more youthful looking skin in general.

"So who has more delicate features, Asian or European women?" is what you ask. Well I say, ASIAN WOMEN.

As for obesity... although every race is prone to it, most obese women ARE of European ancestry. I wouldn't put it on their genes, though, because I don't have factual evidence. I think it mostly has to do with how much food we hog here in America and in the United Kingdom, and also because we have no self control. Then these obese women complain about the media and the modeling industry always hiring and promoting skinny women. WELL NO SHIT! Fat isn't cute, and no one wants to buy lingerie modeled by a fat woman.

As for Latinas (NOT Hispanics... learn your terms before using them) , they are prone to have fuller bottoms, but your claim that European women are less prone to become obese than Latinas is absolutely ridiculous. Care to provide statistical imformation for your statement? From experience in my family and also in what I see on a daily basis, for some reason, white women are almost always more overweight.

YOU were the one who addressed men in your last post, so don't get all pouty when I bring them up. If you weren't so insecure about yourself, you wouldn't get so jumpy when I mention anything about black males being more masculine than white ones, now would you? From experience, I happen to have formed the opinion that black males ARE more well endowed, and there are some studies I have come across that have shown evidence of that. It wouldn't be such a known generalization if there wasn't a possibility for it being true.

The Olympics isn't even relevant. It is based on country representation and the countries with the most athletes competing are predominantly white (the U.S., Australia, etc.) Also, do you really think most African men have so much free time as to participate in the Olympics? Because we're so wealthy here in America, of course some of us will dedicate our life to training to become an athlete. I'm also guessing you've never seen numerous one-on-one fights between a white male and a black male, now have you? Or have you yourself been in one and had your butt kicked and that is why you're so bitter and insecure?

*less susceptable

Sarah: So you haven’t noticed smaller and more delicate facial features among white women, on average? This goes on to show how good your observations are. Some citations regarding larger faces, larger cheekbones, wider noses, larger jaws and larger teeth among East Asian Women, on average, compared to white women:


Choe, K. S., Sclafani, A. P., Litner, J. A., Yu, G. P., and Romo, T., 3rd, The Korean American woman's face: anthropometric measurements and quantitative analysis of facial aesthetics, Arch Facial Plast Surg, 6, 244 (2004).

Farkas, L. G. et al. International anthropometric study of facial morphology in various ethnic groups/races, J Craniofac Surg, 16, 615 (2005).

Hanihara, T., Frontal and facial flatness of major human populations, Am J Phys Anthropol, 111, 105 (2000).

Hanihara, T., and Ishida, H., Metric dental variation of major human populations, Am J Phys Anthropol, 128, 287 (2005).

Vioarsdottir, U. S., O'Higgins, P., and Stringer, C., A geometric morphometric study of regional differences in the ontogeny of the modern human facial skeleton, J Anat, 201, 211 (2002).

All of the studies above have already been addressed within this site, yet you are either oblivious to them or just ignore them. This is just one example of an observation that I haven’t based on pictures of some women that I have seen on the internet, but on empirical evidence, something your comments are devoid of.

White women are generally less likely to be obese than women in most other ethnic groups; percentage body fat among women in various studies:


American white (30.8%), Asian-American (31.9%), African-American (38.2%), Puerto Rican (40.2%). Reference: Wang, J., Thornton, J. C., Burastero, S., Shen, J., Tanenbaum, S., Heymsfield, S. B., and Pierson, R. N., Jr., Comparisons for body mass index and body fat percent among Puerto Ricans, blacks, whites and Asians living in the New York City area, Obes Res, 4, 377 (1996).

African-American (35.31%), American white (35.58%), Asian-American (36.80%), Hispanic (37.43%). Reference: Wu, C. H., Heshka, S., Wang, J., Pierson, R. N., Jr., Heymsfield, S. B., Laferrere, B., Wang, Z., Albu, J. B., Pi-Sunyer, X., and Gallagher, D., Truncal fat in relation to total body fat: influences of age, sex, ethnicity and fatness, Int J Obes (Lond) (2007). Epub Apr 24, 2007.

South African white (33.6%), New Zealand white (33.6%), South African black (36.5%), New Zealand Maori (38.8%), New Zealand Pacific (40.4%), New Zealand Asian Indian (42.2%). Reference: Rush, E. C., Goedecke, J. H., Jennings, C., Micklesfield, L., Dugas, L., Lambert, E. V., and Plank, L. D., BMI, fat and muscle differences in urban women of five ethnicities from two countries, Int J Obes (Lond) (2007). Epub Mar 6, 2007.

Body fat percentage in girls in their mid-to-late teens: American white (27.2%), African-American (30.7%), Hispanic (37.2%). Reference: Ellis, K. J., Abrams, S. A., and Wong, W. W., Body composition of a young, multiethnic female population, Am J Clin Nutr, 65, 724 (1997).

American white (34.9%), Hispanic (38.4%). Reference: Casas, Y. G., Schiller, B. C., DeSouza, C. A., and Seals, D. R., Total and regional body composition across age in healthy Hispanic and white women of similar socioeconomic status, Am J Clin Nutr, 73, 13 (2001).

Dutch white (28.9%), Singapore Chinese (29.7%). Reference: Werkman, A., Deurenberg-Yap, M., Schmidt, G., and Deurenberg, P., A Comparison between Composition and Density of the Fat-Free Mass of Young Adult Singaporean Chinese and Dutch Caucasians, Ann Nutr Metab, 44, 235 (2000).

American white (32.5%), Hispanic (39.1%), African-American (39.9%). Reference: Fernandez, J. R., Heo, M., Heymsfield, S. B., Pierson, R. N., Jr., Pi-Sunyer, F. X., Wang, Z. M., Wang, J., Hayes, M., Allison, D. B., and Gallagher, D., Is percentage body fat differentially related to body mass index in Hispanic Americans, African Americans, and European Americans?, Am J Clin Nutr, 77, 71 (2003).

American White < Hispanic < African-American. Reference: Diaz, V. A., Mainous, A. G., 3rd, Koopman, R. J., Carek, P. J., and Geesey, M. E., Race and diet in the overweight: association with cardiovascular risk in a nationally representative sample, Nutrition, 21, 718 (2005).

Note that American white women are probably the fattest white women anywhere, yet they are, on average, less likely to be overweight/obese than other ethnic groups in the U.S.

White women do not have longer legs than Asian women because of greater height alone but also because their leg-length to torso-length ratio is higher. This should be common observation. Speaking of leg length, I don’t hate fashion models; my problem is with the people who choose manly fashion models, and I have nothing against their height.

So Dawn Yang is an illustrative example of the cuter, more feminine Asian women? She looks like a girl, not a woman. Do you expect most men from non-Asian populations to actually find a woman who looks like a girl more feminine and appealing? If I were interested in such women and filled the attractive women section with white females who have her look, what do you think people will infer about my sexual orientation? They will think that I am interested in underage girls! I searched for images of Dawn Yang, and it is clear that if she is fully Asian, she is an outlier rather than typical of her ethnic group. However, I came across damning information on her, namely that she has undergone numerous cosmetic surgery procedures, which doesn’t help your case at all.

I didn’t bring men into the picture; “BS talks...” did. I just responded to her. I have already noted that I believe that African-American men are better endowed than white men, on average, but the difference is small and cited a study where there was no difference; if the difference were large then it would be unlikely that a study would reveal no difference. When you refer to a “known generalization,” the belief does not stem from the literature in question since the actual difference is small, but is more along the lines of a mythical urban legend. If you have formed your impression from “experience,” then are you a prostitute that has served thousands of Johns or just foolishly extrapolating from the few dozen ethnically diverse men you have had sex with?

Regarding the Olympics, countries with the most participants are those that have a large number of decent athletes to send to the games. Since whites win the most Olympics medals, most of these countries are Western. Additionally, the U.S. is not a predominantly white country; only about 60% of it is white. In most sports, skill acquisition does not require expensive equipment. For instance, just look at the tremendous success of poor Kenyans in certain long-distance running events. Additionally, given free K-12 education in the U.S. that includes free access to gymnasiums and sporting equipment, it is noteworthy that African-Americans dominate only a small minority of sports. How is this consistent with their greater athletic ability? Moreover, some of the sports dominated by African-Americans are team sports such as football and basketball. Performance in individual sports is a better gauge of athletic prowess. Whereas African-Americans dominate the 100m sprint, sprinting alone is a poor indicator of athletic prowess. Performance in the decathlon is a much better yardstick for assessing athletic ability, and guess what? Whites dominate the decathlon. Since the issue you are discussing is manliness, fighting ability is very important, and like I said, strength and power displays and martial arts are dominated by whites. For a short while boxing was dominated by African-Americans, but now whites dominate it. After international opportunities opened up to impoverished Eastern Europeans, it didn’t take them long to hold all four heavyweight boxing titles simultaneously. Your lame example comprises of one-on-one fights between African-American and white males. These are criminal behaviors, usually comprising of African-American men picking on white men and you bet they pick on white men who are of a weaker build than them, which is what criminals and bullies do.

This is enough digression from what this site is supposed to be discussing. Don’t waste my time with useless comments.

Erik, you're sounding like Hitler

The rest of us see that as a huge problem...

Ahahahaha oh Erik you're such a crack up!

Your citation to various studies on body fat prove absolutely nothing. Having more body fat does not equal being the fattest of ethnic groups. And no, white women are not less susceptable to being overweight than other ethnic groups in the U.S., you dumb prick. There have only been few occasions where I have seen overweight Asian women, some occasions where I've seen overweight black and Latina women, but the mass majority of overweight women in America are white, mainly down in the South. Since it's a fact that the most obese people in America are in the South, do you really believe they are all Asians, Latinas, and blacks? The South is predominantly white.

Dawn Yang, I believe, is only 21, so of course she would look more like a girl than a woman, considering the fact Asian women are almost always youthful looking. Also, you've already been accused numerous times, on your own website and on others, of being a pedophile since most of the women you feature in your attractive women section look to be in their teens. Just because you personally prefer white women over Asian women doesn't mean that you're NOT a pedophile, because there is supporting evidence within your own bullshit website that you are.

But don't worry about your child-molesting fantasies, buddy. Many men your age (which I'm guessing to be in the 50's) do fantasize about little girls, considering that a lot of porn always stresses on the fact that the girls are "just 18" (because any younger would be illegal) and have them pose in childish positions with pigtails, and sucking on lollipops. I'm not suggesting that all men who are into that are pedos, but they sure do like them young, don't they? That is why some Asian women are so appealing to some Western males; it's all in the youthful attraction.

As for Dawn Yang having surgery, I just did some research and she has never admitted to it, so it really is just speculation. If you also look at her before pics, she still looks quite similar to what she looks like now, although she wears a bit more make up these days and has seem to grown out of her awkwardness, which is normal for girls who have hit puberty.

You're just contradicting yourself by saying that she looks too childish, when you already pointed out that femininity is in child-like features. If I were to guess her age, I would say she would be around seventeen, which is only a few years younger than she really is. In female standards, looking a few years younger than you really are is a good thing.

I have to go out to lunch now, but I'll address the whole masculinity issue later, unless of course, you're just too pissed to continue. Don't act like I didn't really strike a nerve with you. It's obvious with the way you're so defensive ;)

Debra: Believe me, if Hitler were alive and learned about my background, he would be displeased. If you found something offensive, blame Ms. Manners, “Sarah,” for bringing in irrelevant topics that cannot be addressed in language that one would expect from the Dalai Lama.

Sarah: Please do not waste my time with useless comments. You asked for obesity statistics and I cited a whole bunch, only to see you argue that they prove absolutely nothing! What in the world? Systematic studies do not prove it, but your lame observations do? If you think the South is predominantly white, you likely have not traveled through Southern Florida; only parts of the South are predominantly white. Besides, as of 2005, some Northern states had a higher prevalence of obesity than Florida.

The average age of the women shown in the attractive women section should be in the early twenties. Whereas some are 18 or 19, they still look a lot older than Dawn Yang. The typical complainant has been a malicious individual like you; most people have no problems with them. Pedophiles are attracted to pre-pubescent girls, not teens. A white female with the looks of Dawn (minus her breast implants) would look like a girl in her early to mid teens, and having a preference for such white females would be close to pedophilia. And no, many men do not fantasize about young girls. Pedophilia is rare.

How bright of you to conclude that Dawn Yang has not undergone different types of cosmetic surgery because she has never admitted it! I linked to a damning expose of her, complete with extensive before and after pictures of her; the woman has fake written all over her.

I haven’t said that femininity lies in child-like features. Someone else said it and I refuted it. As far as it being advantageous to look a few years younger than one’s age goes, with respect to attracting normal heterosexual men, this holds for older women, i.e., women in their late twenties and older, not women in their late teens or early twenties.

It is obvious who has struck whose nerve. Please do not post nonsense.

Hahaha. You posted within a little over three hours since my last response? Are you serious? Is your pastey ass glued to your seat at the computer or something? I'll say it again. Get a life.

Why did you make it so that I cannot highlight certain sentences? Are you afraid of people quoting you? As for your comment on me being a prostitute, I can't tell you how hard I laughed at that one. Way to make yourself sound like a 13 year old teenaged girl trying to think of a comeback. "Like OH EM GEE! You're such a total whore!" Ahahahaha.

Since I am only 23 years old, the idea of me having slept with over a thousand men is not only absurd but also disgusting. Where the hell did you get that idea, anyways? Just because you're a 50 year old virgin doesn't mean everyone else applies as total whores. It also seems to me that you have a problem with people dating others of different ethnicities, which only further supports Debra's claim that you're a wannabe Hitler (as much of a delusional asshole as Hitler was, he at least brainwashed millions of people to think like them; you're just an idiot who spews bullshit and everyone can see right through it.) I find people of every ethnicity to be beautiful, and some to be quite unattractive as well. There are good looking and ugly people of every ethnic background. Race doesn't matter to me, and it shouldn't matter to you, either. I really like your response to my perception of one-on-one fights, by the way. Criminal behavior? I'll tell you what's criminal behavior: a typical dumb white jock calling a black man at a bar a "nigger". Just because that black man then pounds the dumbass's face into the ground doesn't make him a criminal. If you don't want me resorting to stereotypes to point out that Asian women are the most feminine and black men are the most endowed, then YOU don't stereotype all black males who get into fights into the "criminal" profile, ok?

As for Dawn Yang having undergone plastic surgery - where is your proof? You have none. Funny that you accused her of having all this surgery done when before, others have accused some of your "attractive" women of having undergone surgery, you doubted it. Talk about BIAS opinions. You only believe what you want to believe about the women you defend (who are mostly average looking, anyways.) I have never come across photos of Dawn's "before" breasts anyways, so why would you speculate that she had hers enlarged? You're an idiot. Go play in traffic.

Whether or not the women on your site ARE of legal age, most of them don't look the part, and that is the case with Dawn as well. Your point is null and void. The photographs that she has on her own blog of her in the early 2000s still look very much like how she is today, and the ones on that other site you linked that don't look like her at all (2 or 3 of them) were probably just bad pictures taken at unflattering angles, etc. Also notice that those photographs were dated to be in early 2000s as well, which supports my claim that those couple unflattering photos were just bad pictures. Where is proof that those are actually HER, anyways? They look nothing like her now, or other pictures of her around the same time.

Dawn Yang is a celebrity, and so there are many photographs of her everywhere on the internet. Of course some will end up looking bad. As for your amateur pornstars, because they are not pretty enough to be actual stars, there are only a few pictures of them from just one photoshoot. The same applies to other celebrities you have bashed before, such as Alessandra Ambrosio, Adriana Lima, Jessica Alba, etc. It is only in your opinion that they are ugly, but to everyone else, they are beautiful enough to actually be well-known, unlike your homely amateur "models."

If you're so sure that everyone else finds them sooo unattractive, then tell me why men obsess over these beautiful women all the time? You can't actually believe that the men who find them attractive are not all completely heterosexual. That is the biggest joke I've ever heard.

I just went through your attractive "women" section.

Are you telling me that these young women aren't trying to look like little girls? Look at the way they do their hair, pose, etc. The second one is posing in front of a damn SCHOOL bus. The one named Maria looks like she should be taking an Algebra class, not posing in the nude for sick men like you, and don't even get me started on the last one. If you really find her attractive, then that just speaks the truth on your tastes. She looks like a fat freckled 10 year old boy putting on his mother's wig. Oh right, and you don't find the likes of Dawn Yang attractive at all! LOL Erik you should really organize and be the judge of a beauty contest because you REALLY know what attractive is, don't you?

Oh and look! More Asian women who only look this good because of plastic surgery! LOL

Geez they're so masculine! With their big ass faces, noses, and teeth! LOL

Okay I'm done Erik. It was really nice chatting with you. I'll stop posting "nonsense" now and let you get back to your oh so informative, educational website ahahah

Sarah: I have often taken days to respond to various comments because I am usually busy with a lot of things, but for the past two days I have been stuck before the computer trying to learn something, and hence have been able to respond promptly.

You can quote passages. Haven’t you noticed the formatting bar above the comments box? The quoted passage will be indented though not highlighted with a different background. This is a blog, not a forum with fancy formatting, and if it were a forum I don’t think you would be too eager to leave the comments you have left since you would have to register and not be able to use multiple aliases. If I were afraid of people quoting certain passages of mine, I wouldn’t write them in the first place.

I did not say that you are a prostitute. Since you mentioned personal “experience” I asked whether you have serviced thousands of Johns to come to the conclusion about ethnicity and endowment. Nothing in my reply to you can be taken as my disapproval of dating other ethnicities. I have never disputed that good looking and not-so-good-looking women are found in all ethnic groups.

Your one-on-one example still remains absurd and does not prove your assertion regarding masculinity. Do you seriously expect someone to use an ethnic slur against an individual who is bigger and stronger and thereby risk getting beaten up by this individual? The examples you have witnessed are criminal behaviors not provoked by the white men whom you have seen getting beaten up.

I have already cited massive photographic evidence for Dawn Yang being a product of extensive plastic surgery. The woman doesn’t look much like her unmodified former self because of the remarkable extent of her transformation, but go though the evidence carefully and you will recognize her early pictures. As far as others accusing the women in the attractive women section of having undergone plastic surgery goes, there have been rare comments regarding breast implants among some of the well-endowed ones, and if the implants are not obvious, then I have asked for evidence, which nobody has supplied.

You have said that most of the women in the attractive women section do not look of legal age. This is pure nonsense. The four women you cited as illustrative examples all look adult. Just because some of them have their hair in ponytails or one is sitting in front of a school bus doesn’t imply that there is anything about their physique or face that looks underage, unlike your example of Dawn Yang. Besides, I have planned on transferring the woman in front of the school bus to a different section of the site for quite a while. Sonia Blake (the pale-haired one) looks like a 10-year-old boy to you? I’d wager that you are jealous of her hourglass figure.

I don’t “bash” celebrities for their looks. If it is necessary to point out the masculinization among certain models or beauty pageant contestants, then I address it; other celebrities are addressed only in response to reader comments. You could not have failed to come across a straightforward explanation of the “popularity” of masculinized models like Alessandra Ambrosio within this site: the gay domination of the fashion business, airbrushing, posing tricks and the dearth of feminine beauty in the limelight for comparative purposes. Additionally, up to 20% of men are not lifetime-exclusive heterosexual. Wait till there is mainstream feminine beauty appreciation and then we shall see to what extent men obsess over Alessandra and the others you have named.

