You clearly don't know the history of the British Isles. The Irish are Celtic...as are the Scots and the Welsh. Sorry, the idea they have better faces is yours alone. The Irish have some Norse blood as well.
Yes, the Romans colonized what is today England. But the English of today are not the same as those people that were colonized by the Romans. The English are descended from the Angles, Saxons and Jutes (Germanic tribes that invaded Britain in the 5th century - they originated from as far as present day Denmark). Add in Viking blood and you have the modern English. They have only trace amounts of Celtic blood...which were the ones that were conquered by the Romans...the remnants of which are Welsh.
The Scottish and Irish are related and are Celtic. Both have some Viking blood. The Northern Irish Protestants are descended from the Scots (and northern English)...they have some Dutch blood as well (due to some Dutch settling after 16900). They are not REAL Irish...they are Northern Irish...and have had a tremendous influence on the rest of the world (13 U.S. Presidents traced their ancestry directly to Belfast Protestants).
This article is fascinating! I didn't realize how much there is to know about WHR. Of course, it makes me conscious of my own body. I don't know if this is the place for me to discuss myself, but I don't have a real-life outlet to receive feedback about issues concerning physical attractiveness.
My figure is 85-60-90. I believe 34-23.5-35.5 in inches. WHR of .666, so it sounds good in numbers. Yet I do not appear to have the coveted hourglass figure from a frotal view. My measurements suggest it, but I actually look boyish when seen from the front (or at least I think so). Yet I believe one would think I'm an hourglass by the numbers alone because from a side view my mid back dips in a lot, making a small waist, and my buttocks stick out a lot, making large hips. My front view is unimpressive though.
So femininity can't seem to be judged by WHR alone... And I am wondering if this makes sense, or if I am just misinterpreting what goes into having an hourglass figure.
I'm petrified for some of this so called "intelligent" points of view. First of all, it's a cliché to think that everyone involved in fashion industry is homosexual, second if this site is trying to support the idea that every human being is beautiful in his/her own way, then comparing a tall beautiful women, whit a voluptuous also beautiful isn't logic. And I would like to say that Karolina Kurkova is a very sexy woman, because she has unique features,and the difference between them is that while Karolina is more delicate and sexy at the same time, Zuzana has to be naked and with her hands separating her butt. I think the really difference who is more vulgar? and obviously Zuzana wins.
OK, I personally do not perceive any race being actually part ape or beast.
I just want to quote this as you seem to think Mongoloid features are closer to Negroid and Caucasoid the farthest, that seems what you wanted to imply too with that post you made.
That's far from the truth. That is another ignorance.
A qoute from a reputable White Nationalist member in Stormfront:
"WTF!!
Mongoloids look nothing like Negros.
Mongoloids are orthognathous to at times retrognathous (especially in the upper jaw making them flat faced), Negros are prognathouswith forwarding slanting faces and protruding upper and lower jaws (many cases both will protrude and the upper jaw protrudes the most).
Mongoloids also have prominent zygomatic arches (cheekbones) whereas many Negroids either have retreating zygomatic arches (aka small cheekbones) or in some cases like in the US where they have Mongoloid ancestry from amerindians, they can have a tendency to higher cheekbones BUT this is NOT the rule in Negro faces.
As far as nasal bones, there is no rule. Negros have wide noses but Mongoloids can have long or wide noses. Then again so can White people. As a rule, Negros have wide and short noses and Whites have long and narrow noses. Asians tend to have both equally.
Face structure-wise, Asians tend to have wide, square or round faces, with males tending to square. Negros have narrow faces all around. Asians have no brow bones whereas Negros have heavy browrideges. Negros have sloping foreheads, Asians have flat foreheads. Asians can have moderate or protruding chins whereas Negros have receding chins. Asians can have lips ranging from thin to moderate, Negros have large lips. Negros have bulging, wide set eyes, asians have slanted, barely-there eyes.
if you ask me (and I might get flamed for this), the asian face is probably the direct inverse of a black face. I'm not saying Whites look like blacks in any way, but if someone doesn't look like a Negroid it's a Mongoloid."
"You're right. Asians do have the most gracile evolved features.
So stop mixing with Whites and regressing. I'll take a girl with a prominent browridge, protruding features like the nose and jaw, thin hair, pale skin, retreating zygomatics, sloping forehead, and large eyes.
