You are here

Recent comments

Datesort ascending Author Article link, comment
Thu, 08/09/2012 - 15:13 Barbarella Tyra Banks on honesty


"Sex between whites and blacks is highly unusual, and in some regions, such as the U.S. and the U.K. Almost all women are capable of sexual intercourse with black men but not all men can do it with black women".

"Whites marrying non-whites disproportionately have lower mate value, which makes their partner choices not just matters of preference but one of compromise, where men, as usual, are less restrictive about who they partner".

Erik is probably one of those white men that he describes her. He probably doesn't have a very multicultural group of friends and probably grew up around only white people. I think he has spoken to a non-white woman once, maybe twice. He probably, in his heart believes, that white people dating black people are not good enough. They lack certain good qualities, couldn't 'get any better'.

Thu, 08/09/2012 - 14:42 Barbarie2233 Welcome!

"it is easy to obtain pictures of feminine and attractive white women, whereas this is not necessarily true of other populations".

Basically Erik's saying white women are more attractive and feminine than non-white women. That's really why he doesn't include non-white women in his attractive women section.

Pathetic. But expected.

Thu, 08/09/2012 - 11:23 Mirassa Welcome!

"What disturbs me most is that I get the impression that this site has strayed from it's focus of feminine beauty. Everywhere I look, you seem to be hinting at an evolutionary hierarchy, in which whites are at the top, and blacks are at the bottom (with insinuations about intelligence, etc... that have nothing to do with physical attractiveness). This website started off as an opposition to the skewed standards of the fashion industry, but recently it has become all about racial superiority".

Totally agree with this. I ran onto this website about 4 years ago, and first thought it was really interesting. I thought: 'Wow, this man's done a lot of research". Now I think this site really is all about promoting White -Nordic- beauty standards.
Funny thing is that Erik is so selective in which researches he discusses, agrees upon, and dismisses. He makes it look like he's being fully objective and rational, while in fact the opposite is true.
It would not suprise me if Erik was the little brother of Anders Brevik.

Thu, 08/09/2012 - 10:50 D Leg-length to height ratio and attractiveness

Oh good lord. Why are THIS MANY people arguing about something this glaringly obvious?

Women on the whole have SHORTER RIBCAGES but LONGER TORSOS than men. ADDITIONALLY, on the whole, people who carry their weight in their upper body are proportionately leggier than people who carry their weight in their hips/lower body.

This means that, irrespective of height, men are leggier. The belief to the contrary is a cultural myth.

Oh, and here's another SHOCKING TRUTH that'll turn your world upside-down: women are biologically inclined to have MORE body fat than men. Really!! I'm not even kidding!!!! ZOMG!!

Thu, 08/09/2012 - 10:11 Kyla Fashion models and mannequins in East Asia

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

Thu, 08/09/2012 - 00:42 Erik Welcome!

NullPointer: You do not counter an argument on homosexuals by showing that other people have a bibliography of citations. You have to show how other people’s arguments undermine it. I have actually addressed Jeramy Townsend, to whom you linked, showing the flaws in his arguments on promiscuity:

Similarly, look at what outdated literature he is citing on mental health, and compare it to mine, which includes the essence of his literature.

You say that studies show that Eurasians are found better looking than Europeans. I already pointed you to the following, showing that all these studies are flawed and none have shown anything of the sort: [if I were to explain this in more layman terms, you will find it more offensive than some recent articles that have you agitated]

Ashley Montagu and Stephen J. Gould were charlatans, not for believing in something but for behaving like ones. There is much to their behaviors, but the following should be enough.

Montagu immigrated to the U.S. and managed to get a job teaching dental students anatomy after claiming that he had graduated from Cambridge and Oxford, had 15 anthropological publications and was highly recommended by Arthur Keith. But he was lying. He had no degrees from these institutions and only years later would he get a Ph.D. and that too in cultural anthropology. Montagu was desperate to get credentials as an anthropologist and then use an argument by authority and other foulness to attack physical anthropology. His methods were so vile that Rutgers university could only handle 6 years of him as professor and fired him, and no other university would hire him as professor.