I appreciate your posting pictures of attractive Asian women. There are certainly plenty of feminine and attractive East Asian women who do not owe their beauty to cosmetic surgery; I have never implied otherwise. However, none of your pictures undermine the average differences that have been documented in the scientific literature cited above.

Hi Sarah! I'm Asian and I do confirm what Eric said about Dawn Yang: she's an outlier. She's not your typical Asian. Generally, East Asian women, the group where Dawn Yang belongs, do not have features like hers. East Asian women who have features similar to hers are either part Caucasian or are plastic surgery enhanced. I think you ignored Erik's evidence against Dawn Yang's alleged "natural" looks. Why don't you click that link?

I think you ignored the scientific evidences Erik posted about ethnicity and obesity as well.

Last one: don't you think that how soon Erik replies to your comments is irrelevant? It doesn't make your arguments more valid, nor does it ivalidate Erik's arguments and claims in this website.

Furthermore, you have failed to notice that Dawn Yang's eyes are unnaturally huge. Compare her apperance to those of the other attractive Asian women whose pictures you have posted.

Actually no, I still cannot quote passages. Anytime I click on any of the above buttons, nothing happens except the URL address changes into something else. Maybe I'm missing something.

Multiple Alias. AHAHAH good one, Erik! So you finally figured out that all the people that have commented and questioned you/disagreed with you were actually me! *rolls eyes* Don't you have an IP identifier? I'm not the only one that thinks you're full of shit, and you know it, so quit pretending.

A John is someone who requests services from prostitutes, so yes, you were implying I was one. Nice try, though.

When I was at a bar a few weeks ago, I actually did witness someone call another man a racial slur, and he got his ass kicked in seconds flat. The offender was actually more muscular than the black male, too, which goes to show muscularity doesn't necessarily equal strength.

The link you supplied had many "before" photos of Dawn that still looked almost exactly like she does now. There were only a few that were completely unlike her, and as I said, could've just been really bad angle shots or a totally different girl. I never completely ruled out the possibility that she has undergone surgery, but I highly doubt it since I don't see any differences between clear shots of her before photos and her recent phohtos, other than the awkardness of her smile before. I agree that she does look fake in many shots, but that has mostly to do with her sometimes wearing colored contacts and false eyelashes.

In my posting pictures of those in your attractive women section, I wasn't trying to prove a point other than the fact that these women are so desperately trying to look underage, which would support my previous claim that youthful looking girls are what men find attractive. As for me being envious of Sonia Blake, LOL you almost made me fall out of my chair. I actually didn't even look at her body shots, and was only talking about her hideous mug, but I can assure you that my very own hourglass figure outshines hers anyday, and even if my body wasn't so nice, I would still be more attractive than her considering the fact that my face doesn't resemble a cow's.

Where did you get that BS statistic that 20% of men aren't fully heterosexual? I'd like to see your evidence of that claim, please. As for Alessandra Ambrosio, I have come across plenty of candid pictures of her that were actually quite stunning, and if I find them again I'll be more than happy to post them. Also take note that Victoria's Secret is one of, if not THE most popular lingerie company in the U.S. They couldn't possibly sell as many of their products as they do if the general population believed their models to be unattractive. After all, advertisement is what draws customers in. As for other celebrities you have criticized before, such as Jessica Alba and Halle Berry... why do you think they're so famous? I certainly hope you don't believe it's because of their acting skills (or lack thereof.) Just because they have extremely SLIGHT masculine features, doesn't mean they are unattractive because I really doubt anyone gives a shit if their cheekbones are too high, or why ever the hell you think they're masculinized.

Brenda: Actually, I used to be roommates with a girl who was full Chinese and looked very much like Dawn, so it is possible and that is why I don't question Dawn having had surgery.

I did visit the link Erik posted and it still doesn't convince me that she has had work done. It doesn't even convince me that some of those pictures are actually HER. The date of one of the unflattering pictures is in the same time frame as another picture of her where she looked very much like she does now.


what do you think of cher the singer do you find her masuline or feminine?


The blog post and the comments are all plain text.
If you have trouble highlighting, then it is probably your browser or your operating system that are fucked up. Pardon my french.

Would it just be on this website alone, then? I can highlight on other ones but just not on here.

One of the great problems in all these sorts of discussions is that isolated bits of "evidence" are quoted as if they are the whole picture. This applies not just to physical characteristics, such as those which are supposed to make a man or a woman "beautiful", but in so many other ways.

I remember that when I was blood-typed I proved to have a blood type which was supposedly not found in my ethnicity (Chinese). There are several other features both about myself and my relatives which run counter to the supposed phenotype. Yet, I am, as far as I know, "pure" Chinese.

The problem is that so often studies on a small, and often not really randomly selected group is then taken to represent the group as a whole. If this is absurd enough when talking of "Chinese", how much more absurd when generalisations are made on the scale of such as "Asians" in general?

So all your comments about size of teeth, noses, obesity etc.etc., I place in such a context. No doubt there are groups of "Asians", "Africans" etc. who do fit into your stereotypes. There are many others who don't. And I suspect that there is no "race" (whatever that means) which is supreme in all characteristics of "beauty", even by your own rigid standards.

I'm afraid sex steroids might well be a red herring. As a matter of fact, men also produce oestrogens, and women produce androgens. There has been, as far as I know, no evidence that higher levels of one or the other, once above a certain level, correlate absolutely with "beauty".

Incidentally, average proportionate leg length is longer in men than in women - so long legs are actuall a masculine characteristic. I suspect very strongly that, when studied more carefully, proportionate leg length will also be shown to vary greatly within "races", at least as much as between them. The longest legs, proportionately, are probably to be found in some "black" African groups.

As for the concept of "beauty" itself, it is an interesting mixture of the objective - and the subjective. You seem to think that it is almost entirely the former, and that your taste in women represents it. OK, so you obviously think that generally white women are the most beautiful. You have the right to that belief, and others have the right to disagree.

My own experience is this. Growing up in the West, I have been constantly bombarded with the ideas and images of white women as the epitome of "Beauty". When I was younger I would probably have agreed. Now I am of a more mature age, I can honestly say that I personally believe that a beautiful Asian woman is unsurpassed. Not that I still don't appreciate the beauty of beautiful white women - or, for that matter, beautiful black, brown, Arab, Hispanic women etc.etc. I am glad of that, as I can appreciate so much more the great variety of female beauty in this world.

As in so many other fields of aesthetic appreciation, one of the most stultifying of all activities is to try and rigidly define what is or is not "Beautiful".

And there is another important point, which I, as an evolutionary biologist, must make. There is an "objective" aspect of beauty, although that is far from the totality. This objective aspect undoubtedly has something to do with our evolutionary past. It is why we don't find Chimpanzees sexually attractive (unless we are very perverted), and they don't find us so. But evolution is a dynamic process. We haven't stopped evolving as a species. As such, the "objective" part of sexual attraction is also bound to change - and our present preferences are a reference to our immediate evolutionary past rather than to our future, or even to the present. I'd be willing to expand on that if it interests anyone here. But the moot point here is that any idea that there can be a totally fixed objective standard of Female - or Male - beauty, is just wishful thinking.

Sarah: The formatting buttons only seem to work in some browsers. I will either change them or replace them with a link to formatting instructions. If you wanted to quote something, all you need to do is to left-click the mouse where you need to start, then drag the mouse where you wish to end while holding the left click pad down, then let go of the left click pad, point the mouse to anywhere inside the highlighted region, right click and select copy. Subsequently, paste this excerpt as either Quote:


or <blockquote>excerpt</blockquote> in the form of a separate paragraph. On the other hand, you are supposed to have stopped posting nonsense and shouldn’t be commenting, let alone bother quoting me.

I have not said that all commentators disagreeing with me have been you, but you have posted comments under multiple aliases apart from “Sarah” such as “.” without the quotes, SH, maddie, Madeline.

Once again, I asked whether you were a prostitute since you mentioned “experience” rather than implying that you are or were one. If the bar incident you mentioned is true, then it would be an anomaly. Whereas martial arts experts can beat those who are stronger and faster but without such expertise, few people are martial arts experts. I also wonder what kind of bar it was. Decent bars catering to the general public often adopt dress codes and other means to keep African-Americans out to the maximum extent possible, and the bouncers/security usually keep a close eye on African-American men, ready to pounce on them at the slightest hint of trouble.

Dawn Yang underwent multiple cosmetic surgeries over a period of time. Look at her earliest pictures and her current ones and see the radical change. Dawn is well-aware of the cosmetic surgery allegations but has never bothered to lay them to rest by posting clear pictures of her from when she was a schoolgirl to present. People who knew her in school have a difficult time realizing that it is her. All this is well documented, and I don’t care if you don’t believe it; just quit posting nonsense.

The models from the attractive women section are not trying to look underage. They have styled their hair and are posing in response to the photographer’s request. All the models you picked have the physique of adult women. Why would a photographer use models with adult physiques, especially Sonia Blake, to cater to men who prefer underage girls? Some people look a few years younger than they are, and some such individuals are 18-year-old girls who are willing to pose nude, and these are the kind of women a photographer would use to legally cater to men interested in underage girls.

If you look better than Sonia Blake, then there should be no reason for you to be bothered by this site, and you could even send me your pictures to use as illustrative examples of feminine beauty, but I think most readers can reasonably guess how you look like.

Here is the survey showing up to 20% of men not being lifetime-exclusive heterosexual. Alessandra Ambrosio generally looks worse in her candid pictures than when she is modeling. The reason Victoria’s Secret can get away with using masculinized lingerie models has nothing to do with women generally finding them attractive but because it has no competition that is using feminine women. Frederick’s of Hollywood and other prominent lingerie retailers all generally use masculinized models because of the gay domination of the fashion business, including these companies.

I haven’t criticized the looks of Halle Berry and Jessica Alba. I pointed out Berry’s nose job and Alba’s masculinization. In the relative absence of feminine beauty in the limelight, why should it be surprising if the likes of Jessica Alba are popular, especially among Latinos? Just as it is very clear that the looks of high-fashion models do not reflect the preferences of the general public, it cannot be assumed some women become top actresses because they have the looks most people like. Connections and willingness to sleep around are important factors behind stardom for actresses, and women willing to prostitute themselves tend to be disproportionately masculinized, which will not be a problem if feminine beauty is not in the limelight.

Andy: It is difficult to address the looks of Cher since she has had many plastic surgeries, and I haven’t seen pictures of her as a young adult to address how feminine she is.

Frank Your objections have nothing to do with the arguments put forth by this site. If you are an evolutionary biologist, then why is your understanding so poor or have you even bothered to read enough of this site?

Whereas the frequency of blood groups varies with geography, blood type is poorly correlated with ethnicity. Phenotypic variation is not solely between groups; most of it is within groups. One could be an outlier within one’s group without having significant admixture from other groups.

As far as your being “pure” Chinese goes, till the end of the late Pleistocene (about 12,000 years ago) Northeast Asia was occupied by Europeans -- who occupied Mongolia as recently as the Bronze age and were also in Linzi, China in 500 B.C. -- who were eventually displaced by Asians, as evident from skull samples and even mitochondrial DNA evidence from Linzi, China. Some admixture between Europeans and Asians did occur, which is today most evident in West Asia. The Asians from mainland China who moved into Japan absorbed the Jomon and Ainu indigenous populations there, who were a lot closer to modern Europeans than to modern Asians, and this reflects in the looks of the Japanese to some extent. So, “pure” Chinese doesn’t mean that a Chinese individual couldn’t have some of his ancestry from other populations as recently as the Bronze Age.

I have cited numerous studies about average differences between Asian and European facial features, and they show a consistent picture, which is also common observation. Average differences do not imply that two individuals taken at random from different populations will always differ along the direction of average differences.

Of course, men produce estrogens and women produce androgens. I have not implied otherwise. I have cited evidence showing higher levels of estrogens corresponding to greater femininity and attractiveness in women; see this example for instance.

Just because men have relatively longer legs than women does not make long legs a masculine characteristic since relative leg length varies more within a sex than between the sexes and thereby one could end up with long legs as a result of factors other than sex hormones and their receptors. Similarly, relative leg length varies more within populations than between populations, and it does not follow that populations with relatively longer legs are more masculine unless you show that this results from greater masculinization.

Nowhere have I argued that beauty is almost entirely objective or that my taste in women represents it or that there is any ethnic group that is supreme in all beauty characteristics or that white women are the most beautiful. I have repeatedly pointed out individual variation in aesthetic preferences and argued that it is not possible to objectively compare the attractiveness of women from different ethnic groups.

I have also not implied anything along the lines of a “totally fixed objective standard of Female - or Male – beauty.” Of course, evolution is an ongoing process, but genetic change that notably alters physical appearance in humans takes a lot longer than a handful of generations, i.e., over short periods of time, namely a few generations at least, many features that people find attractive will remain the same.

Please make an effort to understand the arguments within this site. I do not like seeing misrepresentations, non sequiturs and caricatures of my arguments.


Some admixture between Europeans and Asians did occur, which is today most evident in West Asia

Sorry to steer this more off-topic, but i found the above quote perplexing.
You're talking about Europeans and Mongoloids mixing together to create...... what ethnic groups? What is meant by "West Asia"?


if you cant assess chers face then what about her body from what you see is it mascluine or feminine?

white people are not beautifull people

Matthewth: West Asia is obviously the Western part of Asia, the region immediately east of Europe. The Uygurs of the Xinjiang region of China are a good example of European-Asian mixes. If you go down south, you will also find other such mixes such as the Burusho and Hazara people.

Andy: If you can point out clear pictures of Cher’s physique as a young adult, I can judge it.

ok, so "West Asia", as you intend, encompasses part of China. That ISN'T obvious, so thanks for clarifying.

Erik, why is my detailed reply to your attack on my post being blocked? Is it too long perhaps?

Frank: Your ability to leave a comment is obviously not blocked. If your comment exceeded the number of allowed words, you would have been notified of this. The current setting allows each comment to have a maximum of 15,000 characters, which is generous. Beyond this, you will need to split your reply into two or more comments. I don't know why you have not been able to post your lengthy reply. Try again.

Thanks, Erik. I think there must be something wrong with my set-up, as there was no notification of exceeding any limit. I tried a number of times before giving up. I realised it wasn't your decision to block my post, which is why I tried the short query.

In the meantime, I have decided not to post my original reply, but, in light of having explored more of your site, to write a more considered reply. However, as I don't have much time to post, and am shortly leaving my office until the middle of next week, I won't do so until then. Suffice to say for now that two posts might be needed, as a number of different issues came up.

Whether or not I have misunderstood you, you have certainly misunderstood the import of some of my post. I don't blame you for this, as my post was probably not clear enough.

I'll just for now try to clear up some points which are not central to the main thrust of this site and this thread.

I am fully aware that blood groups, especially when individuals are concerned, are not a good indicator of ethnicity! (Although it is surprising how many apparently educated people still think they are). My point was simply to point out how unreliable much of the published literature in the field of Physical Anthropology has been until quite recently, and to some extent still is. I had my blood tested in the early '70s, and found that I had a Rhesus blood group (C+D-E-) which, according to the leading Human Medical Genetics text book at the time, was non-existent among Chinese. I then find that the source for the text-book assertion was a sample of 500 Cantonese. So, on the basis of a small sample from one Southern Chinese city, the text-book characterized all Chinese!

And I'm afraid such stereotyping was all too common at that time. I could quote other examples of other such "facts" which have subsequently proved to be untrue. While such extreme examples are much rarer today, more restrained examples are still too common. All this has made me quite suspicious of most claims about "ethnic" or "racial" characteristics, unless they have been certified a reasonable amount of times in modern studies by reliable scholars.

An example as to how recent studies in physical anthropology have transformed the understanding of "race" concerns the Ainu you mentioned in your reply.

It is clear now that the Ainu, and the Jomon, were NOT a lot closer to modern Europeans than to modern (East) Asians. See for example: or
It is clear that the closest relatives of the Ainu are certain other North East Asian groups. This is backed up by linguistic research which is more and more suggesting that the closest relatives of the Ainu language are other North East Asian languages.

The characteristics which were cited to link the Ainu with Europeans have either turned out to be mistakes (e.g. the Ainu were and are not blue-eyed), or are to do with what now appears to be purely superficial appearance, e.g. the Ainu have quite heavy body hair growth, and not many instances of the epicanthus eye-fold. In fact on this level the Australian Aborigines have as many "European" characteristics as the Ainu.

The Jomon-Yayoi transition and synthesis to form the modern Japanese nation is actually one of the best examples of the fusion of two different ethnic groups. The whole subject is also a good example as to how pseudo-scientific anthropology has been misused for ethnic - and sometimes frankly racist - purposes.

Furthermore, the relatively recent appearance of so-called "Mongoloid" features in East Asian and Amerindian populations is a puzzle which has, until recently, not been tackled in a truly scientific manner. "Migration" used to be the only answer considered - but from where? It is notable that the highest frequency of the epicanthus occurs in populations such as the Koreans and the Northern Chinese, which are, as Cavalli-Sforza and others have shown, actually in some ways more closely related to Europeans than they are to Southern Chinese and South East Asians, who have a low frequency of "Mongolian" features such as the epicanthus.

"Evolution" seems too often forgotten in all this. There seems to be a reluctance to consider that characteristic polymorphisms which gave rise to the "East Asian" appearance might actually have evolved relatively recently out of a more generalised ancient Eurasian (broadly "Caucasoid") background - perhaps by a process which some, e.g. Peter Frost, have proposed (on the basis of what is as yet very shaky, but plausible, argumentation) for the establishment of polymorphisms with regard to hair and eye colour in parts of Europe.

And that links up to why I put the word "pure" in quotation marks, because in the light of evolution "purity" becomes an elusive quality - in fact usually meaningless. Yet those who get hung-up on making ethnic comparisons e.g. Europeans vs. Asians often unwittingly speak as if "pure" races existed, and any anomalies must be due to race-mixing.

That's enough for now. Next week I'll try to deal with matters more directly relevant to your site.

Best Wishes

Holy god, you people are all fucking crazy. Sarah, all the Asian girls you displayed have clearly had extensive plastic surgery. I do not say this to support Erik's creepy racist argument, but because Asian societies have very dehumanizing cultural constructs that have most recently manifested themselves in the prevailing cultural notions of beauty ideals (or even beauty necessities, these days) of co-opting a handful of very particular features specific to caucasian people. They impose a great deal of misogyny and racism on themselves, for whatever reason.

You are all crazy. Erik, I loved this site at first because there are so few people who can see beyond their cultural conditioning that idealizes masculinized models, but it's become clear to me that you have so many other sickening agendas that even this site has become a disappointment. Go hang out with your real comrades--those majorityrights and GNXP psychos.

You are especially disappointing to women who are tired of being dehumanized by all the men still in control of the majority of wealth, as well as influential spheres like politics, media, and academia.

Kimberly: Do not label my arguments as “racist” or accuse me of harboring “sickening agendas” without justifying these serious charges. This site is not “dehumanizing” women and I don’t see how I am disappointing women upset at not matching men with respect to wealth and power.

Frank: I am aware of the limitations of the early physical anthropology literature and make a point to cite current papers. All papers I cited in reference to average facial differences between East Asians and Europeans in my reply to Sarah have been published between 2000 and 2005, are in agreement with each other and consistent with common observation.