Scottish got nothing to do with Irish. Irish are deeply related to Basque. Basque, is not scottish. thank fuck. the only way Irish could be related to scottish, is by those prods in the north of Ireland , which btw, aren't r e a l Irish. some scottish unfortunately went and lived in northern ireland in the area that's called "the hills." bunch of rednecks there. cause of the scottish genes.
and what's this guy on about? english not roman? That's pretty inaccurate. The romans invaded ALL of England. They took that place as their own and took up residence there.
everyone knows that.
and if Irish are related to scottish, how come Irish have better genes and facial value? oh yeah, cause they're not related.
You're just FULL OF IGNORANCE. Typical White Supremacist who's ignorant of FACTS about genetics of different races and which genetic features are superior and inferior.
Mongoloids are genetically superior, even many of the White Nationalists in Stormfront recognize this fact. I silenced the ignorant White Supremacists in that debate. My username there was "seriously..." then become "global beauties".
Btw, you seem like a psychotic WS who want harm on others. lol Pathetic.
Yes I am an Asian Supremacist, but at least, I'm not maliciously evil.
Then come back here and TRY to negate my STRONG and VALID arguments and points in that debate which are backed up by many credible studies in genetics, medicine, female beauty study findings.
Know the scientific facts first before you spout Ignorance about races.
The Romans were in Ireland. They did not colonize Ireland but there is strong evidence that they had a presence in Ireland. It is also reasonable to conclude a small influence in genes.
'ugly noses' and the English. The English are a mix of Germanic (Angles, Saxons, Jutes) and Nordic (Viking and their descendants, the Normans). No Roman influence (the Romans conquered the Britons, which were Celtic...the remnant of which is in Wales).
Scottish are related to Irish. They are Celt. The early Scottish were Picts and they were later mixed with Scots (who likely are 'Gael's' from Ireland. 'Scotti' is a Roman name that refers to Irish who tended to attack Roman settlements in England and Scotland. Hence the name 'Scotland'). There is also a mixture of Germanic influence in Scotland (northern part of England) and some Welsh. Add in Nordic influence (Viking) and you have the modern Scots.
The Irish also have some Nordic blood due to the Vikings (not simply raiding but also settling and intermingling with the locals). There is a trace of Spanish (many of the sailors of the Spanish Armada in 1588 were shipwrecked on the Irish coast. They also stayed and intermarried).
So, basically, the Irish have trace amounts of Roman, a fair bit of Nordic and trace amounts of Spanish blood. The Scots, who are cousins of the Irish have a fair bit of Irish, Viking, some Welsh and some Germanic blood.
All Northern European but hardly 'pure' in the sense of strictly Celtic.
lol those asians look like apes, they have the exact same flat face as gorillas and apes.
planet of the apes.
i don't find them attractive at all, but repulsive.
and if one has to post that many pictures of asians and "fighting" the asian corner, then it just shows the person is very insecure.
if their race was so attractive, they wouldn't have to spam up with so many pictures like that or try so hard at attempting to prove some load of shit.
it just looks pathetic.
white girls are the best when they look after themselves and have fine features.
those aisians dont have fine featured faces; their cheeks are chubby and mostly fat. that's not fine featured and its robust and chunky, clumsy looking.
i hate the asian look. and every time i see them in my country i just want to push them in front of a bus. so that they get run over.
why doesn't the girl this whole thing is about just go into acting? its just the same as modelling (kind of). slightly.)
if you cant crack the modelling then have a go at acting.
could be an extra
=P
lol wtf is this shit?
bitches, please.
The Irish got the best noses ever. Everyone in Hollywood, big A-listers, often ask rhinoplasty surgeons for an "Irish nose", and they adore the Irish pure white skin. That's cause Irish tend to have small noses, slightly upturned at times and its a trait of their people. And Irish women tend not to have deep set eyes or big brow bone. it's what i've seen anyway and i live here, in Eire.
lol, you never hear hollywood stars and people in California, LA asking to get a nordic nose. that's because nordics often have looong noses. often, what you call ski slope noses, cause they tend to go long, then point out.
Irish are so attractive, the girls are cute and so pretty. i love them! they also have a warm heart and are a lot of fun!