Gould made a career out of slandering deceased scientists and physicians. When he made the mistake of slandering a living one, Arthur Jensen, Jensen exposed Gould’s methods: unprofessional conduct, lies, distortions, ad hominem, etc.:

Gould was especially famous for demonstrating to the satisfaction of the highest echelons of scientists that Samuel Morton had falsified his data on how large a brain different ethnic groups can accommodate in their skulls. Now Gould is infamous for having falsified his own data to show that Morton was lying; Morton had correctly reported his results:

Gould also created much trouble over one of his own concoctions: gradualism vs. punctuated equilibrium. Scientists tried to ignore it, but the charlatan had the media behind him. I was sitting in the midst of paleontologists when news that Gould had died flashed. None lamented. When Ernst Mayr died, many were sad. One was a great scientist, the other a charlatan.

You can barely do worse trying to understand neoteny by reading Montagu or Gould. Neoteny refers to an adult retaining a feature characteristic of a child of an ancestral species.

It is your misreading that this site has gone into “evolutionary hierarchy” or “racial superiority.” Years ago I came up with the argument that it is not possible to objectively compare the attractiveness of different geographic populations, and I have not come across new studies that call for a revision. But this does not mean that trends in perception cannot be examined, and such examination should not be misinterpreted in terms of an implied hierarchy.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 21:40 Marija Feminization and masculinization in the looks of men


You say:

"As in women, it is important to look at multiple characteristics in men to assess how masculine/feminine they are".

"Finnish women are more feminine than West African women" "Swedish women are more feminine than Finnish women"

Do you have a source for this, or is this based on your personal views/observations/opinions?

I am very interested in how you got to this conclusion,

~a Dutch female

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 21:10 Marija Feminization and masculinization in the looks of men

Erik, I don't really understand where you concluded from that Swedish or Northern European women are on average more feminine than Asian or Black women?
Do they have higher estrogen levels than Asian or Black women?

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 07:53 NullPointer Welcome!

Fine, you win on Hitler. I just read up a little more and you are correct; I admit I was wrong. However, I will provide counter-studies regarding your stance on homosexuals. In fact, people who are interested in the issue of homosexuality have dedicated websites (similar to yours) cataloging studies to support their stance. For instance, see the papers referenced in

Regarding physical attractiveness, I have not done much research, but if I find something I will let you know. The only paper I have seen agrees with your point that most people find Caucasians more attractive than East Asians. However, it also mentions that people find Eurasians more attractive than either group. So maybe you might consider adding some mixed-race women in your attractive women section, seeing as how mixed features are what many people find the most attractive.

Also, you called Montagu and Gould charlatans. Their papers are indeed more dated. However, how is it correct to call someone a charlatan for believing something (whether that something is true or not)? Surely, you would not call a devout follower of a religion a charlatan. And from the abstract, I do not see smaller face-size mentioned as an indicator of greater neoteny (I could not access the full paper; I think an account is required). If I interpreted it correctly, neoteny is primarily related to encephalization.

What disturbs me most is that I get the impression that this site has strayed from it's focus of feminine beauty. Everywhere I look, you seem to be hinting at an evolutionary hierarchy, in which whites are at the top, and blacks are at the bottom (with insinuations about intelligence, etc... that have nothing to do with physical attractiveness). This website started off as an opposition to the skewed standards of the fashion industry, but recently it has become all about racial superiority. This is the cause for my hot-headed comments, which I know doesn't make them any more justified. However, I hope this comment comes off as a bit less accusatory.

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 22:56 Erik Welcome!

Nullpointer: Staci’s comments have no relevance to this site. Nothing in her comments shows that I have knowingly cited evidence to support my case and ignored evidence that does not fit. If there are many publications out there that contradict the major arguments at this site, it is your burden to mention them and prove you point. What comes out of you is merely an accusation.

On your contention that could explain the greater promiscuity of gays and your concern over why an association of bisexual behaviors/interests with higher rates of “depraved” sexual behaviors is not an indictment against heterosexuality, do you think I have not considered these? Your concerns are at the level of middle-school homosexual studies. I went beyond grad school.