Regarding the Jomon and Ainu, you have cited data on Y and mtDNA, and mentioned linguistics. The DNA data is limited and affected by admixture. The linguistic data is of little relevance as can be seen from the example of white Finns speaking an Asiatic language in spite of having very little Asiatic genetic contribution. The paper that I cited, published in 2001, analyzed skull samples ranging from prehistory to present and used 21 neutral inter-landmark distances to infer population affinities. It is very clear that the prehistoric Jomon and early Ainus are closer to Europeans than to the current core population of East Asia. Your objections involve minor superficial features such as body hair and frequency of epicanthal folds and on this basis you mention Australian aborigines having as many “European” features as the Ainu. Population affinities need to be assessed by analyzing multiple markers rather than a handful of features. Use the 21 neutral inter-landmark distances as in the study above and there is no way Australian aborigines will end up anywhere close to Europeans.

What do you mean by a relatively recent appearance of East Asian features? There is nothing “recent” about flattened nasal bones, general mid-facial flattening, larger faces, larger teeth, etc. You mention epicanthal folds, but this is of little relevance to the “relatively recent” question unless its genetics is known and DNA suitable for analysis can be extracted from prehistoric remains. Yes, Cavalli-Sforza did show Northeast Asians to be closer to Europeans than Southeast Asians, but he only analyzed 150 genes, and the markers were not neutral; his genetic tree was also not very stable. The use of neutral and much more numerous markers reveal that the mainland Northeast Asian and mainland Southeast Asian populations cluster together.

I don’t see the point of your bringing Peter Frost into the picture. The unusual MC1R diversity corresponding to hair color diversity among Europeans has no analog among East Asians. Regarding “purity,” I have not mentioned this word or implied anything along these lines.


If a woman has an exceptional hourglass figure according to your statistics and one which has a slightly less hourglass figure it doesnt make the one with the more exceptional hourglass figure more so to speak beautifull than the one with the less hourglass figure the one with the exceptional hourglass figure might look more aesthetically pleasing than the one with the less hourglass figure but the one with the less hourglass figure might be more sexually appealing than the one with the exceptional hourglass figure so what is your opinion in relation to your argument that life time hetrosexual men prefer feminine looking women, thats not saying the less hourglas figure woman is less feminine than the more hourglass figure woman but in terms of secxual appeal.


On the Jomon/Ainu issue, I'm afraid you ignore the mass of modern studies which would contradict you, in favour of one which might seem to support you, although reading closer, I'm not sure that it actually does. It should be noted that the chief author, C.Loring Brace, one of the "old school" of physical anthropologists, tends to use such terms as "caucasoids", "aryans", in an outdated and rather misleading way, as if these represented physical "races", rather than simply as physical types.

I don't have the literature to hand with me (my PC is at a different address from my library), but reference to such works as "Ruins of Identity" (about ethnogenesis in Japan) by Mark J. Hudson, and "China, Korea, and Japan" (archaeology) by Gina Barnes, shows quite clearly that the Jomon/Ainu skulls and skeletons were in some ways more dissimilar to supposed "caucasoid/European" than were the Yayoi (Korean derived) immigrants, whom nobody claim as "caucasoids", while being in other ways closer. For instance, the Jomon had proportionately much shorter and broader faces than the Yayoi. (The Barnes book actually has a drawing comparing typical Jomon and Yayoi skulls which shows this clearly). The Jomon were also shorter and stockier in physique than the Yayoi - which might be one reason why early Chinese records refer to Japan as a land of dwarfs.

My mention on "minor superficial features" such as epicanthic folds was precisely because these features, minor or not, have played a MAJOR part in the typological "racial" classifications of the past. These classifications play only an insignificant role, if any at all, in modern physical anthropology, but still loom large in the "popular" fringes of science - and also on the racist white-superiority sites which are common on the internet. I note that even one of these has somewhat played down the "caucasoid" Ainu theme.

I agree that population affinities need to be assessed using multiple markers. Using these however, numerous differing, and apparently conflicting, pictures of relationships can be arrived at. I say "apparently" because what these actually show is the complexity of relationships between populations - the very complexities which annoy those who want to stick with old racial - and racist - "certainties". I am sure that as further studies go on, more and more complexities and anomalies will arise. As for "neutral features", I suggest that this is a difficult, and potentially misleading concept. The fact is that there are many features which have been claimed to be "neutral", which on closer study have proven to be not so.

As for "East Asian features". It is generally accepted that all populations of non-African ethnic origin derive from a small number of people who migrated out of Africa. What did these people look like? The earliest Homo sapiens sapiens skulls in Eurasia, including East Asia, all look more "caucasoid" than do modern East Asians. Similarly, early and many modern Amerindian populations similarly are not characterised by such features as "mid-facial flattening" - those which do show such features probably owe these to intermixture with the later Na-Dene and Eskimo-Aleut immigrants. Similarly with ancient and modern Polynesians (to whom both the Ainu and "Kennewick Man" have been compared, although nobody I hope is suggesting that the Ainu are Polynesians). Moreover such people as the New Guineans and Australian Aborigines, which recent studies confirm as being descended from the initial small band of "out of Africa" H.s.sapiens emigrants, are not characterised by East Asian features.

So in terms of Eurasia, most East Asian features probably are recent developments, and evolved out of a situation where they did not exist, or only existed at a low frequency. I must stress here that this does not mean that they are "better" characteristics. Unfortunately the equation "more evolved" = "better" was one established by the racist driven theories of the past. Since these theories arose in a largely European academe, it thus became inconceivable that populations with many "caucasoid" characteristics could evolve into populations with less of them. I suggest that the shadow of this still lies across physical anthropology to this day, which is why the idea that many East Asian characteristics are modern evolutionary developments has only started to be posited recently.

Again the point of bringing Peter Frost in to the picture is that he has proposed a way in which quite rapid evolutionary changes can occur to set up polymorphisms, in his case to do with eye and hair colour in a part of Europe. Exactly the same sort of process could lead to the rapid evolution of polymorphisms in other parts of the world for other features, since there isn't any reason why these sorts of processes might not work for features other than hair and eye colour. (Incidentally, as Peter Frost has acknowledged on his website, polymorphism for hair colour is not confined to Europe, although most marked there. I suspect that closer study will reveal that the same goes, to a lesser degree, for eye colour).

My reply to your attack on my original post will have to wait for a later post of mine.

Haha Erik you crack me up. I haven't been here in a while and I see that my numerous posts have attracted a lot more people.

You DO realize that the others also disagree with your ridiculous beliefs (and I'M the one posting nonsense?) as well, don't you? I can't recall a time I read a comment from a visitor who actually praised you for you "work." If one does, you actually make a blog entitled "I am not alone." HAHAHA that's pretty hilarious.

As for your comment about how readers can guess what I look like.. you're kidding me right? Nothing I have wrote so far would imply that I was unattractive - and what would my physical looks have anything to do with my comments on this preposterous website of yours? I know what attractive is, and I wouldn't consider myself that if I didn't think I was. I'm not as egotistical as you are, but I know pretty when I see it. If I was ever so desperate as to post up a picture of myself for YOUR approval, please do me a favor and come over here to California and slap me across the face for being so pathetic. If you really DID find me attractive, that would be a blow to my confidence, seeing as how you don't even know yourself what true beauty really is. I mean you get hot and heavy about "women" like Sonia Blake, for Christ's sake. HAHAHAHA

And are you seriously arguing against the person who claimed you were racist? What the hell was this: (loosely quoted from YOU) "decent, classy bars do their best to keep out African-Americans." Where the hell did you ever get that idea? People here aren't as racist as you are, I'm afraid; no one's social status is affected by the color of their skin. I'm also in my early twenties you dolt. When I go to bars to have fun, I go to ones that cater to my age group, not snobby high-end bars for old people, where I imagine are the only places that would have such a ludicrous rule as to keep blacks out. As for the bar fight I witnessed, yes, that dumb ass was stupid for picking a fight with someone just because he disliked them for their skin color. Of course YOU would never do such a thing, Erik, because you're just a scrawny pale 50 year old pervert that probably looks like John Karl Marx, and even I could win in a fight with you. You know you could never win in a match with anyone, not even those beautiful models you rag on, because they're just sooooooooo masculine, right? Definitely more masculine than you.

Kimberly: As far as I know, those Asian women I posted up photographs of have not gone through any plastic surgery. If they had, they wouldn't be as famous in their home country as they are. If you want, I could provide you with all their names and you could look it up; I'm almost certain they are all natural.

As for Frank, you really shouldn't even bother wasting your time explaining things to Erik. Just concentrate on your studies because these are actually FACTUAL information, or at least are supported by strong evidence, while Erik only pulls his information out of his ass.

Haha I actually meant to say you probably resemble John Mark Karr, not Karl Marx! I'm doing a paper on the Communist Manifesto and I'm getting things mixed up. I apologize, Erik. I would never confuse you with such a brilliant theorist as KM ;)

Sarah, the Asian women whose pictures you posted have most likely undergone plstic surgery. Plastic surgery is very rampant in Asia see this link:

I have a Korean friend who told me beautiful Korean actresses who have big eyes had them altered. Chinese people are also becoming addicted to cosmetic surgery. Surgery is now an in thing in Asia because Asians want to look like Caucasians.

But anyway, let's be sure about whether they are natural beauties or not. Can you give us their names?

Sarah, thanks for the advice. I don't have that much time to post, and I will have to consider whether it's worth it here. I'll probably eventually post some of my original intended reply in an edited form.

To Kimberly and Brenda. You claim that all the Asian women whose photos Sarah posted have undergone plastic surgery. Well, you may be entirely right, or you may be entirely wrong. Or you may be partly right.

As an Asian, one of the things which annoys me most about western views of Asians is the stereotyping - i.e. Asians all look alike, all have epicanthic folds, have broad faces with broad noses etc.etc. Actually there is as much variety in Asian physiognomies as in "Caucasian" ones. My own family is a case in point. My father had "western" eyelids, which are actually in a majority over much of China and East Asia. My mother had a narrow nose which actually looked "hooked" in profile, she looked more like an Amerindian than a supposedly "typical" East Asian. Both myself and my brother are at least as tall as the average "caucasian" of our generation, and my sister was always one of the tallest girls in her class at school, the rest of the girls being almost all "caucasians". One of my cousins (a professor in the States) is at least 6ft.6in. tall, probably more. Another of my cousins had as a child hair so light in colour that he was nicknamed "Yellow Hair". Both myself and my brother have much more body hair than East Asians are supposed to have. When we first moved to England, some English were surprised that we were so light skinned - "You're skin is white" was one response - although our skin tone is actually typical for Northern Chinese. And none of my family are lactose intolerant. And so on. And it's not just my family. So many of the Chinese I have met don't correspond to the usual sterotype. Of course others do - and they are the ones regarded as "typical".

The problem resides in the ways that "races" were stereotyped in the first place. The usual typological race classifications ("caucasoid", "mongoloid", "negroid" etc.) were dreamt up by Europeans in the early part of the last century. These typological race classifications, based almost entirely on visible physical features, are largely discredited in scientific anthropological and biological circles today - but they still have a vast, and undeserved, influence in popular thinking - the very use of the term "caucasian" is an example of this.

When stereotyping "caucasoids", the European classifiers did choose typical, average, European types. Studies have shown that, at least as far as women are concerned, average faces are actually the most attractive, because they don't possess any extreme features. Thus the stereotypical "caucasoid" was automatically an attractive face.

However when stereotyping other "races", such as "mongoloids" (East Asians etc.) and "negroids" (Black Africans), the European race classifiers chose not the average, but the most extreme characteristics, those most different from the typical "caucasoid". These stereotypical Asians and Africans are thus not typical and average, even from the viewpoint of Asians and Africans themselves. The actual typical average for these other races is thus inevitably more "caucasian" than the supposed stereotype.

Using the same principles to characterise "caucasoids" as were used to characterise other races, a typical "caucasoid" would have a very long narrow face, with a long pointed chin, very thin lips, a very long hooked nose, and very hairy bodies, with the women having slight moustaches. Many of these might also seek plastic surgery to make themselves closer to the actual typical average.

And indeed plastic surgery is not just rampant in Asia. It is also rampant in Europe and the USA among "white" women. And of course there are many, many other cosmetic procedures which are commonplace in the developed world. To take just one example, how many western women use depilatory agents? Or hair colouring? Or indeed any sort of cosmetics? In fact, "natural" beauty cannot really be said to exist in the developed world among women of any race - or among men for that matter. That's a matter of fact, NOT a criticism, as attempts to change one's appearance are universal. It only becomes a matter for concern, and morality, when people of either gender undergo potentially medically harmful procedures to try and achieve a desired appearance, and are encouraged by others to do so.

Addendum to the last.

Brenda, note that because the average typical Asian face is more "caucasian" than the supposed stereotypical one, many of the Asians who seem to be wanting to look more "caucasian", are doing so because that is actually making them look more like the true average typical Asian. Thus the "caucasian" aspect isn't the real goal.

Of course, there may be Asian actresses who do want to look more "caucasian", because it fits in with what is perceived as the Hollywood stereotype. However I doubt if there are more than a very few who actually want to look completely caucasian.

There are also some who want to look more caucasian as a symbol of individuality or rebellion, in the same way as some caucasians adopt "afro" type hairstyles.

Frank: I am not ignoring the mass of modern studies on the Jomon/Ainu. The study by Brace is current, uses excellent methodology -- thereby carrying weight -- and is much superior to the studies based on Y and mtDNA because of the aforementioned limitations of these studies and also the fact that craniofacial features manifest extensive autosomal gene expression. You certainly haven’t read the Brace paper closely. Brace is far from a remnant of the “old school of physical anthropology” given that he has denied the existence of races and here is the relevant statement from his paper:


The fact that Late Pleistocene populations in northwest Europe and northeast Asia show morphological similarities suggests that there may have been actual genetic ties at one time. Those morphological similarities can still be shown between Europe and the descendants of the aboriginal population of the Japanese archipelago, i.e., the Ainu. This similarity provides some basis for the long-time claim that the Ainu represent an "Indo-European," "Aryan," or "Caucasoid" "type" or "race" (54, 55), however unfortunate those designations and their implications may be.

Note that Brace has put some typological terms in quotes because he rejects such terminology and he doesn’t say “however unfortunate or benign those designations and their implications may be.” It is clear that the Ainu are craniofacially closer to Europeans than to East Asians. Your repeated references to race, racism and typology are not relevant to the discussion since they are not part of this website.

Minor features -- from a phylogeny standpoint -- such as epicanthal folds have not played a major role in past typology, especially since they are not preserved in normal human remains. It is a safe-bet that a European or sub-Saharan African with epicanthal folds is unlikely to be classified as an East Asian anymore than a sub-Saharan African albino is likely to be classified as white. There is a correlation structure underlying population differences, and differences in the correlation structure are not minor.

Studies of molecular markers have indeed shown conflicting results, but these have usually been a result of too few markers assessed or different paternal and maternal ancestries. With respect to our discussion, namely the relatedness of mainland northeast Asians, mainland southeast Asians and Europeans, both Brace’s 21-24 largely neutral craniofacial inter-landmark distances and multiple molecular markers as in the Rosenberg et al. study I cited (close to 1,000 microsatellites) show the mainland northeast Asians and mainland southeast Asians clustering together. There is no inconsistency.

Obviously, natural selection is not responsible for all craniofacial differences between populations. Look up Brace’s measures and note that he avoids the lower jaw and teeth, features obviously affected by natural selection. Also note that he is using 20+ inter-landmark distances, i.e., even if you were to argue that all of these are affected by natural selection, you cannot insist that his population affinities are explained by convergent evolution of distant populations under similar selection pressures.


"The earliest Homo sapiens sapiens skulls in Eurasia, including East Asia, all look more “caucasoid” than do modern East Asians."

You have paraphrased what I stated, taken straight out of Brace. Until a few thousand years ago, most of Northeast Asia was occupied by a European-type people, who were eventually replaced by Asian types.


'Similarly, early and many modern Amerindian populations similarly are not characterised by such features as “mid-facial flattening”'

Once again, also shown by Brace. The first humans to arrive in the Americas clustered with Europeans whereas the later ones clustered with Asians. In other words, some of the early populations in East Asia and the Americas that you are referring to were roughly speaking European-type people who were replaced by other populations with more ancestral features.

Regarding how recent are flattened nasal bones, general mid-facial flattening, larger faces, larger teeth, etc., I don’t think you will dispute larger faces, large jaws and larger teeth as more ancestral features since eating cooked food is recent rather than ancestral. Look up Hanihara’s paper on facial flatness and notice the part where he reports the results of canonical correlations. You see a clear tendency for greater mid-facial flattening to correlate with greater jaw protrusion, which should not be surprising; just take a look at our closest primate relatives. Hanihara’s paper also features a bunch of citations showing that the earliest anatomically modern humans had more or less flattened mid-facial regions. Therefore, compared to Northern Europeans, the complex of features among East Asians characterized by greater mid-facial flattening, more protruding jaws, larger faces and larger teeth indicates a face that is overall more ancestral, certainly nowhere as recent as that of Northern Europeans, though some East Asian features could be of recent origin.

Again, Peter Frost’s paper on hair color diversity in Europe implicates sexual selection. If some characteristic East Asian features of recent origin are a result of sexual selection or natural selection, then you have not suggested what features these are, let alone provided a plausible mechanism behind the selection.

Brenda certainly hasn’t claimed that all women posted by Sarah after Dawn Yang have undergone plastic surgery. She just wants Sarah to tell her the names of the women so that she can verify if some of these women have undergone plastic surgery. Some of your stereotypes about the Western view of Asians border on straw man arguments and you do not seem to realize that people usually have a harder time distinguishing the facial features of other ethnicities. Some Asians, too, undoubtedly feel that people of some other ethnic groups “all look alike.”

You again blame the problem on the stereotyping of “races,” but the typologies are by no means of recent European origins. Even the ancient Egyptians were known to classify people as Semites, Afros, white, etc. Even children can observe average differences between populations. Regardless of typology, classifications based on multiple visible physical differences accord very well with classification based on multiple molecular markers. It doesn’t take much observation to learn that there is variation both between groups and within groups and that there are grey areas between groups and that there are outliers within groups, but none of these facts undermine average differences between groups, and clusters emerge notwithstanding clinal variation.

Early anthropologists didn’t have access to morphing software to come up with population averages, and the vast majority likely did not associate averageness with attractiveness. The averageness-attractiveness correlation surprised many psychologists as recently as roughly 20 years ago. And no, anthropologists didn’t go around selecting extremes among non-European populations to illustrate “stereotypical” examples. For instance, the Choe et al. study cited above showed the following image:

From left to right: average North American white, attractive Korean, average Korean (Korean women rated by Korean judges).

In other words, the average Asian looks more Asian, not less Asian than the attractive Asian, who is overall shifted toward European norms. You got it exactly opposite by saying that “the average typical Asian face is more “caucasian” than the supposed stereotypical one.”