And all of them are 21+ lol
and lets not forget actors like Colin Farrell, Cillian Murphy!
they are really pretty and handsome. but i will admit Ireland does get hook noses. its not a typical Irish trait though. its a hideous plague that was brought over by the ugly english. roman, hook, big nose is a trait of the english, as it was the trait of the romans. the romans invaded all of england, and many other countries in europe. they didn't go to Ireland though cause the romans said ireland was a cold damp bogland with miserable people. so they didn't go over. and i'm fuckin glad they didn't, who the fuck want the hideous roman, hook nose! Fuck.
if there are Irish with hook noses then those individuals have english/scottish blood, or they have it in their family.
cause having big noses is NOT an Irish trait. at all.
it's an enlglish and scottish trait,often. and thats because of the occupation of the country by the romans long ago.
so if your country has history of being invaded and colonised by the romans long ago, then i'm afraid that's ruined your genepool and noses!
don't ever have kids with an english or scottish; their genes and looks are shit. seriously. its true.
This is a frickin' hate site. I'm a heterosexual and I think you should TRULY be ashamed for writing with such obvious contempt for the GLBT community. You're no better than a bunch of white supremacists using the N word in the name of Jesus. BTW, Jesus and the rest of us TRUE CHRISTIANS are ashamed by people like you. "Ye with no sin cast the first stone."
please stop being mean to Abbie she is my friend and she is smart and beautiful. she doesn't deserve to be treated the way you are treating her This is very mean and hurtful. leave her alone. How would you like it if someone said that about you? Knock it off.
I find the comment about homosexuals in the fashion industry very ignorant...am I the only one that feels this way? It's a societal thing; you can't blame someones sexuality in my opinion. In fact, almost all of the WOMEN in the fashion have the exact same standards....
I completely agree with you. The author of this article clearly has ridiculous distorted views and I'm not really sure what the whole point of this site is, other than to express jealousy towards beautiful, highly successful women.
i wish people would understand that :\
but nope, all that matters is being a size 0, with constricted organs and weak hips that make conceiving impossible.
yeah, the norm in fashion is half-hot, but check the hips and tits on chubby chicks <3
That you so much for the existance of this site. I have always said to my female friends who said that they needed to losee wait that thier idea that skinny is atractive is learnt from the fashion industry which is run by women and gay men, so why base your idea of atrraction on what they think. Then two weeks ago I was given a selection of essay titals for my art course, one of which was the dipiction of women in art. I decided to pose the questio why is it that the comman standard of beauty in women is based on an industry run by women and gay men, when the computer games industry run by and aimed prodomenutly at men dipicts women with large hips sleder waists and large breasts. Every women I said this too has pritty much ripped my head off, eaither telling me off for saying that i advicatethe over sevualisation of women in the games/comic industry or brating me for all the men in the world who wont go out with overwaight women. When I noted that they should just losse waight as it is an evolutionary indicatore of poor health I started a real S**t storm. Needless to say I've been wondering if I was realy heading in the right direction. This website has given me a wealth of information and clout to back up my essay so thank you o so very much. (excuse the spelling, Dyslexics untide!!")
Thank you for pointing some of this out. I would have to disagree with the whole big boobs sag when aging. I believe all breasts take a turn for the worst as aging goes on but I also believe some look better and some look worse regardless of size but anyways onto the good part of your reply.
It's so disgusting what this guy has to say. I think his brain has been tainted by watching too much porn. Does he even know that ALL of those women are photoshopped at one point or another? Whether it's their breasts, butt, hips, getting rid of wrinkles, disappearing acne whatever it is. And yes Erik I would know I've watched porn before AND have dated a porn addict. You sound just like one. It's a shame that he's throwing at their that MY body type (and so many others) is undesirable just because of what HE thinks. You don't speak for all men Erik so quit acting like you do. I used to have a pooch belly and I used to be really skinny. I've started working out and gaining muscle and now I look healthier and stronger and my pooch belly is now a fit toned one, and you're still saying i'm not good enough Erik? Wow...
Wow if you have to critsize women just because they have small breasts then you must have one shitty life. I guess a guy can only get rejected so many times before he starts all this hate crap. I have small breasts, I'm physically fit. I have muscle, I'm not skinny, and I'm not average weight, just fit and you're trying to tell me that guys shouldn't find me physically attractive based on those two things? You know what I'm glad I have small breasts, they act as a filter to take out all the garbage (you) that women with larger breasts unfortuantly have to deal with. If I attracted guys like you I'd pay a plastic surgeon to remove ALL of my breast. I know how guys like you work. I've had to deal with their petty little boy bullshit all my 21 years of living and it's pathetic. Here's an idea if you think women with small boobs are so ugly and worthless why don't you do everyone a favor and just get a girl with huge plastic boobs (that way they have no chance of shrinking) and MOVE ON.