Your concerns are answered here:

See if you can find more elegant explanations of the data cited or an elegant explanation that accounts for this data and more.

You said that even Hitler tried to “scientifically” show that Jews are inferior, and then made references to finance and academia. Here is a copy of Mein Kampf:

As you can observe, it contains opinion and observations but no science. This site features my opinion and observations, but also lots of science. In addition, Hitler made no claims about the inferiority of Jews related to finance and academics. Mein Kampf includes:

“His commercial cunning, acquired through thousands of years of negotiation as an intermediary, made him superior in this field to the Aryans, who were still quite ingenuous and indeed clumsy and whose honesty was unlimited; so that after a short while commerce seemed destined to become a Jewish monopoly.”

“At this stage finance and trade had become his complete monopoly... His astuteness, or rather his utter unscrupulousness, in money affairs enabled him to exact new income from the princes, to squeeze the money out of them and then have it spent as quickly as possible.”

“The intellectual faculties of the Jew have been trained through thousands of years. Today the Jew is looked upon as specially ‘cunning’; and in a certain sense he has been so throughout the ages.”

“That is why the Jewish people, despite the intellectual powers with which they are apparently endowed, have not a culture--certainly not a culture of their own.”

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 18:54 Hannah Part of a revamp of the attractive women section

In my opinion Nordic women are more end improv and Hispanics are ectomorphs. It's scientifically proven that ectomorphs have less male hormones than endomorphs. This may be why Hispanics are more "chubby" than Europeans. Estrogen makes you store fat in womanly places. In my opinion, Hispanics bodies and facial structure is overall more pleasing and feminine that northern Europeans. However, northern European women have an interesting look which is why they are so prevalent on androgynous runways and fashion.

Mon, 08/06/2012 - 23:16 Lily Self-esteem issues related to the feminine beauty site

Just found this gem as well: "Molly is obviously disturbed by this site, and in such cases the woman should be left alone to recover."

Because we know all women are overly emotional hysterics that those poor, rational men can't possibly reason with. That's why we can say "in such cases, the woman should be..." like we know what's true of all women, all the time.

Mon, 08/06/2012 - 23:10 Lily Self-esteem issues related to the feminine beauty site

Pointing out that most women do not look like supermodels is admirable. This site is not.

Regardless of whether you think you are or not, you ARE denigrating certain kinds of appearances. While it may very well be true that supermodels have, on average, more "masculine" features, that does not make them necessarily unattractive. I happen to think that several of the women you label "unattractive" are quite pretty, "masculine" or not--Gisele Bundchen, Marisa Miller, and Bridget Hall, to name a few. Besides, what gives you the right to ridicule ANY woman for her looks, whatever they may be? And you are ridiculing them--for instance, "she could easily be mistaken for a eunuch," and "it appears that Isabeli Fontana even has a moustache," and your sarcastic, "sexy physique, isn't it?"But I suppose my opinions don't count since I'm, you know, a woman, and your mission is patently sexist.

The real issue is that you feel the need to promote ANY standard of female beauty at the expense of others. When was the last time you saw a woman picking apart men like pieces of meat and labeling certain features "attractive/masculine" and others "unattractive/feminine"? Probably never, because men aren't held up to the rigorous standards of personal appearance--WHATEVER they may be based on--that women are. Like it or not, those supermodels ARE women, and there are women who naturally possess more "masculine" features. Everything about your site implies that these women are somehow less than women rather than normal variations on a curve (see "gross masculinization" for an example of how you treat their appearance as abnormal). Even these "masculine" women are feminine, BECAUSE THEY ARE WOMEN, and that is how some women look. What you're doing is no less revolting than the fashion industry making curvier girls feel ugly or ashamed of their appearance.

So, thanks but no thanks for your efforts to "elevate" a certain kind of appearance. Women don't NEED to be exalted for their looks, and certainly not by someone who feels he's qualified to pass judgment by virtue of the fact that he's a man. Here's a thought: maybe a woman's self-esteem shouldn't be dependent on the pronouncements of some male third party like you--maybe she should be able to realize for herself that the way she looks is normal and beautiful. And maybe if you devoted just a fraction of the thought you've put into this slicing and dicing of women's faces and physiques into pondering the fact that they're actually human beings with thoughts and feelings, you'd understand that.