By your reasoning, “Using the same principles to characterise “caucasoids” as were used to characterise other races, a typical “caucasoid” would...” certainly not have lots of body hair, a very long and narrow face and a hooked nose. In the Europe-Middle Eastern region, hooked noses, long faces (shape) and excessive body hair are most extensively found among Middle Eastern populations and their counterparts in Southern Europe, whereas the most European- or “Caucasoid”-looking people are found in Northern Europe. The hook-nosed appearance is due to a more prominent nasal tip and less prominent nasal root, and the tip, being composed of cartilage, which is not preserved in human remains except in rare cases of mummification. When you consider the skeletal aspects of the face as they have transformed from the ancestral to the derived, the major tendencies such as more prominent nasal bones, more regressed jaws and gracilization (finer facial features) are at their most extreme in Northern Europe.

The use of depilatory creams, lipstick, mascara and hair dyes constitute minor cosmetic enhancement compared to having a surgeon operate on your face, and among young adult European women, there is no surgical analog that approaches the frequency of eyelid surgery among young adult East Asian women. In addition, some of the most unflattering major cosmetic surgery procedures are less used by the more “Caucasoid”-looking women. For instance, I recently found out that ethnic minorities in Stockholm (Sweden), mostly Middle Eastern and also Southern European women, are responsible for up to half the nose jobs there, and I will be addressing this study in the future because it offers some useful insights.

Andy: Yes, a more dramatic hourglass figure does not necessarily make a woman more beautiful to heterosexual men since there are numerous correlates of beauty. I have also noted that slight masculinization among women is a correlate of their sexiness to heterosexual men; see the discussion here.

Sarah: If there is an argument here that would appear to be outrageous to many people, then it is necessary to show that I am not alone, which doesn’t mean that an “I am not alone” entry implies that people generally disagree with most of the arguments here. Besides, some commentators have left comments saying that they are pleased with this site.

You have left numerous cues about how you look in your comments, which anyone can guess is not feminine. On the other hand, you have baselessly made a bunch of assumptions about my looks, even claiming that I am likely in my 50s and probably resemble John Mark Karr. Boy, would you be surprised if you saw me! I’d be willing to do the favor that you have asked, but not by slapping your face; I believe you deserve a proper spanking.

As far as the statement about decent bars go, I described something and didn’t express approval or disapproval of it, i.e., no racism on my part was implied. Speaking of racism, did you know that Karl Marx was a racist and his evil ideas led to the slaughter of a hundred million people? Calling super criminal Karl Marx a “brilliant theorist” shows just what kind of education you have gotten.

LOL @ erik for writing a huge essay about how white > asian.

yay white power!!!

8D: There is no "white > Asian" argument above. It is just a neutral description of some population differences and their origins.


As for larger faces, larger teeth etc., I have looked up some of the data, and it shows just how simplistic your representation of this is. In fact, on a worldwide basis, both Europeans and Asians are at the smaller end of the scale, the largest faces and teeth being found outside Eurasia. There has been as yet little, if any, consideration given to the fact that East Asians have, on average, among the largest heads of any group, both absolutely and proportionately, larger than Europeans, and larger than Africans. This "large face" business would be further complicated by the greater incidence of brachycephaly among East Asians. Brachycephaly would also tend to give rise to larger faces. Incidentally, brachycephaly is often considered, in the context of Homo sapiens sapiens, a more recent feature than dolichocephaly. It is possible that when the, on average, larger skull sizes and greater brachycephaly of East Asians is considered, much of the difference in face size between East Asians and Europeans disappears.

Similarly, if not identically, with tooth size. There is a problem about tooth size comparisons, as of course each person normally has 32 teeth, none of which are identical. Comparisons between groups often show a situation where Group A might have, say, bigger upper medial incisors than Group B, but smaller lower lateral incisors - and that's without even considering canines, premolars, and molars. However even taking a grossly simplistic view, again looking at the data reveals that both Europeans and East Asians are at the smaller end of the scale as far as the worldwide picture is concerned. Interesting studies, such as that by C.L.B.Lavelle J.Dent.Res. Vol 53 No 5 (1974), who looked only at white British men, have shown that [1]tooth size is on average slightly larger (2.7% in his study)in brachycephalic than in dolichocephalic men, that [2]there is a tendency for tooth size to increase with skull size, and that [3]this tendency is greater for brachycephalics than dolichocephalics. This is of course consonant with the fact that general face size is going to be on average larger for brachycephalics for any particular skull size. And indeed Lavelle found that the degree of correlation in brachycephalics was greater with skull breadth than with skull length, as one would expect given my above suppositions.

Incidentally, dolichocephaly has been associated in some studies with stronger jaw muscles, the effect of the larger area of attachment of these muscles being to lengthen the skull. If this is so, it might give a clue as to why brachycephaly is associated with slightly larger teeth, as this might compensate for rather weaker masticatory muscles. Which particular "strategy" is selected for might be due to pure chance (genetic drift), or it might be due to the minutiae of dietary details, such as the relative amounts of meat or plant material in the diet.

Whatever the case, it is clear that looking closely at the data, you are making a very great deal out of not very much, in your larger face, larger teeth, "arguments". Similarly with all your points with regard to facial features. Of all human characteristics, the face is the most complex, and by merely parroting phrases such as "mid-facial flattening", "prognathism", "high cheekbones" etc.etc., without realisation that these can cover a multitude of different "sins", you ignore the fact that superficially similar features might be arrived at by very different processes. Thus if a feature can be shown to be "ancestral", or due to particular hormone levels in particular situations, does not necessarily mean that the same applies in all situations.


[I rather think 8D has rather clicked on to what you really believe!]

You write "The first humans to arrive in the Americas clustered with Europeans whereas the later ones clustered with Asians. In other words, some of the early populations in East Asia and the Americas that you are referring to were roughly speaking European-type people who were replaced by other populations with more ancestral features."

This of course accords with your basic tenet that Caucasians are the most attractive because they are the least ancestral and most evolved. As I've pointed out before, whether this is true or not (and there are many reasons to suggest that it is, at very best, misleading) more evolved does not mean better, and would not necessarily mean more attractive - that is unless you believe that there is some mysterious evolutionary force impelling a species towards a more "perfect" phenotype. But there we are outside the realm of science and into metaphysics.

But on the simple point as to what you assert happened (and I'm not at all sure that Brace would entirely agree with you), you clearly don't believe in the out-of-Africa hypothesis for Homo sapiens sapiens, which is more and more being supported by the evidence from DNA, since this shows that all non-Africans derive from the same small group of emigrants from Africa. As I pointed out, evidence, such as that from Brace, and in this case fortunately not just from him, shows that this group were most probably of broadly "caucasoid" appearance. Thus it appears that East Asians, Amerindians, Australian Aborigines etc. are descended from groups who looked on average more "caucasoid" than their present-day descendants. The idea that this is all due to replacement of populations just won't wash. Primarily because it goes against the DNA evidence, but also because no one has suggested where the mysterious homelands for these replacing populations might be.

There is of course a psychological barrier to you, or others who think like you, accepting the idea that roughly "European-type" people might have evolved into groups less "European" looking (besides the incorrect, but psychologically pervasive, idea that "more evolved = better"). After all, looking at the, to you, supremely beautiful examples of feminine attractiveness represented by the white women you so proudly display on this site, how could a population such as this end up looking like Koreans, or Australian aborigines? Let me help you a bit here. Put your women in the conditions in which ancient stone age Eurasians and Amerindians lived, and they wouldn't look much like the women in your pictures! They might still look more attractive than the average non-white woman, but I am sure the difference wouldn't be as marked, even to you. And perhaps in the particular conditions of the times other factors, other selective pressures were at work. If sexual attractiveness is heavily culturally conditioned (and it is certainly so to some extent), there is no problem with this. But if it is partly genetically conditioned, this might explain how particular groups have a preference for features different from their average, because these preferences have evolved to fit an ancestral condition, and there hasn't as yet been enough time for evolution of preferences to fit the current condition.

Incidentally, with regard to East Asian features - if they are not the result of natural or sexual selection, what are they the result of? I have already shown that they are unlikely to be purely "ancestral", but even if they are, "ancestral" features must surely themselves be the result of natural and/or sexual selection? Unless some different (as yet unknown to science) process was responsible for the original appearance of Homo sapiens sapiens? (Which reminds me that before the theory of evolution was accepted, most people in the West believed that God created Adam and Eve ex nihilo, and that all humans were descended from them. Numerous theories arose as to how differing races arose, but most prominent were the ideas involving a white, indeed, Nordic looking, Adam and Eve, with non-white peoples arising as the result of degeneration from the primitive God-created Nordic European ideal.)

As for stereotyping, of course it existed long before the European typological race stereotyping. In fact I suspect it existed between different groups of Homo erectus etc. on the African Savanna. The difference with the European typological stereotyping of the late 19th and early 20th century is that it claimed to be "scientific", and that it went on, without scientific justification, to claim that the "Caucasoids" "Mongoloids" "Negroids" etc. represented ancient pure races - and that the clines in physical characteristics so clearly observable today, are due to the mixture of these pure races. This led almost inevitably to the Nazi ideas of racial purity and racial pollution. Of course an idea is not wrong purely because people can misuse it, but the fact is that there wasn't any scientific justification for the pure race idea in the first place. Nevertheless it still retains a deep, if unconscious, hold in the realms of popular pseudo-science about "races".

I have no doubt that my particular picture as to how the typological stereotyping of the supposed pure races is an accurate description of what went on. The early anthropologists didn't have access to computer morphing, but they had no need to. Looking around at their own populations they naturally came up with what was in general the average, as far as facial features were concerned. Of course most of them did not associate these features with "attractiveness", as they were claiming to be involved with racial taxonomy, not with the subject of sexual attraction. The "surprise" occasioned when it appeared that "average" = "attractive", was largely a semantic one, since "average" often means "mediocre" or "ordinary". And the early anthropologists did select the more extreme features of other races to stereotype them - this was a natural process, since they would be most impressed with what was different. Similarly the ancient Romans described the Celts as fair haired, as a whole, when they were almost certainly little different from their descendants today, among whom dark or medium hair is the commonest - but they were on average fairer than the Romans, so that's what the Romans noted. And so my description as to what a stereotyping of "caucasoids" form the viewpoint of other "races" still stands. Of course "caucasoids" vary in amount of body hair, prominence of noses etc.etc. But it is a fact that, on average, "caucasoids" do have, for example, more body and facial hair than East Asians. So East Asians, using the principles of the European typological race classifiers, would stereotype "caucasoids" in the way I have described. Of course, as you have pointed out, the stereotype is misleading and simplistic. Among other things, it doesn't distinguish between various "sub-groups" of "caucasoids". But that's precisely my point about this sort of racial stereotyping, which you seem happy to go in for when describing other races! In this you actually make my point for me!

As for your images of "average American white" etc., I am not sure what that proves at all. Firstly, Korean does not equal "Asian". In any case I am quite prepared to believe that some - maybe many - Asian groups do prefer the more "caucasian" types among their own population to the average of their population. This doesn't of course necessarily mean that they prefer the actual "caucasian" types to the more "caucasian" of the "Asian" types. Note that the more "caucasian" of the Asian types is closer to what might be termed the average "world morph", and I certainly read recently a report which suggested that what was considered attractive by the majority of westerners seems to be moving similarly towards a more "world" average - perhaps that's why Jessica Alba was voted the sexiest woman in a recent British poll (I know that won't please you, but that's how it goes!). In any case, unless there is some racial agenda here, why are you posting at such length on this? You happen to believe that white women are the most attractive. I happen to believe that women of any race can be attractive, but that I personally find attractive East Asian women the most attractive. Many will agree with you. Some, I believe a growing number, will agree with me. You have a right to your viewpoint, I have a right to mine. I post not to disagree with your personal preferences, but when you, in my opinion, misuse science to "prove" that your views on female attractiveness are somehow more objective than those of others who disgree with you, such as myself (or Hugh Hefner - I actually largely agree with you about him, but he too has a right to his preferences!).

It is quite clear that, despite your denials, you do believe in some objective, or at least, genetically determined standard of beauty. It is also clear that you believe that white women are the most attractive, and that you do associate this with being of a more advanced i.e. recent physical type, and that you do attribute this attractiveness to higher hormone levels etc. (although the highest oestrogen levels are actually to be found among black women, such as the Yorubas with their very high rate of dizygotic twinning).

It is also clear that you believe that the basis of this attractiveness, in terms of male preference, is largely genetic and not cultural in origin. This is in fact highly debatable. But, if the truth is as you say, you haven't considered the consequences of this. As I pointed out, it bears the very strong implication that other races must have passed through a "caucasoid" type phase in their evolution.

I've probably spent too much time already on this, but I've still to post an edited version of my original reply to your attacks. This will show that in many ways you actually make the points for me which I was arguing, if a truly scientifically consistent approach is used.

Frank: I don’t believe I am making “simplistic” arguments about face and teeth size. You talked about the pitfalls of old anthropological studies, yet cited one from 1974, which is of little relevance to start with. I cited Hanihara’s study on teeth size from 2005. You bet Hanihara was well aware of the fact that the teeth in a given individual are of different sizes. This is why he measured the mesiodistal and buccolingual crown diameters of all teeth in each specimen, and then found that Mainland East Asian teeth are, on average, larger than European teeth (exceptions: Jomon and Ainu, but no surprise here). You mentioned the larger crania (heads) of East Asians, but Brace has shown that adjusting for cranial size, East Asian teeth are still larger than European teeth, and you bet the same applies to face size, too. Yes, there are populations with even lager teeth, but we are not discussing them.

You bring into the picture brachycephaly (roundish skulls). There are numerous central European populations with roundish skulls, but they still have smaller faces than Northeast Asians. So you believe that the larger East Asian teeth are possibly compensating for weaker masticatory muscles compared to what you see in Europeans? Just take a look (Am J Phys Anthropol, 2004;123:340-) at who between Europeans and East Asians has a more powerfully built lower jaw and ask yourself whether it is likely that East Asians have weaker masticatory muscles.

You accuse of me of not believing the [recent] out-of-Africa hypothesis. Let us state this hypothesis for the general readership. This hypothesis states that modern humans rose in Africa between 100,000 to 200,000 years ago and spread outward, replacing all other human-like beings living elsewhere. I will comment on this hypothesis later. For now, the more interesting argument on your part is that these people who spread from Africa were of ‘broadly “caucasoid” appearance,’ and evolved into other forms such as East Asians, Amerindians, Australian Aborigines, etc. Well, well. Euro-types were the first people to start cooking food before eating it and thereby the first to experience a reduction in tooth size, but curiously, as they “evolved” into other types such as East Asians, Australian aborigines, etc., they developed larger teeth! Hanihara (facial flatness study) showed a clear tendency for greater mid-facial flattening to correlate with greater jaw protrusion (only first root significant in table), which should not be surprising given the tendency in our closest primate relatives, yet Euro-types “evolved” into people with the more ancestral condition! Vioarsdottir et al. (cited above) analyzed the facial growth patterns of people from different populations and found out that Europeans and Polynesians stood out from others, yet all the non-African people (except the Polynesians) that have “evolved” from Euros, along with the Africans, somehow display the broadly normal pattern of facial growth for the humans species, curiously making the Europeans stand out!

Learn bro! The recent out-of-Africa hypothesis is well-supported by mitochondrial DNA evidence, but there is an abundance of nuclear DNA evidence that refutes it. Please read this paper to understand that yes there was a spread of modern humans from African 100,000 to 200,000 years ago, but they extensively bred with people already living outside of Africa for a long time. I don’t find your scenario implausible because of the difficulty of imagining a “more evolved” people evolving into a “less evolved” people, but because of tremendous evidence against your account of the origin of modern humans.

You have again resorted to straw man arguments. I have neither used nor implied anything along the lines of “more evolved.” Once gain, I have argued that it is not objectively possible to compare the attractiveness of people from different ethnic groups, not that Europeans are most attractive. I have also addressed whether the extent of Europeanization is a correlate of beauty and come to the conclusion that it isn’t. What may superficially seem to be a preference for European facial features, as in the Korean example above, is actually a universal preference for a somewhat more overall derived than average face shape, which just happens to considerably overlap with Europeanization given that Europeans have the most overall derived face shape (not most derived on all counts). Why do you keep bringing up the “race” issue when I haven’t bothered with it, let alone the straw man of “pure races.” Even biggies like Johann Friedrich Blumenbach and Darwin implied no such thing. Like I said before, notwithstanding much overlap between continental populations and clinal variation, average differences between populations remain and clusters emerge.

Where did you encounter an account of the Celts being described as fair-haired by the Romans? Don’t come up with a trivial source, especially dating toward the later period of the Romans. In Early Rome, the Patricians were generally of Northern European descent, and it would be remarkable if the ruling elite then had a perception of the Celts as fair-haired.

Of course, Koreans are not synonymous for Asian, but the point of the study cited and the image shown is that it refutes your contention that the average East Asian is closer to Europeans than a supposed “extreme” pick supposed to represent the stereotypical East Asian. Koreans, Chinese and Japanese are much closer to each other than either of them is to Europeans and hence the study basically covers East Asians in general, which would be clearer if you look up literature on the aesthetics of East Asians. And no, I haven’t argued that the study implies a preference for Europeans over Asians; it simply implies a preference for Asian features shifted toward European norms. Besides, my objection to your “extreme Caucasoid” was not based on a failure to take into account “sub-types” but the fact that the most “extreme” ones are Northern Europeans, whose norms do not hover around your “extreme” features.

As to why I am posting at length, the agenda is not “racial,” but the promotion of feminine beauty in the limelight. Do you expect me to sit back if my arguments are misrepresented?

Of course, I believe that there are numerous objective correlates of beauty, and here is a page that links to most pages within this site where I have explained these correlates, but nowhere have I argued or implied that white women are the most attractive, let alone that this is due to having a more advanced physical type or “higher hormone levels.” I talked about testosterone-to-estradiol ratio. As I have already explained, this site is targeting people of European ancestry because all problems that it is addressing are of Western origin and this is the reason that it focuses on white women.

Hahahaa.. How would anything I have previously stated imply that I was masculine looking? Please indulge me on that one. Just because you want it to be true, doesn't mean it is.

As for you looking like JMK, it was a joke. Since you seem to present yourself as being a creepy pedophile, I can only assume you look like one. Of course, I wouldn't know though, since it's impossible to tell what one looks like through a computer, now isn't it? Why don't you put up a picture of yourself, Erik, so all us women could have a voice in how masculine YOU look ;)

I never said anything about agreeing with Karl Marx's theories. For example, Hitler was a brilliant man even though he was sick in the head. Just because someone is intelligent doesn't mean their personal opinions are right. As for Communism, yes, in theory it is a good idea to me and I don't care what anyone else thinks. It's just impossible to actually acheive it.

As for the link you sent me, I didn't even bother looking through it since it obviously is a biased website.

Brenda: I actually just searched "beautiful Asian women" and came upon a forum thread where someone posted these pictures. Other forum members were to guess who they were, and so here is one answer received. I don't know much about Asian celebrities so I'm not sure if the names really match the girls in the photos, though.

A. BoA
B. Nam Gyu Ri (I remember her because people used to tell me she looks like Hyori)
C. Lee Jung Hyun
E. U;Nee (RIP)
G. Park han Byul
H. Go Ara

Thanks, Sarah. I'm going to look them up. Even though plastic surgery is very rampant in Asia, I sure hope those women whose pictures you posted are natural. I'm an Asian myself.

You're welcome. Here are more Asian women I've come across that I think are stunning.