1. The study is flawed because of the test subject knowledge of what is being tested.
2. Pictures are drawn and are not real representation of human phenotype.
3. Guys with shorter legs appear have what appears to be larger genitals, which is sexually more appealing by most sexual standards..
4. Women with shorter legs have larger height of delta (draw a vertical line starting at the bottom of genitals, then draw a horizontal line between the top where legs and bathing suit meets, the intersection of two perpendicular lines is a point i measured. In general I would think that large genital area for women is less attractive..
Romijn may have masculinised face but physique? Please.
With choosing bad photos of Rebecca and "sexy" ones of "sexy" Layla which is not even shown with full silhouette I'm starting to think this site is very subjective http://www.zimbio.com/Best+Celebrity+Beach+Bodies/articles/pM-roZZ4fcg/Two+If+By+Sea http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/819/72781870.jpg/
There is a chance that Rebecca's body is a lot more feminine than Layla's because Photos of Layla doesn't show the lenght of the legs and waist-hips ratio which can make influence on proportions of her body.
I'm not too sure if I'll get many responses since the last comment was made back in 2007 but I just wanted to make a comment which I thought was valid.
Since women carry inches differently around the hip area, people need to see the woman in person rather than just base femininity on their numbers. According to the Hip to Waist Ratio I barely make the hour glass figure yet I look more feminine than my friends who have a larger hip to waist ratio. Even my boyfriend says that he prefers my shape to my friends since I have the classic hour glass feminine figure. The difference between my friends and I is that I'm extremely athletic with very wide hips bones but a tight perky small butt. Whereas my friends who have a larger difference between their hip size to their waist size aren't as fit and have smaller hip bones with big protruding bums.
I think that the hip to waist ratio is a good indication to see if you're healthy but can't really tell whether your figure is feminine or not.
My female friends have always been commenting on my wide hips but small perky butt even though my hip to waist is .74 and my friends are more like .69 or .7. Even the guys who know our circle of friends think that I have a classic hour glass figure. But that doesn't mean that my figure is the most desired by all men since men are all different and some like big bubble butts not an athletic tight butt. I do wish sometimes I had a bigger butt though:)
Just for reference my height is 5'9, chest 37, waist 28, hips 38. I'm medium to large framed.
The person who made this site is closed-minded and cruel. Who ever you are, pleases stop bashing "model-like" girls. Many girls are not capable of looking like your idea of "feminine." If you can't see the beauty in different types of female shapes, you are pathetic and shortsighted. You promote the "feminine" shape as much as the fashion industry promotes the"boyish" shape. You are a hypocrite for having a self-esteem section on your site, because if you had it your way, all girls that looked" masculine" would be made to feel lesser in terms of beauty.
Why are all of your examples of "feminine" pretty girls from raunchy websites? In my opinion, that is not beautiful...its perverted.
"exalt feminine beauty rather than demote non-feminine beauty."
How does the phrase "some of these top-ranked "sexy" women could be easily mistaken for eunuchs, male transvestites or male-to-female transsexuals" not demote non-feminine beauty"
You clearly don't know the history of the British Isles. The Irish are Celtic...as are the Scots and the Welsh. Sorry, the idea they have better faces is yours alone. The Irish have some Norse blood as well.
Yes, the Romans colonized what is today England. But the English of today are not the same as those people that were colonized by the Romans. The English are descended from the Angles, Saxons and Jutes (Germanic tribes that invaded Britain in the 5th century - they originated from as far as present day Denmark). Add in Viking blood and you have the modern English. They have only trace amounts of Celtic blood...which were the ones that were conquered by the Romans...the remnants of which are Welsh.
The Scottish and Irish are related and are Celtic. Both have some Viking blood. The Northern Irish Protestants are descended from the Scots (and northern English)...they have some Dutch blood as well (due to some Dutch settling after 16900). They are not REAL Irish...they are Northern Irish...and have had a tremendous influence on the rest of the world (13 U.S. Presidents traced their ancestry directly to Belfast Protestants).
This article is fascinating! I didn't realize how much there is to know about WHR. Of course, it makes me conscious of my own body. I don't know if this is the place for me to discuss myself, but I don't have a real-life outlet to receive feedback about issues concerning physical attractiveness.