Mon, 08/06/2012 - 22:08 NullPointer Welcome!

No, Staci's comment about your book and website is very relevant. It shows that you have a history of cherry-picking data to affirm your own beliefs. I've cherry-picked before too. However, it's never satisfying in the long term because I am aware of the act. So perhaps you simply lack the ability to reflect on your actions. It only takes one reproducible experiment to call a theory into action. For something as subtle as physical beauty, you really think that there are not a myriad of papers out there that contradict the opinions you post on this site? You speak as if your sources are the definitive ones, both on this site and the other.

And have you ever considered that maybe the reason that gay men are more promiscuous is because men in general have a higher libido than women? When both partners are horny, sex happens. You also associate homosexuality with pedophilia, bestiality, etc... Well, seeing as large portion of those involved are also bisexual, why not associate these so-called depravities with heterosexual behavior? You don't just cherry-pick, you misrepresent data, which is acceptable if unintentional, though in your case, that is highly unlikely.

I cannot be sure of Staci's intentions in posting that comment. Nonetheless, background checks are very relevant. From what I have seen, you exhibit the same delusional approach on both sites. If you hate (or look down upon) non-whites and gays, just say it. Don't try to feign sincere scientific interest because you are neither a scientist nor scientific-minded. Even Hitler tried to show, "scientifically," that Jews were an inferior race, and look at where that got him; Jews are still dominating the financial and academic world.

Mon, 08/06/2012 - 15:47 Erik Welcome!

Staci: People typically find some more desirable than others, and many would prefer to see more of the desirable and less of the undesirable. The relative numbers of the desirable may be increased by several means: coercion, genetic screening and incentives.

I do not approve of coercion. Since genetic screening by couples may lead to abortion of some fetuses, with its accompanying ethical issues, I reluctantly approve of genetic screening. I am more comfortable with incentives, more comfortable with incentives that encourage certain couples or individuals to reproduce more than incentives that discourage certain couples or individuals from reproducing, and approve of incentives with reservations.

Staci: Your other comment is a digression showing you are more interested in the man than his message, and wish to tarnish a message by referring to another message that is completely or mostly unrelated. The quote you picked is factual and does not suggest any bias or viewpoint. It was a response to someone suggesting that discrimination against and oppression of sub-Saharan Africans in South Africa did not end with the elimination of apartheid. I responded that the discrimination and oppression [along ethnic lines] involves whites after the end of apartheid. It is factual that in post-apartheid South Africa whites have steadily lost jobs to affirmative action and have been undergoing a slow process of ethnic cleansing.

You can verify affirmative action from official sources and evidence for genocide from other sources:

Mon, 08/06/2012 - 10:17 NullPointer Linda D. from Met Art

Well, I guess that's what happens when you run out of white women to post...

Mon, 08/06/2012 - 01:16 Germanic European Linda D. from Met Art

Just went through a whole bunch of pages on your site. The women are mostly ugly, ruined by cosmetics, and you have warped standards. That's what I expect though from people obsessed with beauty and trying to define it.

Sun, 08/05/2012 - 18:25 Staci Welcome!

A Few Things about Erik that Readers of this Site Should Note

If you can't see the image, it's of the cover of Erik's book The Nature of Homosexuality: Vindication for Homosexual Activists and the Religious Right

Here's a link to the book at

You can see bios of Erik by using the following two links:

Here's a quote from a comment that Erik left at his site "Whites have been increasingly losing jobs to affirmative action and are slowly being ethnically cleansed."

Here's a link to the web page from which I took the quote:

The quoted sentence should be in the eighth comment below the article on the web page.