Vivian Hsu;_ylu=X3oDMTBsMW5yM3VoBHNlYwNwcm9mBHZ0aWQDSTA2Nl84OA;_ylu=X3oDMTBsMW5yM3VoBHNlYwNwcm9mBHZ0aWQDSTA2Nl84OA

hang Ziyi;_ylu=X3oDMTBsMW5yM3VoBHNlYwNwcm9mBHZ0aWQDSTA2Nl84OA

Shu Qi/Hsu Chi;_ylu=X3oDMTBsMW5yM3VoBHNlYwNwcm9mBHZ0aWQDSTA2Nl84OA

Gong Li is a favorite of many, but personally I don't see it.

These are Chinese women, since the last ones I mentioned were mostly Korean. These Chinese women are natural, I'm sure.

And Brenda/Kimberly, here are some statistics I found on plastic surgery around the world:

Plastic surgery procedures (Top 100 Countries):

1. United States 90,992
2. Mexico 52,956
3. Brazil 47,957
4. Japan 42,842
5. Spain 40,164
6. Germany 23,140
7. France 21,170
8. Argentina 17,698
9. Switzerland 16,073
10. Italy 14,784
11. Australia 13,305
12. South Africa 11,140
13. Canada 11,102
14. Taiwan 10,048
15. Korea, South 9,560
16. Greece 8,300
17. Ecuador 5,979
18. Hong Kong 5,096
19. Turkey 4,865
20. United Kingdom 4,668
21. Sweden 4,326
22. Lebanon 3,270
23. Colombia 2,772
24. Finland 2,277
25. India 2,259

Plastic surgery procedures (per capita) (Top 100 Countries):

1. Switzerland 2.19 per 1000 people
2. Cyprus 1.87 per 1000 people
3. Spain 0.99 per 1000 people
4. Lebanon 0.87 per 1000 people
5. Greece 0.77 per 1000 people
6. Hong Kong 0.68 per 1000 people
7. Australia 0.67 per 1000 people
8. Slovenia 0.54 per 1000 people
9. Mexico 0.50 per 1000 people
10. Sweden 0.48 per 1000 people
11. Argentina 0.45 per 1000 people
12. Taiwan 0.44 per 1000 people
13. Finland 0.43 per 1000 people
14. Ecuador 0.43 per 1000 people
15. Norway 0.35 per 1000 people
16. France 0.35 per 1000 people
17. Canada 0.34 per 1000 people
18. Japan 0.33 per 1000 people
19. United Arab Emirates 0.31 per 1000 people
20. United States 0.31 per 1000 people
21. Jordan 0.29 per 1000 people
22. Germany 0.28 per 1000 people
23. Brazil 0.26 per 1000 people
24. South Africa 0.26 per 1000 people
25. Italy 0.25 per 1000 people
26. Singapore 0.23 per 1000 people
27. Korea, South 0.19 per 1000 people
28. United Kingdom 0.07 per 1000 people
29. Turkey 0.07 per 1000 people
30. Colombia 0.06 per 1000 people
31. Saudi Arabia 0.02 per 1000 people
32. Romania 0.01 per 1000 people
33. Russia 0.00 per 1000 people
34. India 0.00 per 1000 people

I found this information on a forum and they didn't link a source, so I don't know if it's accurate, though. Erik, would you care to research that? I'm sure you have some information on this subject.

Oops sorry some of the links didn't present as pictures.

Erik what do you think of the actress kelly brook? is she feminine i read somewhere that she has the perfect hourglass figure. Also what do you think of her face do you find it feminine?

Erik also what do you think of the actress Liv Tyler I have always found her masucline looking am i right?


In your very first post in reply to mine, at one point you clearly misunderstood the point I was making. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and apologized that my post perhaps was unclear.

However, you continue to misunderstand points I have been making. At least your answers seem to indicate that you do.

Since I have no wish to misrepresent your views, I deliberately couched my posts in such a way as to give you every opportunity to prove that I am attacking a "straw man". However each time you have replied in such a way as to reinforce still further the picture I have of your basic beliefs.

I don’t have much time or opportunity to spend time on your site except intermittently. I have now found time to re-visit your posts. And re-reading your posts show that there are even more occasions on which you have seemingly misunderstood what I was saying. I haven’t time to deal with them now, so I will post about them later.

On the actual evidence, you are sometimes right. But most often is a situation, very common in anthropology and archaeology, where the facts are as yet indeterminate. Yet you regard any indeterminate fact which supports your theory as absolutely certain.

But my main objection is to your methods of interpretation. I have no objection to anyone arguing a case from a biased basis – provided it is done in a proper rational scientific manner. After all, we are all biased to some degree.

However a very common tendency around the fringes of science is for a bias, caused by a deeply held personal belief, to so affect the interpretation and discussion of a topic, that it can no longer be considered properly scientific. The effects of this can be various. [1] Inconsistency of interpretation or emphasis (from a scientific viewpoint. [2] Circular arguments. [3] Misquotation of sources, or use of discredited sources. I find traces of all three in your posts, but especially the first.

When comparing your interpretation of many pieces of evidence, you are very inconsistent – from a scientific viewpoint. But you are totally consistent – from the viewpoint of your particular theories about female beauty, and about geographical variation in this due to supposed "ancestral" (ugly, masculine) and "derived" (beautiful, feminine) features.

You already showed this in your reply to my very first post.

I had noticed that you were keen on labelling certain features such as "high cheekbones" as masculine. It is clear from your photos of "attractive women" that the women you find attractive don’t have high cheekbones. This would also fit in with your thesis of the aesthetic superiority of white women, since on a global scale, caucasoids do not on average have particularly high cheekbones, although certain individuals do, including quite a few leading film stars and models.

I decided to test you out with a physical feature which is similarly more pronounced in males than in females, but is one which you obviously think of as feminine, namely long legs. Again it is clear from your "attractive women" that you find long legs attractive. Again, although caucasoids are not the longest-legged group on the planet, they are clearly on average longer legged than (East) Asians, which seems to be your main concern here. I expected you wouldn’t accept long legs on women as masculine, and of course you didn’t.

You wrote "Just because men have relatively longer legs than women does not make long legs a masculine characteristic since relative leg length varies more within a sex than between the sexes and thereby one could end up with long legs as a result of factors other than sex hormones and their receptors."

You make my point for me! For exactly the same could be said about high cheekbones! Substitute "higher/high cheekbones" and "relative development of cheekbones" at the relevant points in your reply, and it would apply just as much. In fact it would apply even more strongly, as of all the physical features of the human organism, the face is the most subtle and complex, much more so than the legs. Hence the "height" of the cheekbones are the result of at least as many factors as leg length – and probably many more. So if "long legs=masculine" does not hold up – and I actually don’t believe that it does! – then your "high cheekbones=masculine" is even more dubious.

Here are some other facial features which, using your sort of argument with "high cheekbones", would be "masculine" - narrow faces, narrow noses, thin lips, narrow chins. In people of similar ethnic background, women have on average (proportionately) broader and rounder faces, shorter and broader noses, fuller lips, and rounder and less prominent chins.

"Survival of the Prettiest – the Science of Beauty", by Nancy Etcoff, is one of the major texts in the field of the evolutionary psychology of sexual attraction. Etcoff points out that high cheekbones are actually pretty worldwide in being regarded as attractive in women, and that many women use make-up to accentuate them. "…psychologist Michael Cunningham found that beautiful Asian, Hispanic, Afro-Caribbean, and Caucasian women had large, widely-spaced eyes, high cheekbones, small chins, and full lips." I think I can predict which of these features you would accept as "feminine", and which you wouldn’t.

Because, while inconsistent scientifically, you are totally consistent from the basis of your personal preferences and your theories about feminine beauty. You don’t like high cheekbones, which are of course not particularly caucasoid, let alone Northern European, and you do like long legs, which are more characteristic of your supreme feminine idols.

Now I personally think that the very long legs of quite a number of white, and even more black, women look rather too "masculine", especially when they are often associated with skinny ankles contrasting with large, bony feet. But I have absolutely no quarrel with those who like such long legs. I don’t think it’s because they are wrong, have poor taste, or are gay! I have no intention of trying to convert them to my viewpoint – as it’s purely a matter of personal taste. Nor do I wish to brand such long legs as "masculine", as if my subjective preferences somehow were the same as objective reality. I wouldn’t have the hubris.

More to follow if and when I can find the time.

Sarah: The “nice” words you have been using are obviously not coming from a feminine woman that is pleased by this site, and in case you have forgotten, you left your measurements, under an alias, in a separate entry.

You declined to even look at the link about Marx I pointed out because you have decided that it must be biased! Some great willingness to learn on your part! Why do you even bother coming back to this site? This site is not going to teach you anything. By the way, the site linked to referenced Marx and cronies in their own words, which help one understand the bankruptcy of their ideology and its subsequent devastation of the world. Fools like you believe that the devastation of communism resulted from its incomplete implementation. Some curious sociopolitical system communism is if it brings about destruction in its incomplete manifestation but would result in peace and prosperity in its complete manifestation!

Your plastic surgery statistics are useless. They presumably include males, elderly individuals, and are affected by the amount of personal disposable income (greater in richer countries). The plastic surgery discussion that you are responding to concerns itself with young adult women, and in the case of Asians it includes numerous instances of ethnic-looks-altering surgeries whereas among young adult white women the surgeries are usually not aimed toward altering ethnic looks; a few exceptions would involve some Southern European women sculpting their noses to look more Northern European. Lip thickening surgery in some white women would be the strongest candidate for ethnic-looks-altering surgery, but the purpose is typically not to alter ethnic looks but to have the lips look more feminine.

Jay: The discussion here is completely off-topic. Please do not worsen it by asking your kinds of questions. Email such questions to me instead.

Frank: I took the trouble of justifying in detail why your first comment here represented a failure to understand the arguments within this site, yet you accuse me of misunderstanding your arguments, passing indeterminate data as factual, unscientific reasoning, inconsistency, circular arguments, misquotation and using discredited sources with no justification whatsoever except for coming up with lame arguments on cheekbones and legs. Amazing! Please do not level serious charges without justifying them.

Now, to address your comment on cheekbones and legs. Nowhere have I argued that “ancestral” equates to ugly or masculine or that “derived” equates to beautiful and feminine. Do you seriously expect someone capable of coming up with this site to imply anything along these lines? To illustrate two examples, male pattern baldness was presumably less frequent/less severe among our primate ancestors, but the derived condition, namely increased frequency/severity of this condition is not in my opinion and presumably most others’, too, more attractive. Similarly, greater nasal bone prominence is the derived condition, yet masculinization also causes more prominent nasals, i.e., no one could argue that a derived feature is necessarily along the lines of a more feminine appearance.

You accuse me of labeling high cheekbones as masculine. Where have I done this? I have said that masculinization results in a higher placement of the cheekbones, the evidence for which is cited on the “feminine vs. masculine” page. You quote a passage from me about leg length variation caused my numerous factors other than variation in sex hormones and thereby relatively longer legs not necessarily implying masculinization, and then insist that a similar reasoning applies to comparisons involving the placement of the cheekbones on the face, and then argue that I am thus being inconsistent by labeling high cheekbones “masculine,” but I have nowhere made this assertion in the first place.


Here are some other facial features which, using your sort of argument with “high cheekbones”, would be “masculine” - narrow faces, narrow noses, thin lips, narrow chins. In people of similar ethnic background, women have on average (proportionately) broader and rounder faces, shorter and broader noses, fuller lips, and rounder and less prominent chins.

To think that the author of this site would imply your stupid statement! Once again, masculinization causes facial narrowing (shape), but I have nowhere used the cheekbones arguments you accuse me of making to imply than narrow faces are masculine by themselves. Besides, within the same ethnic group, the following shape differences apply: women have narrower noses (not broader noses) and men have wider chins (not narrower WHERE cid= '; see evidence on “feminine vs. masculine” page.

Your assertion that ‘“Survival of the Prettiest – the Science of Beauty”, by Nancy Etcoff, is one of the major texts in the field of the evolutionary psychology of sexual attraction’ is laughable. I read this book shortly after it came out. Etcoff has compiled tidbits of data for the layperson. The book has little in terms of a coherent, academic argument. Regarding the attractiveness of “high cheekbones,” it is common for numerous [ignorant] authors to label more horizontally prominent cheekbones as “high” when the height of cheekbones refers to where it vertically sits on the face. Since the female face shape is wider, it should not be surprising that, compared to the female average within an ethnic group, a slight shift toward wider cheekbones (mislabeled “high cheekbones”), wider-spaced eyes, smaller chins and fuller lips, all consistent with above average femininity, are aesthetically preferred around the globe. A salient argument of this website is that most people prefer above average femininity in the looks of women. By the way, I have read Cunnigham’s paper, too.

A clarifying comparison:


Raquel Zimmermann, Lilian Rose

The more masculine woman is shown on the left. Her face is narrower (shape) and her cheekbones are less horizontally prominent and sit higher on the face.

Please do not misrepresent my arguments or come up with straw men, and justify all of your accusations. Show evidence that you are an evolutionary biologist!

Erik you are up to your eyebrows in shit, sweetie.

I've never stated that I was "pleased" with this site of yours, only that it is continually entertaining, mostly in due part to your idiotic rants. Some things can be misinformative as well as entertaining, pea brain.

I also never stated I DIDN'T look at the link you provided, but only that I didn't take the time out to thoroughly look into it, only because in the first 10 seconds of clicking on the link, I laughed so hard I almost spat my drink out. That site is as obviously biased as YOUR OWN.

You also don't know ANYTHING about communism if you seriously believe that the political governments who tried it in their own countries were actually putting it to full potential, and not just using it to their own selfish advantage. They were dictators, not communist leaders, and that is the reason why fools like YOU believe communism is such a horrible thing. Of course, there is no reason in me going any further into this since you are incapable of understand or learning anything that creeps away from your ridiculous opinions, my closed-minded little puppy dog :)

So tell me again, why is that you believe when women of other ethnic races other than YOUR OWN get plastic surgery, it's because they want to look like white women, but when white women get plastic surgery, they are just trying to look more feminine? Again, you're so full of shit you probably can't even breathe. Asian women generally get eyelid surgery, and that only occurs in those who have very small eyes. However, white women get face lifts, rhinoplasty, collagen injected into their lips, breast implants, tummy tucks, etc etc. Please help me understand why, you intelligent little expert on beauty, it is that if an Asian woman gets surgery to have bigger eyes, they are trying to look more white, but if a white woman gets collagen injected into their lips, or bigger breasts, they aren't trying to look African-American (according to stereotypes)? Again, you are as dumb as they come. Bigger eyes is a sign of femininity, so if an Asian woman wants bigger eyes, it isn't because they want to look white; it's because they want to look more feminine. Black as well as Hispanic women have big eyes, too, but you don't hear yourself acknowledging that fact, do you? No, because you are a biased asshole. What about white women who dye their hair black, or wear their eyeliner in a slope for more of an almond shape? Do you think they're trying to look more Asian? OF COURSE NOT! But if an Asian woman wants bigger eyes, of COURSE they're trying to look more white! AHAHAHAHA

Again, I can't get anymore entertained at this hour of the day. I should really invest my time wisely so I can be sure to visit this site daily. After all, laughing contributes to good health.

As for my measurements I left under an "alias".. you're joking right? Do you really believe any woman, who isn't a plastic doll, or over the age of 18 would actually have a 30-22-30 body? According to the last time I checked, I wasn't an anorexic coke whore, nor a teenaged girl getting ready for prom. It was a joke you fool, and in me finding more hysterical things to laugh at from pretending to be the shallow, insecure little girls that come and visit your site and actually try to gain your approval, you actually BELIEVED it was serious and said "good luck with your prom" ahahahahaha

Oh and just so you know Erik, Sarah isn't my real name, nor is any other name I've used so far. Why would I feel obliglated to use my real name when this is just some silly site on the internet? And if you really don't want me to keep posting here, then why do you insist in responding to me? Oh wait that's right, you don't respond to everything I ask, just the things you choose to. I have already asked you to find more statistical evidence on plastic surgery around the world, yet you didn't come up with any because you know that you're a liar and you yourself don't even believe the things you say.

I'll be visiting again tomorrow if I can find the time.

Oh by the way Erik, why is it that you even bother trying to argue against those who claim that you are racist? Everything you have said so far would imply that you were. Racism doesn't exclude those who think their race is superior to others, in case you were too stupid to know what the word meant. This is also coming from someone who is half German, as well, but you never see me promoting myself nor my ethnicity, do you? Half this time I've been defending Asian women against your stereotypical attacks on them.

Also, why is that you even created this website? I'm just curious, since you claim to be yourself a "lifetime heterosexual." Could it be that you are actually a homosexual in denial, and that is why you are so obsessed with femininity in women? Trying to prove something, are you?

One more thing

I'm sure those people who decided to get eyelid surgery wanted to look "more European" right? AHAHAHHAHAHAHA



I’ve never stated that I was “pleased” with this site of yours, only that it is continually entertaining, mostly in due part to your idiotic rants. Some things can be misinformative as well as entertaining, pea brain.

I never implied that you have been pleased by this site. Besides, your exemplary language clearly shows how entertaining you find this site to be.

In your own words:


As for the link you sent me, I didn’t even bother looking through it since it obviously is a biased website.

As your statement stands, it would hold true if you didn’t read any of the stuff there.

Do the failures of communism result from dictators not communist leaders implementing it? If only you read what the worldview of unambiguous communist leaders such as Marx and buddies was! But, you won’t bother.

Get your facts about plastic surgery across ethnic groups straight. Your citation-less plastic surgery statistics are useless for reasons already mentioned, namely failing to address the age factor, the male factor, the disposable income factor, etc. The eyelid surgery that is common among Asian women in double eyelid surgery, i.e., creating two creases where only one exists. Look this up; I am not going to bother citing evidence, and I don’t care if you don’t believe me. I have cited a whole bunch of articles from peer-reviewed journals and you have cited none. I am not going to waste my time coming up with more citations since you will dismiss them anyway like you have the previously cited studies. If eye enlargement were the sole purpose, this could be achieved without creating a second crease. Dawn Yang above has undergone a bunch of surgeries, including a nose job that made her nose more prominent, which is not related to trying to get a more feminine look since feminization makes the nose less prominent. On the other hand, what forms of plastic surgery in white women are aimed toward altering ethnic looks? The frequency of lip implants among them is low, surely nothing approaching the frequency of double eyelid surgery among Asian women, and they are often done to counteract the ravages of aging. Similarly, few white women dye their hair black. Since you live in the U.S., you should know that white women who dye their hair black are far exceeded in numbers by those who dye it blonde. In addition, black hair is by no means a non-European feature. Some whites naturally have black hair. It is also very rare for white women to wear eyeliner that gives their eyes a slanted appearance. Hair dyes and eyeliners are also not examples of plastic surgery. To address whether some changes sought are related to feminization or altering ethnic features, you have to look at the frequency of the procedure and what kinds of surgical procedures cluster together. Lip implants are rare among young adult white women and they are not accompanied by other surgical procedures that suggest a desired shift toward any non-European population. Besides, non-European women, too, get face lifts, tummy tucks, etc. You see who is neck deep in bowel movements?

Your body measurements you left using an alias were not 30-22-30, but 30-23-31 at 5-foot-1 and 87-91 pounds (age 17). Doesn’t sound like a joke to me, and is consistent with how well you “appreciate” this site.