My figure is 85-60-90. I believe 34-23.5-35.5 in inches. WHR of .666, so it sounds good in numbers. Yet I do not appear to have the coveted hourglass figure from a frotal view. My measurements suggest it, but I actually look boyish when seen from the front (or at least I think so). Yet I believe one would think I'm an hourglass by the numbers alone because from a side view my mid back dips in a lot, making a small waist, and my buttocks stick out a lot, making large hips. My front view is unimpressive though.
So femininity can't seem to be judged by WHR alone... And I am wondering if this makes sense, or if I am just misinterpreting what goes into having an hourglass figure.
I'm petrified for some of this so called "intelligent" points of view. First of all, it's a cliché to think that everyone involved in fashion industry is homosexual, second if this site is trying to support the idea that every human being is beautiful in his/her own way, then comparing a tall beautiful women, whit a voluptuous also beautiful isn't logic. And I would like to say that Karolina Kurkova is a very sexy woman, because she has unique features,and the difference between them is that while Karolina is more delicate and sexy at the same time, Zuzana has to be naked and with her hands separating her butt. I think the really difference who is more vulgar? and obviously Zuzana wins.
OK, I personally do not perceive any race being actually part ape or beast.
I just want to quote this as you seem to think Mongoloid features are closer to Negroid and Caucasoid the farthest, that seems what you wanted to imply too with that post you made.
That's far from the truth. That is another ignorance.
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t749807-37/
A qoute from a reputable White Nationalist member in Stormfront:
"WTF!!
Mongoloids look nothing like Negros.
Mongoloids are orthognathous to at times retrognathous (especially in the upper jaw making them flat faced), Negros are prognathouswith forwarding slanting faces and protruding upper and lower jaws (many cases both will protrude and the upper jaw protrudes the most).
Mongoloids also have prominent zygomatic arches (cheekbones) whereas many Negroids either have retreating zygomatic arches (aka small cheekbones) or in some cases like in the US where they have Mongoloid ancestry from amerindians, they can have a tendency to higher cheekbones BUT this is NOT the rule in Negro faces.
As far as nasal bones, there is no rule. Negros have wide noses but Mongoloids can have long or wide noses. Then again so can White people. As a rule, Negros have wide and short noses and Whites have long and narrow noses. Asians tend to have both equally.
Face structure-wise, Asians tend to have wide, square or round faces, with males tending to square. Negros have narrow faces all around. Asians have no brow bones whereas Negros have heavy browrideges. Negros have sloping foreheads, Asians have flat foreheads. Asians can have moderate or protruding chins whereas Negros have receding chins. Asians can have lips ranging from thin to moderate, Negros have large lips. Negros have bulging, wide set eyes, asians have slanted, barely-there eyes.
if you ask me (and I might get flamed for this), the asian face is probably the direct inverse of a black face. I'm not saying Whites look like blacks in any way, but if someone doesn't look like a Negroid it's a Mongoloid."
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t749807-45/
"You're right. Asians do have the most gracile evolved features.
So stop mixing with Whites and regressing. I'll take a girl with a prominent browridge, protruding features like the nose and jaw, thin hair, pale skin, retreating zygomatics, sloping forehead, and large eyes.
It's good enough for me!"
Scottish got nothing to do with Irish. Irish are deeply related to Basque. Basque, is not scottish. thank fuck. the only way Irish could be related to scottish, is by those prods in the north of Ireland , which btw, aren't r e a l Irish. some scottish unfortunately went and lived in northern ireland in the area that's called "the hills." bunch of rednecks there. cause of the scottish genes.
and what's this guy on about? english not roman? That's pretty inaccurate. The romans invaded ALL of England. They took that place as their own and took up residence there.
everyone knows that.
and if Irish are related to scottish, how come Irish have better genes and facial value? oh yeah, cause they're not related.
you are an idiot..
aomi is right.
@asiansruglycuz..
You're just FULL OF IGNORANCE. Typical White Supremacist who's ignorant of FACTS about genetics of different races and which genetic features are superior and inferior.
Mongoloids are genetically superior, even many of the White Nationalists in Stormfront recognize this fact. I silenced the ignorant White Supremacists in that debate. My username there was "seriously..." then become "global beauties".
Btw, you seem like a psychotic WS who want harm on others. lol Pathetic.
Yes I am an Asian Supremacist, but at least, I'm not maliciously evil.
Now you need to read PROPERLY FIRST the debate in this thread:
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t749807-45/
page 45-53.
Then come back here and TRY to negate my STRONG and VALID arguments and points in that debate which are backed up by many credible studies in genetics, medicine, female beauty study findings.