Thu, 08/02/2012 - 07:21 NullPointer Self-esteem issues related to the feminine beauty site

The truth is this Erik Holland person clearly has a hidden agenda. It's bad enough that he cherry-picks his data and claims that he is using "science," when in reality his approach is not much better than the most crude of phrenology employed by early anthropologists. But the really unsettling thing is that he is quite clearly racist. It is one thing to acknowledge differences and quite another to use these differences to create a fallacious ranking system. If you look at the attractive women section its absolutely absurd. Erik only posts pictures of white women. I really wonder if he has never ever EVER in his life seen an attractive African, Asian, Indian, etc... woman. Like him, I have my own preferences towards women, but to me, there are people of every ethnicity that are beautiful. I believe that if you ask anyone, they would very easily replace at the very least one woman in that gallery with a better-looking (to them) non-white woman. Personally, there are so many blacks, asians (whatever, you name it), that I would add to that gallery in a heartbeat. For goodness sake, he has TWELVE pages flaunting the perfection of his master race. I think with this large a collection, it is safe to say Erik thinks there are no non-whites that can match the beauty of his so-called "attractive women," many of which aren't even attractive. Even if you show him a picture of a truly attractive non-white woman, he will blow it off, citing how she is attractive because her features are shifted towards the European norm. Even if he admits that she is beautiful, he will not put her in the attractive women section, for obvious reasons.

Mr. Holland also has an unhealthy obsession with condemning homosexuals, even though "it isn't their fault for being depraved." He even wrote a book and maintains a website dedicated to his fascination with the species called "gay men." In a recent comment, he mentioned how the message he is trying to get across isn't as harmful as that of the fashion industry because. To quote him:

"You also mentioned that this site is very harmful to you, but in contrast to fashion imagery, does it give you the impression that you could puke your way to the looks being exalted here?"

Oh, that's fine and dandy. You should feel better because if you aren't Northern European, then you can't do anything to fix the fact that you're ugly, so why stress about something you can't change. Basically, in his eyes, if you are anything other than straight and white, you are inferior. Oh the irony if we one day discover that Erik is a closeted gay black man.

Oh, and don't even try arguing with him. He's the master of coming up with weak justifications for his behavior, and his most popular catchphrase is: Don't hide from the "facts," I am a beacon of truth and an upholder of "science."

Thu, 08/02/2012 - 04:46 D. The transsexual parade otherwise known as the Victoria’s Secret lingerie show: part 6

Before reading your site, I thought all you need to have an attractive face is beautiful eyes, big lips, no dark circles under the eyes, and very little facial fat. Nothing else! I honestly never cared about bones and skulls. If you want to be even more accurate in your comparisons, maybe you should also blur out the eyes and lips, like you blur out nipples. Maybe then people will focus on what you really want them to compare.

Wed, 08/01/2012 - 10:02 milly Self-esteem issues related to the feminine beauty site

Useful? To make women feel bad and cause more bullying! Erik is doing the same as the media bashing type of women , he is no better.

Wed, 08/01/2012 - 09:52 m Self-esteem issues related to the feminine beauty site

they are bashing thin women, just like they do to fat women and then they get bullied cause these websites make ignorant people.

Wed, 08/01/2012 - 07:19 D Self-esteem issues related to the feminine beauty site

A. Hiyane,
Relax. This site is just to show other woman that it is ok to have a curvy body. As far as evolution goes that type is preferable, but look around. Are they the only women getting married and having children? Absolutely not. Many of fashion models are masculine for a number of reasons. Lets just put it as straight men are not typically the ones who design clothes and choose models to wear them. Also, most fashion advertising is marketed towards women. Therefore they use more unattainable icons (very thin, straighter bodied, tall), doll them up, tricking women into thinking that is what men find sexy. None the less these models are still beautiful. Insinuating that because an individual is not "evolutionarily perfect", then they must be horrific looking is absurd. Personally, I am attracted to all different shaped and kinds of men. I do not really have a cookie cutter image of a sexy man. Do you truly think they can be that much different than us?

Tue, 07/31/2012 - 16:25 bravo-bravo_alpha Princess Alla

very nice

Mon, 07/30/2012 - 22:15 Staci Welcome!

"Would you or would you not support non-governmental methods of influencing society that would have the effect of creating what you consider improvements in the gene pool?"

The above sentence should have been written as follows: Would you or would you not support non-governmental methods of influencing society that would have the effect of creating what you would consider improvements in the gene pool?

It's a would-y and not-very-good sentence, but hopefully my meaning gets across.