I am not attacking Asian women here in any stereotypical manner. This entry has nothing to do with Asian women. You brought them into the picture in reference to a caricature of my arguments, and then Frank joined in.

I have previously explained why I came up with this site:


A site like this has long been needed; read the FAQ for clarification. I didn’t see anyone come up with it, and since I could come up with it, I did. In addition, if the Gods ask me after my death, “We gave you knowledge; what did you do with it?”...what am I supposed to tell them...that I sat on the knowledge? Answering yes would get me a ticket to Hell. The problem of a dearth of feminine and attractive women among models and beauty pageant contestants, trivial as it is, is not being seriously addressed by others. Why shouldn’t I attempt to solve a challenging problem concerning something that I have been interested in since childhood?

I am under no delusion that your name is Sarah or another alias that you have used. I have no choice but to respond if someone smears my arguments, but there is only so much that I can take. I have banned one person so far and got another person to stop commenting here. If you keep coming up with absurdities or accusing me of racism or other serious negatives, you will have to choose between either of these options, too.

At 8:19 AM you posted this: "the 'nice' words you have been using are obviously not coming from a feminine woman who is pleased with this site"

Yes, that is exactly what you said, and you're just contradicting yourself by claiming you didn't say it. Just because I don't speak in a "nice" manner, doesn't mean I'm angry or unfeminine. I have absolutely no idea where you come up with the things you say, which is quite OBVIOUS to me that you're just BSing (is that nice enough for you? I didn't realize this website was designed for children. Sorry for the profanity).

I also wrote I didn't "look through it," not that I didn't look AT it. Looking through it would mean I read everything carefully, which I didn't, because I don't care enough about what some anti-communists have to say.

As for me "getting my facts straight," they are as straight as they can be. You are again trying to avoid my point, mainly because you don't know how to respond to it without showing all the world that you're an ignorant and biased fool.

Please answer my question: how is that if an Asian woman gets double eyelid surgery, it's because she want to look white, but if a white woman gets lip injections or breast implants, she aren't trying to look black? It doesn't matter if it's cosmetic surgery or not, but only that they are doing things to make themselves look like other ethnicities. If a white woman dyes her hair black,straightens their naturally curly hair, or wears black eyeliner to make their eyes look more Asian (, why aren't they trying to look more Asian? If a white woman tans (which nearly all of them do) and desires a full bottom, why aren't they trying to look more Latina? If a white woman gets lip injections/wears lip plumping gloss, or gets breast implants, why aren't they trying to look more African-American?

Many people would agree it isn't that they want to look like another ethnicity, but because they just have personal preferences as to what they want physically. It's the same with Asian woman wanting bigger eyes. Larger eyes also represents innocence, and youthfulness is very big in Asian culture.

You also said yourself that black hair is not just an Asian feature, but bigger eyes/double eyelids isn't just a European feature, either.

Again, you're a hypocrite and full of BS. Please go take a shower and wash out your filth.

I also find it completely hilarious that you're actually trying to bring me down by implying that I'm unfeminine. Those measurements I provided you were fake; it just proves how gullible you really are. Even at 5'1 and around 90 lbs., a 30-23-31 body is difficult to find in a female who is over the age of 18, and who doesn't insuffulate cocaine daily. Even if there is such a woman, I wouldn't necessarily call that unfeminine - too thin and petite for YOUR tastes (after all, you like your woman plump and meaty), but not masculine in the least. Her WHR would be around .75, which isn't masculine, anyways.

But you're sooooooo sure of what I look like right? Even if I told you that I have natural blue eyes, light brown hair, light skin, am 5'7 tall, size 24 in. waist, 34B breasts, you would still try to imagine me as a stout brown woman. LOL ahahahahaha

Just because I disagree with you on women you believe to be attractive, doesn't mean that I'm unfeminine looking. Although I would call putting my own picture up on here as desperate and lame, I'll show you a cropped image of the bottom half of my face and you can decide for yourself how masculine the rest of my face must be.

I have no problem with you blocking me from your site; I would just have to go find another source of entertainment, but this is YOURS, after all, and you have every right to be angry at those who question your character.

Have a nice day now, Erik ;)

*she isn't trying to look black.


Sarah: Yes, I did write that...


...the ‘nice’ words you have been using are obviously not coming from a feminine woman who is pleased with this site

...which obviously means that I implied that you have not been pleased by this site...

...whereupon you responded by stating...


I’ve never stated that I was “pleased” with this site of yours...

...which is to say that you agree with my statement that you have not been pleased with this site...

...whereupon I said...


I never implied that you have been pleased by this site...

...and now you state that...


Yes, that is exactly what you said, and you’re just contradicting yourself by claiming you didn’t say it.

So do you see who is the lunatic with piss-poor language comprehension? I am guessing that English is your native language, and kudos to your language skills!

When you say that you didn’t “look through it,” the following act is completely compatible with your description, namely that you looked at site layout, who set it up and the url but did not read any of the arguments, which would be describable as not looking “at” the arguments.

The one egregiously foolish ignoramus here is you. You ask me “how is that if an Asian woman gets double eyelid surgery, it’s because she want to look white”? Where have I implied the latter? I have implied that this surgery is often used to make one look less ethnic, but this does not mean that the woman is somehow trying to look white.

Your stupidity is well-illustrated in the following chart

Aesthetic surgery among whites and Asians

So who needs to stop wallowing in feces and see the light of reason? It is the Asian women, not white women, who are gravitating toward looking less ethnic, which is not to say they are trying to look white or whiter. As I have explained elsewhere, there is a preference among humans to prefer somewhat more derived than average faces. This means that, especially pertaining to the mid-facial region, some Asian women will try to shift their features toward the more derived end of the scale, which is going to considerably overlap with Europeanization because Europeans facial norms are the overall most derived among humans. This should not be described as an attempt to look white or whiter, but just more derived than average.

Now, the upper eyelid is a different matter. It is presently difficult to address it in terms of being an ancestral or derived feature, and I don’t think it is an ancestral feature, but many double eyelid surgeries retain ethnic features. For instance, in the following example, the ethnic element has been largely removed.

double eyelid surgery in Asian woman

However, in the following two examples, some ethnic element is retained.

double eyelid surgery in Asian woman

double eyelid surgery in Asian woman

Therefore, only some double eyelid surgeries could be described as an attempt to look white or whiter, but in light of the above, the situation is best described in terms of looking less Asian. By the way, Ms. Johansson’s eyes do not look Asian in the pictures you posted.

Do you seriously believe that by posting the cut out of an apparently feminine woman you will convince me that it is you? Why in the world would a feminine woman be pissed at this site? What mainstream opportunities do feminine women have to come to the limelight? I am trying to create mainstream opportunities for feminine and attractive women, and they would be the last to be pissed at me. All appreciative emails that I have received from women come from women that are feminine-looking, as their pictures have shown, or they are inferred to be feminine because of their self-described looks or the content of their emails.

A young woman with your 30-23-31 and 90 pounds stats at 5-foot-1 would not necessarily need to be on drugs to achieve it; some people are just naturally slightly built. And no, a WHR of 0.75 does not necessarily suggest femininity. High-fashion models often have reported WHRs in the neighborhood of 0.70, yet you can see how feminine they usually look.

Spare me the trouble of banning you; just get lost.

Hey Erik,

"You ask me “how is that if an Asian woman gets double eyelid surgery, it’s because she want to look white”? Where have I implied the latter? I have implied that this surgery is often used to make one look less ethnic, but this does not mean that the woman is somehow trying to look white."

This quote confuses me a little and I was wondering if you could clear it up for me. According to Wikipedia, "An ethnic group or ethnicity is a population of human beings whose members identify with each other, usually on the basis of a presumed common genealogy or ancestry." So how can someone aim to look less ethnic when everyone has an ethnicity?

Jump: The reference to ethnicity here concerns itself with physical appearance. By deviating -- in a specific manner -- from the norms of physical appearance for one’s ethnic group, one could look less ethnic. For instance, with respect to aesthetic double eyelid surgery among East Asians, you observe many men and women undergoing this surgery, and the directionality is clear: creation of a double crease where a single one exists but hardly any reverse cases, i.e., operating on the upper eyelid of young adults for aesthetic reasons generally serves to reduce ethnic looks.

So, as an example, eyelid operations on East Asians to create a double eyelid make said East Asians' appearance deviate more from the East Asian norm. So this means that people of a certain ethnicity will regard people of the same ethnicity as themselves as more attractive the less they look like the average person of said ethnicity? Would this apply to modifying one's appearance towards any ethnicity other than one's own?

lolz @ erik totally loosing it.

Hello, Erik! Sorry I haven't been able to visit and respond this whole week; I've been too busy with school.

What I should've stated instead of "I never said I was pleased with this site," was that I never said I was pleased OR displeased with it. There is no point in bringing up my "pleasure" factor with this ridiculous blog of yours. I have already told you MANY times that your website is pure amusement to me, and it's pretty hilarious you would think people come here to "learn" from you and your bigoted, ludicrous assumptions about beauty. I know you would really like to think I come here and try to argue with you because I'm pissed off or something, but I'm really not. I don't get angry easily, actually. It's just fun to have arguments with people, especially older people, who are dumber than me. I can see that you're getting quite angry with ME, though, by the words and phrases you choose to use, and threatening to ban me from here (boo hoo). Despite my personal loathing of you, however, I just wanted to thank you for not banning me yet, so that I can come here every weekend and laugh at you for being such a gullible little puppy dog.

As for your ridiculous chart that you probably spent hours on........

1. White women have obviously the most variety of natural haircolors, while Asian women mostly just have naturally dark brown or black hair. If an Asian woman decides she wants to lighten her hair, it isn't to look less ethnic, dimwit. I have been coloring my hair for 8 years now, and have practically had every single natural haircolor out there. It isn't because I wanted to look like a certain ethnicity, but because I was just experimenting and wanted to change things up a little. But of course, you would NEVER consider than possiblity, now would you?

2. A lot of women from all different races get eye and nose surgery. What's your point? The fact is, in modern times, a big nose is considered unattractive. Rarely anyone ever gets surgery to make their nose bigger. Big noses usually do not occur in Asians - they mostly occur in Ashkenazi Jews. I don't consider Jewish people different than Caucasians, do you? So, no. You're wrong again. Nice try though.

3. Your "comments pertaining to Asians" and "Altering Ethnic looks" yes or no checkbox don't correlate. You might want to fix that.

Compared to the before pictures, the after pictures of the women who had double eyelid surgery don't look any less ethnic. Their eyes stand out more and are more attractive (mostly to do with the makeup they're wearing afterwards) but you could clearly tell that they are still Asian. Double eyelids are common in a lot of Asians, anyways, but that doesn't mean they are less ethnic looking than those who don't have double eyelids.

"Do you seriously believe that by posting the cut of an apparently feminine woman you will convince me that it's you?"

AHAHAHAHHAHA.. gee, I don't know whether to take this as a compliment or not. Erik of thinks I'm feminine looking..... nope. Sorry, it doesn't change my opinion about you and the fact that you're probably an ugly homo. Thanks for finally realizing that I'm more attractive than most of the women you have on this site, though ;)

30-23-31 wouldn't be unfeminine if it belongs to a girl who was 17 (like I pretended I was) and was 5'1, idiot. This is what those measurements would probably look like:

Thin and kind of scrawny, but unfeminine? Definitely not, and especially not if her face was feminine as well. I know you're not into toned bodies and tiny wastes, but I doubt any other straight male out there, who is also 17, would reject a girl like that, providing that her face was also attractive.

Here is the full picture of her. I didn't think her face was feminine enough for her body but whatever; you like ugly faces anyways.

The reason I choose to mess with you isn't because I feel offended about you ragging on fashion models/masculine women; after all, you already said yourself that my face is feminine according to your standards, and although my 34b-24-34 measurements are exactly the most curvy, I am happy and confident enough to consider myself attractive. You just need to accept the fact that I'm not the only one that thinks you're a pedophile and a racist bigot, ok puppy?

So there you go Erik. Feel free to block me whenever you wish :)

8D: yea I would say Erik probably has steam coming out of his ears right now ahahahaha

"By the way, Ms. Johannson's eyes do notlook Asian in the pictures you posted."

First of all, smart ass, there is only one picture of Scarlett, and second, OF COURSE HER EYES DON'T LOOK ASIAN. My point was to show you that sometimes white women wear their makeup in ways that resemble Asian women, just like some Asian women put on makeup or get surgery to look like they have bigger eyes. I highly doubt Scarlett Johannson wants to be Asian; however, I also doubt Asian women want to look white (oh excuse me, "less ethnic").

Jump: The double eyelid surgery example among East Asians by no means implies that “people of a certain ethnicity will regard people of the same ethnicity as themselves as more attractive the less they look like the average person of said ethnicity.” After all, averageness is a correlate of beauty. However, there are also correlates of beauty that correspond to deviation from the average. The averageness correlate bounds the extent to which deviation from the average, in specific ways, will correspond to greater beauty. The upper eyelid structure issue among East Asians is a specific example where a less ethnic look is preferred by many Asians, which does not imply that a less ethnic look will be preferred on all other counts also. The example certainly doesn’t suggest anything along the lines of “modifying one’s appearance towards any ethnicity other than one’s own.” For instance, you will almost never come across East Asians requesting aesthetic rhinoplasty (nose job) to shift their noses toward sub-Saharan African norms.

Sarah: Stop commenting here. If you find this site entertaining, read it, but don’t comment. You have repeatedly come up with abusive posts, ad hominem, character assassination, misrepresentations and have clearly not understood a number of my arguments. You also do not have a sufficient background in science to be debating scientific issues. Just stop commenting.

Now that your pathetic exchange regarding the extent to which you have been pleased by this site has been clarified, you have come up with a statement that you should have added that you never implied that you were displeased with this site either. Anybody who takes the trouble of reading your comments in this thread alone and elsewhere, too, along with your aliases such as “.” without the quotes, maddie, Madeline and SH will realize right away that you have been very displeased by this site, most likely because you are nowhere close to looking feminine and have a high opinion of your looks. You wrote, “Despite my personal loathing of you...” Why would someone hate another if she were not displeased by the hated person? You tell me that you don’t get angry easily, but a number of your comments above have surely been the product of a really pissed off and angered person. You enjoy arguing with people who are dumber than you? Sane individuals do not enjoy this act since it can be difficult or impossible to get someone to understand an issue that requires higher intelligence.

The following is a response to your 3 points with respect to the chart.

1. There are obviously numerous reasons behind hair dyes. People dying their hair green or blue are certainly not trying to look like another ethnicity. When people dye their hair a natural human color that is either not present or so rare as to be practically absent among their ethnic group, the effect here is to make one look less ethnic. This is not to say that the hair dye was specifically intended to make one look like another ethnic group, which is an argument that you have again accused me of making, notwithstanding my correction of your earlier accusation regarding double eyelid surgery among East Asians. White women cannot end up looking less ethnic regardless of what hair color naturally found among humans they dye their hair to.

2. Yes indeed, a number of women in all ethnic groups get eye and nose surgery for aesthetic purposes. However, the point is clear in the chart, which you have either not understood or don’t care to acknowledge. Whites do not use eyelid surgery and nose surgery for aesthetic purposes to look less European, whereas many among the East Asians seeking these aesthetic surgeries aim to look less Asian. There is much more to the form of a nose than mere size. An Ashkenazim reducing the size of her nose for aesthetic purposes will not try to shift nose shape toward East Asian or sub-Saharan African norms, but will usually shift shape toward more European norms. If you regard the Ashkenazi as European, then the aesthetic rhinoplasty patients among them will generally seek to make their nose look more European (most European-looking noses are found among Nordics), whereas many East Asian aesthetic rhinoplasty patients will seek to make their nose look less Asian, not more Asian (e.g., making their nose bridge more prominent rather than less prominent).

3. My comments pertaining to Asians and altering ethnic looks correlate very well. I posted three pictures of double eyelid surgery patients to show that in numerous cases some level of ethnic look pertaining to the eye is retained to counter your allegation that I implied that this surgery is used by Asian women to look whiter. You claim that the women “don’t look any less ethnic” after the surgery, which is patently false. In all cases, there has been a clear reduction of ethnic looks in the upper eyelid, and the least in the third picture. These women don’t have to stop look Asian for me to say that there has been a reduction in ethnic looks. Yes, there are many Asians with a natural double crease in the upper eyelid, and their upper eyelids look less Asian, on average, compared to those with a single crease. Just compare the second patient with the third patient in the 3 pictures posted previously. The second patient had a natural double crease in the upper eyelid, but still used surgery to shift the crease toward even less ethnic looks.

Regarding a 5-foot-1, 30-23-31 physique, for the same measurements, the physique could vary along the masculinity-femininity scale depending on breast size, backside protrusion, etc. If this woman has a C-cup, her rib cage would be clearly smaller than a woman with an A- or AA-cup, and the former case would look more feminine. Similarly, the woman could have not-so-wide hips but more prominent buttocks or wider hips but flatter buttocks for the same hip measurement. A woman with such measurements could also have shoulders varying from broad to narrow. What is clear is that your physique is unfeminine and on the masculine side and you have a high opinion of your physique or else you would not be so pissed off at this site. If your physique looked like the cut out of the woman’s physique pointed out by you, then you would not have a problem with this site. Don’t tell me that I don’t like toned bodies and a tiny waist. The attractive women section is full of women with a tiny waist and good muscle tone.

This site is incorrectly viewed as my ragging on fashion models/masculinized women. I do not have any problems with fashion models or masculinized women. My problems are with the homosexuals using masculinized women for purposes that they are not suited for. Don’t misunderstand me. I have not said that your face is feminine. I don’t know how it looks like. What I can be reasonably certain of is that the partial face cut-out you posted does not show you. If you are happy and confident enough to consider yourself attractive, then all I have to say is may the Gods bless you and I hope that you continue to feel this way regardless of the contents of this site, but you need to stop commenting here.


In your website you a pictures of a blonde haired woman which says underneath neither feminine nor masculine but still looks good, I was curious to know what you mean by neither feminine nor masculine si it possible to be neither feminine nor masculine and if so isnt it the ideal to be in the middle would it not be overall attractuive not leanining too much to one side of the scale?

Amy: You are referring to this woman. A woman who is neither feminine nor masculine is in the middle of the masculinity-femininity range. Yes, there are some advantages to being in the middle of the range, and there are even some advantages to being on the masculine side. I will come up with an entry titled "sexually antagonistic selection" where I will address some important advantages and disadvantages of lying at various points of the masculinity-femininity range.

Erik it would just seem obvious that to be in the middle of the scale i.e neither completely feminine nor completely masucline would give you the best of both worlds and would be the overall ideal. I was curious to know how you come to the comnclusion oine is neither too masculine nor too feminine is it a case of the masucline and feminine physical features evenly balance?

Amy: The advantages and disadvantages of lying along various points on the masculinity-femininity distribution differ. Compared to the average, somewhat above average femininity among women would correspond to better fertility and fecundity as well as higher attractiveness ratings by most people. Therefore, with respect to some characteristics, being average is not the ideal, and given the importance of attractiveness in numerous scenarios, being average is not necessarily the overall ideal in various scenarios.