Know the scientific facts first before you spout Ignorance about races.
baby-face, flatness of the face, small nose, portuberant eyes, etc. are neotenous features = the evolutionary most advance traits.
According to anthropologists, Mongoloids are clearly the most paedomorphic humans.
Mongoloid skull/features are the most gracile in human family and Mongoloids are the most advance humans capabale of the greatest development.
Whites have high brow ridge, deep set eyes. Features that make the face look rough and bumpy. These are features of chimpanzees and Neanderthals.
Whites are part Neanderthals and the Nordics have the highest percentage.
Modern human skulls are more neotenized than Neanderthal skull.
Learn all about these in that site i linked.
The Romans were in Ireland. They did not colonize Ireland but there is strong evidence that they had a presence in Ireland. It is also reasonable to conclude a small influence in genes.
'ugly noses' and the English. The English are a mix of Germanic (Angles, Saxons, Jutes) and Nordic (Viking and their descendants, the Normans). No Roman influence (the Romans conquered the Britons, which were Celtic...the remnant of which is in Wales).
Scottish are related to Irish. They are Celt. The early Scottish were Picts and they were later mixed with Scots (who likely are 'Gael's' from Ireland. 'Scotti' is a Roman name that refers to Irish who tended to attack Roman settlements in England and Scotland. Hence the name 'Scotland'). There is also a mixture of Germanic influence in Scotland (northern part of England) and some Welsh. Add in Nordic influence (Viking) and you have the modern Scots.
The Irish also have some Nordic blood due to the Vikings (not simply raiding but also settling and intermingling with the locals). There is a trace of Spanish (many of the sailors of the Spanish Armada in 1588 were shipwrecked on the Irish coast. They also stayed and intermarried).
So, basically, the Irish have trace amounts of Roman, a fair bit of Nordic and trace amounts of Spanish blood. The Scots, who are cousins of the Irish have a fair bit of Irish, Viking, some Welsh and some Germanic blood.
All Northern European but hardly 'pure' in the sense of strictly Celtic.
@asiansruglycuz..
Read the discussions from page 45-53. You'll be embarrased and will find out the truth.
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t749807-45/
lol those asians look like apes, they have the exact same flat face as gorillas and apes.
planet of the apes.
i don't find them attractive at all, but repulsive.
and if one has to post that many pictures of asians and "fighting" the asian corner, then it just shows the person is very insecure.
if their race was so attractive, they wouldn't have to spam up with so many pictures like that or try so hard at attempting to prove some load of shit.
it just looks pathetic.
white girls are the best when they look after themselves and have fine features.
those aisians dont have fine featured faces; their cheeks are chubby and mostly fat. that's not fine featured and its robust and chunky, clumsy looking.
i hate the asian look. and every time i see them in my country i just want to push them in front of a bus. so that they get run over.
and more flat faced.
like an ape.
>end<.
why doesn't the girl this whole thing is about just go into acting? its just the same as modelling (kind of). slightly.)
if you cant crack the modelling then have a go at acting.
could be an extra
=P
lol wtf is this shit?
bitches, please.
The Irish got the best noses ever. Everyone in Hollywood, big A-listers, often ask rhinoplasty surgeons for an "Irish nose", and they adore the Irish pure white skin. That's cause Irish tend to have small noses, slightly upturned at times and its a trait of their people. And Irish women tend not to have deep set eyes or big brow bone. it's what i've seen anyway and i live here, in Eire.
lol, you never hear hollywood stars and people in California, LA asking to get a nordic nose. that's because nordics often have looong noses. often, what you call ski slope noses, cause they tend to go long, then point out.
Irish are so attractive, the girls are cute and so pretty. i love them! they also have a warm heart and are a lot of fun!
Here's just some average Irish girls:
http://i45.servimg.com/u/f45/13/65/51/30/42900210.jpg
http://i45.servimg.com/u/f45/13/65/51/30/24989310.jpg
http://i45.servimg.com/u/f45/13/65/51/30/47719_10.jpg
http://i45.servimg.com/u/f45/13/65/51/30/60879_10.jpg
http://i45.servimg.com/u/f45/13/65/51/30/42558610.jpg
Some Irish models/actress:
Elaine Cassidy (Eire Actress)
http://i45.servimg.com/u/f45/13/65/51/30/39034110.jpg
Laragh McCann
http://i45.servimg.com/u/f45/13/65/51/30/48520-10.jpg
http://i45.servimg.com/u/f45/13/65/51/30/6o1p4p10.jpg
http://i45.servimg.com/u/f45/13/65/51/30/17039710.jpg
Sarah Bolger (Eire actress):
http://i45.servimg.com/u/f45/13/65/51/30/28331410.jpg
http://i45.servimg.com/u/f45/13/65/51/30/37530210.jpg
Some Irish model:
http://i45.servimg.com/u/f45/13/65/51/30/30059410.jpg
Aaaaaaand, another Irish girl :)
http://i45.servimg.com/u/f45/13/65/51/30/34817_11.jpg
http://i45.servimg.com/u/f45/13/65/51/30/31592210.jpg
http://i45.servimg.com/u/f45/13/65/51/30/19629910.jpg
http://i45.servimg.com/u/f45/13/65/51/30/aim9910.jpg
http://i45.servimg.com/u/f45/13/65/51/30/37080310.jpg
http://i75.servimg.com/u/f75/13/65/51/30/18224310.jpg
And all of them are 21+ lol
and lets not forget actors like Colin Farrell, Cillian Murphy!
they are really pretty and handsome. but i will admit Ireland does get hook noses. its not a typical Irish trait though. its a hideous plague that was brought over by the ugly english. roman, hook, big nose is a trait of the english, as it was the trait of the romans. the romans invaded all of england, and many other countries in europe. they didn't go to Ireland though cause the romans said ireland was a cold damp bogland with miserable people. so they didn't go over. and i'm fuckin glad they didn't, who the fuck want the hideous roman, hook nose! Fuck.
if there are Irish with hook noses then those individuals have english/scottish blood, or they have it in their family.
cause having big noses is NOT an Irish trait. at all.
it's an enlglish and scottish trait,often. and thats because of the occupation of the country by the romans long ago.
so if your country has history of being invaded and colonised by the romans long ago, then i'm afraid that's ruined your genepool and noses!
don't ever have kids with an english or scottish; their genes and looks are shit. seriously. its true.
This is a frickin' hate site. I'm a heterosexual and I think you should TRULY be ashamed for writing with such obvious contempt for the GLBT community. You're no better than a bunch of white supremacists using the N word in the name of Jesus. BTW, Jesus and the rest of us TRUE CHRISTIANS are ashamed by people like you. "Ye with no sin cast the first stone."
please stop being mean to Abbie she is my friend and she is smart and beautiful. she doesn't deserve to be treated the way you are treating her This is very mean and hurtful. leave her alone. How would you like it if someone said that about you? Knock it off.
I find the comment about homosexuals in the fashion industry very ignorant...am I the only one that feels this way? It's a societal thing; you can't blame someones sexuality in my opinion. In fact, almost all of the WOMEN in the fashion have the exact same standards....
I completely agree with you. The author of this article clearly has ridiculous distorted views and I'm not really sure what the whole point of this site is, other than to express jealousy towards beautiful, highly successful women.
i wish people would understand that :\
but nope, all that matters is being a size 0, with constricted organs and weak hips that make conceiving impossible.
yeah, the norm in fashion is half-hot, but check the hips and tits on chubby chicks <3
That you so much for the existance of this site. I have always said to my female friends who said that they needed to losee wait that thier idea that skinny is atractive is learnt from the fashion industry which is run by women and gay men, so why base your idea of atrraction on what they think. Then two weeks ago I was given a selection of essay titals for my art course, one of which was the dipiction of women in art. I decided to pose the questio why is it that the comman standard of beauty in women is based on an industry run by women and gay men, when the computer games industry run by and aimed prodomenutly at men dipicts women with large hips sleder waists and large breasts. Every women I said this too has pritty much ripped my head off, eaither telling me off for saying that i advicatethe over sevualisation of women in the games/comic industry or brating me for all the men in the world who wont go out with overwaight women. When I noted that they should just losse waight as it is an evolutionary indicatore of poor health I started a real S**t storm. Needless to say I've been wondering if I was realy heading in the right direction. This website has given me a wealth of information and clout to back up my essay so thank you o so very much. (excuse the spelling, Dyslexics untide!!")
Thank you for pointing some of this out. I would have to disagree with the whole big boobs sag when aging. I believe all breasts take a turn for the worst as aging goes on but I also believe some look better and some look worse regardless of size but anyways onto the good part of your reply.