To conclude that a woman is in the middle of the masculinity-femininity distribution based on overall looks one would need to be familiar with the subtlety of physical variation resulting from masculinization and feminization, and infer averageness if most features suggest placement close to the average with at most a few features suggesting above average femininity or above average masculinity.


I haven’t had any time to look at your site recently, so I am going to have to ignore for the time being any reply you may have made in the last fortnight or so, to point out a number of mistakes and non-sequiturs in your earlier replies to myself.

About “stereotyping” there are at least two further instances of this. The first concerns your posting of the three faces, the one which went - From left to right: average North American white, attractive Korean, average Korean (Korean women rated by Korean judges). Once again, I am astonished at the lengths you go to try and defend a part of your viewpoint which you constantly claim isn’t important to you. Looking around the net for material about racial appearance is clearly a major activity of yours.

You claimed that your little picture gallery showed that I got it exactly opposite to the facts by saying that the ‘average typical Asian face is more “caucasian” than the supposed stereotypical one’.

Now firstly the “average typical Asian” isn’t the same as the “average typical Korean” – Koreans have a higher proportion of epicanthus than any other major Asian people.

But even accepting your pictures as typical of Asians as a whole, it DOESN’T disprove my point, because NONE of the pictures is of a stereotypical “Mongoloid” Asian as described and pictured by the typological race classifiers of the early and mid 20th century!!! This would be way to the right of the “average Korean” you pictured. A look at a representative sample of supposed “typical Mongoloids” in books and papers produced by those sort of scholars will confirm this. So the average typical Asian face IS to the left, and thus apparently more “Caucasian”, than the stereotypical one produced by the European typological race classifiers.

You then take exception to my description as to how a stereotypical “Caucasoid” would look like.

What I was doing was simply taking what European typological race classifiers did when stereotyping East Asian “Mongoloids”, black African “Negroids” etc., and doing it in reverse. What these race classifiers did was to take the what seemed to them the most extreme features of these other “races”, i.e. those where they differed most from the European norm, and then use these to characterize the stereotypes.

Look at it from the perspective of an East Asian. He comes westwards, and looks at the caucasoids. He then takes the most extreme features – those which strike him as most dissimilar to himself – such as very large hooked noses, lots and lots of body hair, very long and narrow faces etc.etc. and uses these to stereotype “caucasoids” (or whatever he would call them).

Note that he does not distinguish between the various sub-groups of caucasoids - Middle Easterners, Southern Europeans, Northern Europeans etc.etc.. – just as the European race classifiers did not distinguish between Japanese, Northern Chinese, Southern Chinese etc. Nor has he any knowledge of your theory that Northern Europeans have the most “derived” features and therefore, according to this theory, the Northern Europeans are the most “extreme” caucasoids. No, to him, going purely on superficial initial appearance, it is those with very heavy body hair (and caucasoids as a whole have heavier body hair than East Asians), large hooked noses etc. who are the stereotypical caucasoids.

Of course he is wrong to so stereotype caucasoids that way! But that is precisely what the European race classifiers were doing when they stereotyped East Asians, black Africans etc.etc. The purpose of my description of a stereotypical “caucasoid”, was to point out the flaws in the way the European race classifiers stereotyped other races – not to claim that my stereotypical “Caucasoid” was actually a valid stereotype!

And, by the way, don’t think that people who have one or more of the features which I mentioned in my “stereotypical caucasoid” (which remember I didn’t propose as a proper stereotype!) don’t exist among your beloved Northern Europeans. I’ve lived in England virtually all my life, and believe me I’ve seen plenty of people with really huge hooked noses. A programme on our TV a few weeks ago featured a fisherman from Cornwall, and his daughter, who both had such noses. In the case of the man, when you saw his head in profile, the nose was virtually as long as the rest of the head. A member of the Scottish indie rock band “Travis” has a massive hooked nose. Since such a feature is clearly not “ancestral”, I wonder why you reacted with such fury to my putting it into the false stereotype! But of course, it is not a feature of your stereotype of feminine beauty.

Actually, in this case, I am sure that the majority of men would agree with you. Which makes me that much happier when I see couples in which a woman with a large hooked nose has managed to find love – because fortunately not all men are obsessed with a particular limited stereotype of feminine beauty.


Here are some other statements of yours which just don’t stand up to scrutiny.

You wrote: “I have neither used nor implied anything along the lines of “more evolved.””

Well, you continually use the term “derived”. Can you explain how your use of “derived” differs from the concept of “more evolved”? For that matter, can you explain how “ancestral” – the term you use as the opposite of “derived” – differs from “less evolved” or “primitive”?

Certainly the use of such terms as “more” or “less evolved” is problematic because the ideas have been used in the past with value loading i.e. “more evolved” = “better”, “less evolved” = ”worse”. The answer is to use such terms while making clear that they are NOT value loaded. However what you have done is to replace these terms with “derived” and “ancestral”, while actually keeping the value loading, indeed adding to this, “ancestral” = ”ugly, not feminine (in women)”, “derived” = ”beautiful, feminine” etc.

You write: “Once again, I have argued that it is not objectively possible to compare the attractiveness of people from different ethnic groups, not that Europeans are most attractive.”

But you do often claim that there are “numerous objective correlates” to beauty, so obviously you DO believe that it is “possible to compare the attractiveness of people from different ethnic groups”, as is obvious in your many comments about East Asians, who you clearly do think of as less attractive than Europeans. The question of whether there are “objective correlates” to beauty is an interesting one, which I will deal with in another post. For now, I point out that the word “objective” is often used in a rather loose and misleading way (indeed I was guilty of this myself in my first post in this forum, which was posted unedited).

As for your denial that you believe that Europeans are superior in beauty, you write:
“I have also addressed whether the extent of Europeanization is a correlate of beauty and come to the conclusion that it isn’t. What may superficially seem to be a preference for European facial features, as in the Korean example above, is actually a universal preference for a somewhat more overall derived than average face shape, which just happens to considerably overlap with Europeanization given that Europeans have the most overall derived face shape (not most derived on all counts).”

That is as if someone wrote:
“I have also addressed whether the evidence shows that whites are more intelligent than blacks and come to the conclusion that it doesn’t. What may superficially seem to be greater intelligence among whites than among blacks is actually because of the distribution of genes for high intelligence, which just happens to considerably overlap with white populations given that whites have the highest concentration of genes for high intelligence”.

Whatever be the facts of the case, anyone who writes the latter clearly does believe in European/white superiority in intelligence – just as you clearly do believe in European/white superiority in beauty. (Incidentally, you also use the word "universal" in a rather loose and misleading way).

And it is NOT a GIVEN that “Europeans have the most overall derived face shape”. I know of quite a few prominent and reputable anthropologists who would disagree with you on this, and many others who would deny that you could really say that ANY modern population had more “derived” features than others. Others would deny that this “ancestral vs. derived” scenario had any real scientific value at all, in this context.

Your “not most derived on all counts” merely signifies that you are prepared to allow that a few insignificant “derived” features might be allowed to other groups. I am sure however that you believe that all the really important “derived” features are characteristic of Europeans/caucasoids/whites – indeed that they are characteristic especially of Northern Europeans.

There is actually a massive problem with your whole “ancestral” vs. “derived” scenario, in that these terms seem to acquire an absolute value which they don’t possess. For a feature which is, at one time and one place, “ancestral” can be, at another time and/or another place, “derived” and vice-versa. Take for example one of your favourite examples of ugly ancestral features – mid-facial flattening. Firstly, there are different types of mid-facial flattening – that found among many black Africans is NOT the same as that found among many East Asians, and any competent physical anthropologist can tell the difference. Furthermore, mid-facial flattening could in certain instances be the result of neoteny – and hence a derived rather than an ancestral feature.

But I don't expect you to accept that.


If you want me to stop commenting, then why do you insist on responding? What is it that bothers you about me commenting on your blogs? Is it the fact that I choose to disagree with you and point out to you what an ass you are? Is it my supposed "profane" language? This wouldn't be as entertaining for me if I couldn't comment, so if you want, I'll be sure to go over my entries when I am finished and try to tone it down a little, since after all, this website is directed at little children, right? I apologize for my "abusive" behavior.

I already stated time and time again that the reason I dislike you is not because of your overall message about femininity, but because you come up with ridiculous racist suggestions about attractiveness, as well as the fact that you are the biggest hypocrite on the internet and don't even know it. I admit at first, when someone linked to your website on a forum thread, I was quite pleased that SOMEONE finally acknowledged how ridiculous the fashion industry portrays some women as beautiful. Most fashion models (mostly those on the catwalks) have never been attractive to me. However, when you started ragging on certain Victoria Secret models, who I personally have always thought were deserving of their positions, I decided to post comments stating my disagreement with you. That wasn't how my loathing of you started, though. I decided to look further into other parts of this website, and found your "beauty pageant" link to be offensive and unneccessary, and then realized that it was pretty ridiculous of me in the first place to actually respect your "work," considering the fact that I finally realized what a douche bag you are. I may agree with you on some things pertaining to what is attractive and/or feminine, but I will never agree with nor ignore your arguments on femininity or lack thereof among different races. Why is that even an issue, anyways? Were you TRYING to offend people? Frank, as well as myself and others have already provided you with multiple counter arguments to your "Europeans are holier than thou" opinion, yet you refused to acknowledge them and even decided to be RUDE to those that weren't even rude in the first place. Could it possibly be that you have run out of arguments yourself? Can't list anymore plausible researches you have found? Oh right.. they were never plausible in the first place.

As you can see, my discontent with you isn't because of my "lack of femininity." Even if I was a straight up-and-down stick and had the same facial features of Hercules, that still would not be the main reason I dislike you as a human being. Some of your points on femininity in the fashion industry are very valid, and even if I disagreed with you on some of your arguments (like the fact those such as Adriana Lima are masculine/unattractive,) it would still never bother me as much as your racial superiority arguments would. That's the reason MOST people that have ever commented here are discontent with you and choose to point out to others what a jerk you are.

The standards of what is universally beautiful in this modern day is completely different than that in history. Have you ever seen paintings from, say, the French Revolution which depict "beauties" such as Marie Antoinette? Surely, rarely anyone nowadays would consider her attractive. She was pastey, had very protruding, creepy eyes, was probably extremely overweight, etc etc, according to her paintings. Ever heard of the three Ancient Chinese Beauties? Ever seen artwork of them? They were also very unattractive according to beauty standards today. However, that is what was considered beautiful then, and the standards of beauty will always change. A typically ethnic East Asian nose was probably considered very beautiful back in China years ago. In fact, I'm sure if an Asian beauty today (Zhang Ziyi, for example) lived back then, she would be considered UNattractive. However, because Asia is now so greatly influenced by the West, their beauty standards have changed indefinitely to what ours is like. I'm pretty damn sure when most Asian women get surgery, it is because they want to be more beautiful according to the universal standard, and not to look less ethnic. Looking less ethnic is a "side-effect" of looking more beautiful, however. Today, the general agreement of what is beautiful mostly consists of medium to big eyes, long eyelashes, small nose, pouty lips, etc etc. The doll look, I suppose. (There are exceptions as well.) That look is most common in Europeans, and even in a lot of Eurasians, and maybe even Hispanics and blacks. It isn't purely European. I'm sure as time goes on, the standard of beauty will change along with the rest of the world, though.

I agree that a girl with a 30-23-31 size measurement with a bigger cup size would be more feminine, but doesn't having a 30 inch bust and 23 inch waist already proves that they have a small ribcage? How is it that if someone with bigger breasts has a smaller one than one with smaller breasts, if their measurement around their chest is the same? The size of their ribcage isn't different; it's just their cup size.

I also believe the cut of the young girl I pasted has size A cups, yet you still consider her to be feminine looking. My body is actually curvier than hers, yet you still insist on me being masculine. How ironic! And quite amusing, actually. But of course, you still believe that I am in fact 5'1 and have the measurements of 30-23-31 ;)

You said yourself that my face is "apparently feminine." Don't take it back now just because you fail in your attempt to lower my self-esteem. Even if you said that my face was unfeminine, I would still know you were lying, since everything about my facial features correlate with your arguments about what is feminine (small nose, full lips, baby cheeks.) In actuality, most people have told me I always looked too young for my age, but of course, you condone looking younger because you haven't come out of the pedophile closet yet.

I guess you'll just have to face the fact that not everyone who disagrees with your preposterous arguments is just bitter because they are unfeminine themselves. What about the guys? Of course you couldn't possibly say it is because they are pissed you rag on THEM. As for gay fashion designers enforcing their views of beauty onto society... you are doing the exact same thing. You should have a problem with yourself, as well, if you're going to be so displeased with homosexual designers.

Frank: So you have come across mistakes and non-sequiturs in my reply to you? Let us what these are.

Searching the net for pictures of people of different ethnic backgrounds isn’t a “major activity” of mine. I needed some pictures to address aesthetics in international beauty pageants...that is about it. Regarding the three faces in a row above, I didn’t search the regular net for it. The image is taken from a peer-reviewed journal article, which I came across while doing a Pubmed search.

I have already noted that the average East Asian obviously isn’t the same as the average Korean, but Koreans, Chinese and Japanese are a lot closer to each other than either of them is to Europeans. Therefore, the central tendency of what the Choe et al.’s study shows is easily applicable to Chinese vs. European or Japanese vs. European, especially since the Chinese and Japanese, too, are known to prefer facial features shifted toward less ethnic [also more European] norms.

If early anthropologists picked East Asians with more Asian than average features to show representative examples, then this is not relevant to this discussion. Of course, you have not cited a single example, let alone the many examples needed to back up this assertion. Your comment to Brenda was:


Brenda, note that because the average typical Asian face is more “caucasian” than the supposed stereotypical one, many of the Asians who seem to be wanting to look more “caucasian”, are doing so because that is actually making them look more like the true average typical Asian. Thus the “caucasian” aspect isn’t the real goal.

Am I supposed to believe that your reference to the “stereotypical” Asian face is a decades-old reference when you are using it to try to explain a contemporary phenomenon? The appropriate conclusion is that your point is refuted because any reasonable person would conclude that you are talking about the supposed “stereotypical” face as of present.

Your description of a European with exaggerated European features from the viewpoint of a naïve East Asian observer was clearly off the mark. Anyone who is aware of basic human physical variation and travels from the Mediterranean region to Northern Europe would clearly note that Northern Europeans look more European, even if you ignore pigmentation. This has been shown in craniofacial studies, too. How could this naïve East Asian fail to notice a reduction in body hairiness as he goes up north? How could he fail to notice that whereas lips get thinner as he goes north, the Scandinavians get thicker-lipped? How could this person fail to notice a drastic reduction in the frequency of hooked noses as he goes up north? I have not insisted that there are no hook-nosed Northern Europeans; hooked-noses are found in all populations (see East Asian). The average North European nose profile is so far removed from a hooked nose that it is not possible to imagine an exaggerated version of it being hooked, especially since in the north the nasal bones are more prominent but the lower part of the nose is less prominent, the opposite tendency that would be required for a high frequency of a hook-nosed appearance. Your exaggerated European is fiction. The naïve East Asian would not come up with it. And, once again, you have not backed up your assertion about early European anthropologists using comparably exaggerated ethnic examples en masse...this appears to be another straw man by you.

Can I explain how “derived” differs from “more evolved” or how ancestral differs from “less evolved” or “primitive”? What is meant by “more evolved” or “less evolved”? I have not encountered these concepts in my readings of the biological sciences. You are coming up with more straw men. “Primitive” is easy to explain; it used to mean ancestral, but acquired a negative connotation, namely inferior, presumably because of a stupid straw man, and is thereby best avoided. “Ancestral” is value-neutral. My usage of derived and ancestral is value-neutral. Nowhere have I asserted that ancestral is not feminine or that derived is feminine.

Just because I have talked about objective correlates of beauty does not mean that I have argued that it is possible to objectively compare the attractiveness of individuals from different ethnic groups. My argument is that individuals within an ethnic group can be objectively compared as far as most people are concerned but not individuals belonging to separate ethnic groups.

Your intelligence analogy is nonsense. The reason why a preference for a somewhat more overall derived than average face shape is not the same as a preference for Europeanization is because this discriminant is not coincident with Europeanization; it just considerably overlaps with it. And, whereas a superficial reading could suggest that by virtue of having a face shape that is overall more derived than other humans, Europeans are favored in the beauty department, I have clearly argued that there are many other correlates of beauty, an important one being averageness, which applies within ethnic groups but not between ethnic groups, which is what prevents an objective comparison between individuals from different ethnic groups. Therefore, I have not argued that European women look better. You have simply failed to understand the argument.

I have no doubts that you would be able to find prominent and reputable anthropologists who would disagree that Europeans have the overall most derived face shape or insist that all modern human populations are comparably derived in facial features from their common ancestor or that ancestral vs. derived has no scientific value “in this context.” For instance, the deceased S. J. Gould comes to mind. However, I’d be impressed if you could find anthropologists who can scientifically justify any of these arguments.

I have not asserted that European faces are not the most derived on all counts because I am “prepared to allow that a few significant “derived” features might be allowed to other groups,” but because I know of features such as the extent of flattening of the forehead in side view, the depth of the infraglabellar notch and the robusticity of the supra-orbital region where Europeans are not the most derived. However, the overall issue is clear.

So an ancestral feature at one time can be more derived at another and vice versa. What is this? Think about overall looks like the tendency of mid-facial flattening to correlate with jaw protrusion; take a look at the canonical correlates analysis that I cited previously and also our closest primate relatives. It should be very clear what more overall derived means.

I have not described mid-facial flattening as ugly. I have also cited extensive data about variation in the extent of flatness of different parts of the mid-face across various human populations. Therefore, don’t tell me about different types of mid-facial flattening. If mid-facial flattening is a result of neoteny in any human population, then I am not aware of such data. I have cited evidence that the concept of neoteny does not apply to human face shape, with at most the regression of the jaw being partly neotenous. Neoteny does apply to face size in humans though, but the face of East Asians is absolutely larger than in Europeans in spite of East Asians having a smaller average body size. The mid-facial flatness of East Asians compared to Europeans has nothing to do with neoteny.

This is a useless discussion. Please stop coming up with straw men and make an effort to understand what I have argued.

Sarah: If I avoid responding to your comments, this will not ensure that you will not leave comments in newer entries. Additionally, I can’t just not respond when I encounter smear and misrepresentation. I have already explained why I don’t want you to comment here. The reasons have nothing to do with your disagreeing with me. Plenty of people have expressed their disagreement with me at the blog. What would be the point of allowing people to comment if I only wanted people to comment if they agreed with me? Foul language on your part is not a reason by itself either. Anyone that has read enough of this blog knows that I usually ignore profanity. However, when a particular commentator repeatedly comes up with profane and foul commentary, then what choice do I have but to ask this person to behave? People who do not have a valid criticism are most strongly tempted to resort to foul language and insults. This is the reason why it is necessary to ask a repeat offender to behave so as to keep the focus on valid criticism.

The basic reason why I want you to stop commenting here is your inability to understand numerous scientific issues, obviously due to insufficient background. As a result, you continually misrepresent my stances and make me repeat many of my counter-arguments. This cannot be allowed indefinitely, and it is all but certain that you will not change. For instance, in your last comment, after saying, “I apologize for my “abusive” behavior,” you called me the “biggest hypocrite on the internet,” “douche bag,” “jerk” and someone in the “pedophile closet.” I believe this should clarify why I want you to stop commenting here.

Here is a brief response to your misrepresentations of/failure to understand my arguments in your last comment:


You accuse me of making “ridiculous racist suggestions about attractiveness” and coming up with “racial superiority arguments.” You have yet to refute anything in the “aesthetics in international beauty pageants (AIBP)” section on scientific grounds. This section clearly argues that physical attractiveness cannot be objectively compared across different ethnic groups. I have already responded to Frank’s caricature in this regard.

You talk about my “arguments on femininity or lack thereof among different races.” Firstly, as it should be clear, the AIBP section is not addressing actual femininity (would require hormonal assays, steroid receptor profiles, etc.), but the femininity of physical appearance. The argument should also be clear that masculine and feminine women are found in all ethnic groups. An argument was made that Northern European women are overrepresented among the most overall feminine-looking women. This argument was a minor point of the AIBP section, which is a small part of this site. The AIBP section discusses numerous correlates of beauty apart from masculinity-femininity. When the AIBP section was initially posted, it was in the form of an obscure link inside the left column because I had intended this section to be a minor part of this site, but only after multiple reader requests did I put it within the main site navigation column. Therefore, you, Frank and others like D’Artagnan have made a big deal out of a minor part of just one of several sections of this site, a section that was originally meant to be a minor part of this site. You have asked me what was the purpose of addressing femininity of appearance within the AIBP section and whether I was trying to offend people. The purpose was clearly stated in the introduction to this section, i.e., an examination of whether people from different ethnic groups can be objectively compared with respect to attractiveness to a degree exacting enough for international beauty pageants...the goal being to improve these pageants by applying these objective standards if they exist or to reorganize them to retain a maximal focus on physical attractiveness if objective criteria could not be found.

Here is a type of argument by you that I have low tolerance for:


You said –


Frank, as well as myself and others have already provided you with multiple counter arguments to your “Europeans are holier than thou” opinion, yet you refused to acknowledge them and even decided to be RUDE to those that weren’t even rude in the first place.

What you call counter arguments are nothing but ad hominem, misrepresentations and misunderstandings, and I have responded to all of them with sufficient citations taken from peer-reviewed journals. I don’t like it when your kind of pathetic arguments are described as superior to an empirical argument. You come up with the absurd suggestion that I believe “Europeans are holier than thou.” If so, why would I be pointing out the masculinization and unattractiveness of so many European models and beauty pageant contestants? I don’t believe that I have been rude to those who weren’t rude to me in the first place.

Here are additional issues that you have made me repeat:


You accuse me of “ragging on certain Victoria Secret models.” I have repeatedly pointed out that my criticism is not directed toward the models but the people/circumstances selecting them for purposes that they are not suited for.

Like I said before, I have not said that your face is apparently feminine; the latter described the picture you posted, and I stated that I don’t believe that it is your picture.

I have already noted that I have not been trying to lower your self-esteem. If you like your looks, I hope you continue liking them. I have not argued that a woman who bitterly disagrees with this site, like you, is necessarily masculine, but that your comments suggest that you are unfeminine and on the masculine side and have a high opinion of your looks. There are masculinized women lacking a high opinion of their looks who would never be as pissed off as you are at this site.

Whereas gay fashion designers are responsible for using masculinized women when feminine ones are needed, I am not arguing that feminine women should be used when masculinized models are required, i.e., I am not aiming for the inverse of what gay fashion designers are doing.

Here is a response to other points by you:


What examples do you pick to illustrate that “what is universally beautiful in this modern day is completely different than that in history”? A painting of Marie Antoinette. She was a famous individual. What indication is there that her painting was meant to epitomize beauty as universally held by the French? You also mention paintings of some ancient Chinese beauties. There are not a whole lot of ancient Chinese paintings depicting the human form in hyperrealistic form. Therefore, what indication is there that these ancient beauties would be very unattractive by modern Chinese standards? You even use the term “universally beautiful,” even though this site makes it clear that there are a limited number of universal standards. Some standards that can be considered to be near-universal are blemishless skin, and you can bet that people in the past generally preferred it, too, if their culture did not mandate ritual scarification or equivalent. Some correlates of beauty discussed within this site are characterized by broad agreement in the population but not universality.

You just guess that some Chinese beauties would be considered unattractive in the past. You are saying that East Asian beauty standards have been affected by Western influence. Why hasn’t Western influence made East Asians aim to become westernized on other counts that are prominent characteristics of the West? For instance, why are not East Asians welcoming immigrants of a different ethnic background in large numbers? Why are these East Asians not as welcoming of homosexuals as the Dutch and Canadians? Do you believe that East Asians do not have a mind independent enough to develop their own likes and dislikes? Exposure to Westerners has merely made a preference among East Asians more prominent, namely higher attractiveness ratings on their part of Asian faces that are more overall derived than average, thereby closer to European norms.

A 5-foot-1 woman with 30-23-31 measurements and small breasts does not have a small rib cage for her frame. To answer your question, it should be obvious that if the breasts get larger, the rib cage has to get smaller to maintain the same bust circumference.

I did not call the cut out of the young woman’s physique you posted feminine. All I said was that if your physique looked like the cut out of the woman’s physique, then you would not have a problem with this site.

Take home message: stop commenting here.

So Erik you know a lot abouts what femminine what masculine. Does a white euorpean woman who has high wide cheekbones and a sqaure jaw more masculine? I wouldn't say so. I think women with sqaurer faces an bigger cheekbones look more feminine actually. A lot of different ethnic peoples exhibit those features like Eastern Europeans and Asians.
What about height I heard stupid things from jealous short women that tall woman if even she does have a femminine shape and is not skinny or heavy , is still not a very femminine height and more men are attracted to short women. I think its just the other way around I think there are a lot of men who like taller women. Height isnt a masculine trait is it? I hope not. Becasue I could just put it the other way aroundand say that short men are femminie which is supid.


What do you think of that woman who won i think it was Miss world the indian contestant Priyanka Chopra who is now doing Bollywood films. Do you find that she is masculine looking overall or feminine?

Caterina: Feminization tends to make the face shape wider, which is what you seem to be referring to as wider cheekbones. As far as a square jaw is concerned, this issue came up previously, and you should read the discussion here. In a nutshell, a square jaw does not make a face feminine or masculine by itself. Regarding height, a greater proportion of women in the below average to average height range will be feminine compared to women in the average to above average height range, i.e., you will find plenty of tall and feminine women. In other words, tallness is not a masculine trait in women. For instance, see this 5-foot-11 woman and this comparison of a masculine model and a feminine woman, both 6-feet-tall.

Sam: I searched for pictures of Priyanka Chopra, and it seems that the woman is in the normal to somewhat masculinized range for South Asian norms...where exactly I can’t tell.


so priyanka is more on the masucline scale than the feminine is what your saying

Sam: Yes, Priyanka is anywhere from normal to somewhat masculine.

lol @ "south asian norms"


what about actress catherine zeta jones and singer kylie minouge? are they feminine/masculine by your assessment?

Femininity is a correlate of beauty, beauty is not a correlate of femininity in other words you dont have to be beautiful to be feminine but you have to be feminine to be beautiful as beauty has many correlates and femininity is just one of them perhaps a powerful one but not the only one. There are many other correlates too i.e skin tone, height, eye colour, hair colour, nose shape, facial strucutre etc... and even as you have pointed out Erik slight masculinity of the right features is not only a correlate of sexiness but also beauty. So one without the other feature does not amount to one being beautifull overall although they may possess some beautiful physical features as beauty does not need words it naturally moves a person thats the beauty and mystery of beauty.

Sam: Both Catherine Zeta Jones and Kylie Minogue appear to be normal/average in regard to masculinity-femininity.

Mark: An individual can certainly be more overall beautiful than another based on the judgment of a majority.


what do you think of the other bollywood actress katrina kaif i think is of mixed heritage half british? is she masucline or feminign what do you think of her overall attractiveness?

this is probably what erik wants in high fashion:

men. in female clothing. hahahahahahah.

Arfan: Katrina Kaif appears to be slightly masculine. She also appears to be in the attractive range of South Asians.

8D: You forgot to add Nazi jewelry!


you say slightly masculine where does that leave her on the masculnie/feminine scale if she is slightly masculine, how would you describe her overall looks masculine or feminine?

Arfan: To describe a woman as slightly masculine is to say that she is on the masculine side of the average for women of her ethnic background, but not too masculine. Kaif's overall looks are slightly masculine. She doesn't look bad. Like I said, she appears to be in the attractive range of South Asians.


If at a height of 5"3 and measurments of 36-27-36 what kind of body type is this, would you say it is hourglass figure as there is a 9inch difference between hips and bust, if not then what kind of physique would you descrive it as?

Sue: Crude measurements are not very helpful. This woman could be anywhere from being above average feminine but having excess abdominal fat to normal with respect to masculinity-femininity or slightly on the masculine side. If she is from a population with normally higher waist-to-hip ratios than European norms (e.g., South Asia), she is less likely to be on the masculine side than if she were European.


what do you think of marilyn monroes looks? is she overall feminine or masculine?

I am 5 feet 3 inches and i am pear shaped.I have measurements
34-25-36.I am a pure east indian.Does I come on masculine side?

Eventhrought I do not agree that much the way erik's judge, who is feminine and who is masculine. but I do understand him one thing, erik trying to say that caucasian women have good porportion facial's features and I think so. I do not think far east asian women, latino women or african women are ugly, on the contrary many of them are also very beautifull, but most of the time non-white women, even the beautifull one have got disporportion facial's feature. such as they tend to have wide face, the one with big eyes still remind epicanthic fold, short chin and flat area beneath their eyes. I don't know other people tast, probably some people find big eyes with epicanthic fold is just fine and don't mind the short chin or wide face. I also accept those facial's feature could be pretty and feminine too but it's not in the good porportion.

Erik : Katrina kaif is very beautifull and if u find she is masculine I don't know more what kind of the man you are? I watched her on many of her Indian flims. her face looks prettier than most of your attactive feminine women. I accept she is abit too tall and probably it's the reason you find she is masculine but I don't mind that. she got breasts, hip and very beautifull feminine face is enough. right now I really don't know which women 'd be prettier than katrina kaif.
I accept katrina hasn't got that perfect porportion facial's features. her nose is abit too long but she looks beautifull very much in any case. she looks prettier than aishwarya rai,julia roberts and especially very MUCH prettier than all of your feminine women.
I damn sure when kate and some of your feminine women walking pass the gathering of guys. the guys'd look forward to katrina kaif than look forward or probably don't look at all to all of your feminine women.
Kaif has beautifull oval shape face, beautifull small lips, beautifull big round eyes, beautifull dark hair which I find it's attactive than blonde.( blonde is too light, and every women with blonde hair always look too pale like the sick or unhealthy old women) I never find blonde women to be attactive, they could be very feiminine and beautifull but I'd rather not touch them because they look like the fragile women. I like blonde hair and it's beautifull but I just don't find blonde is sexy. the blonde, too pale and flabby skin look like very delicate and easily to be brake. by the way katrina got everything in her perfectly. she has european face, weak jaw and sweet smiling and tender kind eyes. her tallness isn't masculine but elegrant and attactive. her shape is damn feminine, she got small waist, nice breasts and long legs, and her shape is hourglass shape for me.

“You ask me “how is that if an Asian woman gets double eyelid surgery, it’s because she want to look white”? Where have I implied the latter? I have implied that this surgery is often used to make one look less ethnic, but this does not mean that the woman is somehow trying to look white.”

Jump : have to say this to erik, my maid is chinese and she wanted to has double eyelids because wanted to look like thai or India actresess but not white women. so it's not always people do plastic sugery because wanted to look like white people. I know also some asian girl who wanted to do nose job because wanted to have nasal like arab or India rather than like white.

erik said : To describe a woman as slightly masculine is to say that she is on the masculine side of the average for women of her ethnic background

erik : Indian women are not masculine eventhrought their skin are dark, tann or white. they tend to have large breasts, wide hip, short and small waist than white women that tend to be more slender and their leges are not have much fat when comparing to many of some far east asian and most of Indian. it's my observation that asian women, especially east Indian women, philipina, native women of the eastern area of south east asia,many of japanese, mongolian women, tibetian and southern chinese, australoids, black people in carribean tend to have shortly section of the legs beneath the knees. and they tend to have much fat or mussle. on the contary, the white women, sub-sahara african,african, arabs, the west India tend to have the long section of the legs beneath the knees. many of plump, buxum or fat white women , black and arabs or west Indian seem to have skiny or slim section of the legs' beneath the knees than of the average shape or thin asian women.

you also can take a look at this picture. I have collected the picture s of the legs of white, asian/Indian and black women in comparison.
the section of the white women and black women legs, they are the legs of average weight buxum or fat women. and the section of asian and Indian legs are all from thin, slim and average weight women. one thing you can notice that the slim or thin asian and Indian women seem to have short and chubby legs than the legs of the fat and average weight white and black women. I have talked to asian women, many of them say the same that " caucasian and black women do not have the bulky mussle on their legs even the fat white women seem to have smaller legs than most of thin asian women. many asian women like white and black women's legs because they find the slender legs of white and black women look like fashion model. yes, I find fashion models' legs of white and black women to be pretty but I think it's not feminine when compare to the chubby soft legs of asian and Indian women.

Erik : in this world has no perfectly race. white women have delicate facial's feature than Indian but Indian got more feminine shape than white and their breasts are not sack like white women ( which most of the time, the white women with natural big breasts always have its sack, and flabby skin. far east asian women got delicate shape eventhrought their face is disporportion. but they are look petite than white, India and black.

katrina kaif and all Indian actresses are feminine than white women.
eventhrought I like slender shape of white women but I'd consider Indian women have feminine shape than white. Indian women always shorter than white, round waist, wide hip, chubby neck and chubby arms. however I don't especially this type of shape but it looks feminine than white women.

most of the time I have seen the slender shape ( rather skinny) of white actresses in many of hollywood movies, also the ordinary white women got only two kind of shape and that's "fat" and" slender". you will never find the white women with buxum arms, round waist,full breasts, wide hip like in latino and Indian women.

Indian actress.

Many of asian women are feminine than feminine white, but I don't like this type of beauty. it's pedofield, freak and I don't think far east asian that trying to look like caucasian princess would look nice. on the contrary I'd rather like to see these asian girls in tann skin and show off the power of asian beauty out than rather do something to look caucasian because they don't look the same in anyways.

like these pictures, the eyes are look big because of mascara, contact lense and the narrow face of curly european hair style, photoshoping etc.

P.S I'm graphic designer and I have done before, edited asian women face to look caucasian or edited european women to look masculine or feminine. by the way to photoshoping asian women to look caucasian, you still could notice one thing that is person is caucasian or asian by looking at the area above their eyes. far east asian women even the one with big eyes, still their epicanthic is fold and you will see much of distance between their eyebrows and the eyes. unlike caucasian always have deep sunken eyes.

far east asian women.

It's quite clear, the cosmetic in japan and korea are especially for makeup far east asian women to look like caucasian princess.
how they make up the far east asian models are in the same town of caucasian models.

the skin whitenners are best saller in the countries like japan, korean and south east asia. the pink and blue make up base are poppular in asia.

this is a pictures of asian cosmetic presenters.

this is the caucasian presenters of love clover's cosmetic of japan. that the ideal of this cosmetic is for makeup asian women to look like maie antoinette.

and this is the link of japanese cosmetic, that aims for make the skin natural pink glow like cauacsian princess. the stuff also created to look like classic caucasian princess' cosmetic.

you also can try this site, and take look at the style of cosmetic, make up style.

The picture of far east asian women before and after used mascara, big eye contact lense and eyeliner, fake eyelash, nose high lightener.

The picture of natural big set eyes far east asian vs. natural big set eyes of caucasian Iranian.

The picture of smalle eyes far east asian after used mascara, eyeliner, make up powde, nose high lightener and big eyes contact lens.

The pictures of specifit asian cosmetics added caucasian looking skin.
many of far east asian girl like to use this product because it gives the naturally pink skin tone like natural caucasian skin.

The nameof cosmetic brands that give the far east asian women naturally caucasian look.
Jill Stuart
Anna sui
paul & Joe
Dermabran ( I know some girl that uses the cream of this brand to all over her body, to get her skin pale pink like scandinavian women)
Majolica Majorca
Love Clover
Kiss me heroine
Kiss me princess
skin food

The far east asian cosmetic advertisment presents the picture of natural asian eyes and after using mascara, eyeliner, big eyes contact lens.

The advertisment of korean cosmetic presents the pearl pink skin tone after using the product.

The presenter of korean cosmetic presents the princessy looking of far east asian girl after used the cosmetic.

The princessy cosmetic packadge in far east asia.

From my openion, I believe all caucasian guys would like to see far east asian girls pose tan skin, slant eyes and wearing short tee and fit jeans with straight thick jet black hair than unrealable vintage caucasian dresses and caucasian hair and skin. but I also understand how asian girls feel. they do not like caucasian males looking at them the way that caucasian people'd like to see in them. after marie antoinette movie 2006 has released. many of asian girls seem to enthustiatic more in making themselves to look like marie antoinette.
one girl said to me, she dosen't like caucasian guy looking at her like the native virgin islandic asian girls in many american flims. she'd rather wanted to feel like she was the caucasian missionary in victorian white dress.

The pictures before and after make up of far east asian girls.
(many of far east asian girls have got very white skin)


Fem or masc? what do you think of her looks?

Sheesh! After reading this, I can't help but wonder when Erik and Sarah are going to admit their unspoken mutual attraction.

By the way, Erik, yes, black males really are masculinized - they have more testosterone, narrower hips, longer hands, etc, and to claim that they only dominate a small subsection of the athletic arena is untenable considering that they're all over televised sporting events. And I shouldn't even have to discuss genital sizes to make this point, because I think you know that sufficient data exists for me to bludgeon naysayers into submission should I decide to do so. Seriously, the only people I know of who can't see this are the same bioegalitarians whose synapses shut down as soon as race is mentioned in conversation.

Also by the way Sarah, based on my readings white women really aren't fat, they just look that way. Yes, really. If ethnic Euros were overall fatter than ethnic Afros, we would expect them to have a higher incidence of type-II diabetes, when the reverse is the case. Europeans are overall more stocky in their bone structure than Africans - which, by the way, explains why they are better at weightlifting; for this reason they appear fatter than they really are. (As a related aside, whites have less dense bones which makes them better swimmers and also predisposes them to osteoporosis. If you're wondering why, probably this relates to their heavy reliance on milk as a food source during their evolutionary past. Milk is a good source of calcium, and ethnic Euros have by far the lowest rates of lactose intolerance in the world.) Also, Sarah, before insisting that (East) Asians tend to be more feminine than Whites, you are probably going to have to somehow quantify the relative importance of various traits - it's true that Asian females do have smaller jaws, but also smaller breasts and flatter buttocks, than do Euro females.

My own suspicion regarding this issue is that Africans tend to be most masculine and most feminine, and Asians least, while East Asians tend to be most neotenous, and Blacks least; in fact because sex differences become most pronounced after puberty, it seems somewhat inevitable that this would be the case. East Asians do go through puberty latest and have the lowest rates of dizygous twinning, and Africans have earliest puberty timing and highest rates of twinning among the three most frequently discussed racial groups.

Click here to post a new comment