It's so disgusting what this guy has to say. I think his brain has been tainted by watching too much porn. Does he even know that ALL of those women are photoshopped at one point or another? Whether it's their breasts, butt, hips, getting rid of wrinkles, disappearing acne whatever it is. And yes Erik I would know I've watched porn before AND have dated a porn addict. You sound just like one. It's a shame that he's throwing at their that MY body type (and so many others) is undesirable just because of what HE thinks. You don't speak for all men Erik so quit acting like you do. I used to have a pooch belly and I used to be really skinny. I've started working out and gaining muscle and now I look healthier and stronger and my pooch belly is now a fit toned one, and you're still saying i'm not good enough Erik? Wow...
Wow if you have to critsize women just because they have small breasts then you must have one shitty life. I guess a guy can only get rejected so many times before he starts all this hate crap. I have small breasts, I'm physically fit. I have muscle, I'm not skinny, and I'm not average weight, just fit and you're trying to tell me that guys shouldn't find me physically attractive based on those two things? You know what I'm glad I have small breasts, they act as a filter to take out all the garbage (you) that women with larger breasts unfortuantly have to deal with. If I attracted guys like you I'd pay a plastic surgeon to remove ALL of my breast. I know how guys like you work. I've had to deal with their petty little boy bullshit all my 21 years of living and it's pathetic. Here's an idea if you think women with small boobs are so ugly and worthless why don't you do everyone a favor and just get a girl with huge plastic boobs (that way they have no chance of shrinking) and MOVE ON.
1. The study is flawed because of the test subject knowledge of what is being tested.
2. Pictures are drawn and are not real representation of human phenotype.
3. Guys with shorter legs appear have what appears to be larger genitals, which is sexually more appealing by most sexual standards..
4. Women with shorter legs have larger height of delta (draw a vertical line starting at the bottom of genitals, then draw a horizontal line between the top where legs and bathing suit meets, the intersection of two perpendicular lines is a point i measured. In general I would think that large genital area for women is less attractive..
Romijn may have masculinised face but physique? Please.
With choosing bad photos of Rebecca and "sexy" ones of "sexy" Layla which is not even shown with full silhouette I'm starting to think this site is very subjective
http://www.zimbio.com/Best+Celebrity+Beach+Bodies/articles/pM-roZZ4fcg/Two+If+By+Sea
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/819/72781870.jpg/
There is a chance that Rebecca's body is a lot more feminine than Layla's because Photos of Layla doesn't show the lenght of the legs and waist-hips ratio which can make influence on proportions of her body.
I'm not too sure if I'll get many responses since the last comment was made back in 2007 but I just wanted to make a comment which I thought was valid.
Since women carry inches differently around the hip area, people need to see the woman in person rather than just base femininity on their numbers. According to the Hip to Waist Ratio I barely make the hour glass figure yet I look more feminine than my friends who have a larger hip to waist ratio. Even my boyfriend says that he prefers my shape to my friends since I have the classic hour glass feminine figure. The difference between my friends and I is that I'm extremely athletic with very wide hips bones but a tight perky small butt. Whereas my friends who have a larger difference between their hip size to their waist size aren't as fit and have smaller hip bones with big protruding bums.
I think that the hip to waist ratio is a good indication to see if you're healthy but can't really tell whether your figure is feminine or not.
My female friends have always been commenting on my wide hips but small perky butt even though my hip to waist is .74 and my friends are more like .69 or .7. Even the guys who know our circle of friends think that I have a classic hour glass figure. But that doesn't mean that my figure is the most desired by all men since men are all different and some like big bubble butts not an athletic tight butt. I do wish sometimes I had a bigger butt though:)
Just for reference my height is 5'9, chest 37, waist 28, hips 38. I'm medium to large framed.
The person who made this site is closed-minded and cruel. Who ever you are, pleases stop bashing "model-like" girls. Many girls are not capable of looking like your idea of "feminine." If you can't see the beauty in different types of female shapes, you are pathetic and shortsighted. You promote the "feminine" shape as much as the fashion industry promotes the"boyish" shape. You are a hypocrite for having a self-esteem section on your site, because if you had it your way, all girls that looked" masculine" would be made to feel lesser in terms of beauty.
Why are all of your examples of "feminine" pretty girls from raunchy websites? In my opinion, that is not beautiful...its perverted.
"exalt feminine beauty rather than demote non-feminine beauty."
How does the phrase "some of these top-ranked "sexy" women could be easily mistaken for eunuchs, male transvestites or male-to-female transsexuals" not demote non-feminine beauty"
Pages