You are here

Recent comments

Datesort ascending Author Article link, comment
Thu, 12/07/2006 - 19:51 Erik The transsexual parade otherwise known as the Victoria’s Secret lingerie show: part 5

Kristin: Read carefully; a link to photographic evidence for Heidi Klum having breast implants has been posted above. Here is another picture of her showing oddly large breasts attached to a masculine frame with little body fat. Besides, Heidi Klum’s buttocks-hip proportions are not normal for white females; the woman is masculine from head to toe.

Thu, 12/07/2006 - 18:09 Henry The transsexual parade otherwise known as the Victoria’s Secret lingerie show: part 2

Erik... Yes I believe you are correct, because it's not a case of a small percentage of "models" looking generally unattractive, or boyish, or beanpole (like our infamous subject above in the last pic) But there seems to be a High percentage of models which are just Unfeminine.
On another topic, Why do (generally) Lesbians detest males and contact with males, but they so mimic and try to be like Males by going unfeminine, or "Butch"....???
What say you Senior' Holland?

Thu, 12/07/2006 - 15:50 Kristin The transsexual parade otherwise known as the Victoria’s Secret lingerie show: part 5

whewre isa the proo that heidi hs implants. her breasts look real. don't see it. secondly--- a lot of women from certain ethnicities have wide flat butts.

Thu, 12/07/2006 - 15:33 d'Artagnan Is it possible to objectively compare the attractiveness of women from different populations?

You notoriously overlooked the hard evidence I have given before:

Prof. Rainer Knußmann has been continuing the line of reasoning of classical anthropology, at the University of Hamburg, building on the earlier manual of Rudolf Martin and Karl Saller (1956, rev. ed., 1st ed. 1914).Knußmann categorizes 36 distinct human races and some subraces according to physical traits (chapter “Spezielle Rassenkunde(Rassensytematik)”,pp.429-448), and concludes that the Paleomongolid (southern Mongolid) race is an example of paedomorphosis,(i.e., childlike concerning facial traits and body type), while the Nordic race is a "typical masculine one ["Es gibt Rassen, die einen mehr kindhaften (pädomorphen)Habitus bewahrt haben (z.B. Palämongolide,Abb.308 [and as their subrace especially the Nesids with extreme pedomorphous appearance, s. photograph in “Knußmann” of half nude Nesid woman which I propose as a Nesid reference picture , Mr. Holland]),und solche, die in der Ontogenese stärker vorprellen, so daß sie mehr das typische Erwachsenenbild repräsentieren (...)”; “Manche Rassen sind als ganze mehr dem männlichen (z.B. Nordide,Dinaride), andere dem weiblichen Pol (z.B. Mediterranide,Palämongolide) angenähert."p.407.].

John Randal Baker for his part arrives at the same conclusion of paedomorphosis in the Palaemongolids of southeastern Asia (1974)["The somewhat paedomorphous peoples grouped together by Eickstedt as Palaemongolids have a very wide distribution (...)”,p.538]. Baker provides a detailed description of the Mongoliform Sanid bushmen [chapter “The Sanids (Bushmen)”,pp.303-325], and argues that their physical and psychological paedomorphosis hindered them from establishing a more advanced civilization ["Although mankind as a whole is paedomorphous,those ethnic taxa (the Sanids among them) that are markedly more paedomorphous than the rest have never achieved the status of civilization, or anything approaching it, by their own initiative.It would seem that when carried beyond a certain point, paedomorphosis is antagonistic to purely intellectual advance.”,p.324; so an anthropological necessity arises to study the feminine psyche , too, on your site if it is really about “feminine beauty"]. Even the Boasian Ashley Montagu notes in his work that “One result of this is the high frequency of beauty among mongoloid males and females, a beauty of great delicacy (...). The differential action of neoteny has produced some peculiar effects. For example, among the highly neotenized Japanese the males upper and lower jaws have been reduced in size while the teeth have not. The result has created a disharmony in many males in the form of extreme crowding and malocclusion of the teeth.” [Montagu, Ashley (1989) Growing Young N.Y.: McGraw Hill pp. 40]. The majority of biological anthropologists agree that paedomorphous physicality and behavior are closely associated with femininity, and that members of the Asiatic races are more feminine than the Caucasian races.

Secondly, Knußmann draws from Max Hartmann’s theory of relative sexuality in animals and plants (Hartmann, 1956; Chen, 2003).Knußmann writes :” Für die geschlechtertypologische Varationsreihe (M-W-Linie,vgl.Kap.IIIB2a) wurde die Partnerregel aufgestellt, daß ein ganzes M und ein ganzes W zusammenzutreten streben, wobei M und W von Fall zu Fall in verschiedenem Prozentsatz auf die beiden Partner verteilt sein können."(p.456). According to Hartmann, the intensity of sexuality in heterozygous gametes may not be the same for all individuals in a species, but instead may lie on a continuum, ranging from intensely female to intensely male. Furthermore, male gametes of high intensity then tend to unite with female gametes of high intensity. Hartmann’s theory of relative sexuality was based upon study of sexual reproduction in certain isogamous and anisogamous algae (Smith, 1956). But Hartmann was also interested in human sexuality (Chen, 2003). Knußmann, maintaining Hartmann’s theory for humans, reasserts that very masculine men should be attracted to very feminine women, which could explain Caucasian men’s sexual attraction to Asian women. These couples would then be ideal in terms of the “power aspect” of sexuality, in which men have a tendentious instinct for dominance and women for submission. Knußmann believes that this is essential for a stable relationship, in contrast to the Halbkontrastehen (a dominant man with a semi-dominant (virago) woman), which is unstable due to unclear structures of power [Knußmann:"Es gibt Hinweise darauf, daß in mißglückten Ehen (geschiedene oder in Scheidung lebende Partner) keine Heterogamie bezüglich der leptomorph-pyknomorphen Variationsreihe vorliegt, sondern die Halbkontrastehen überdurchschnittlich häufig auftreten.”,p.457].

References

1. J. R. Baker. (1974) Race. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

2. H.-A. Chen. (2003) Die Sexualitätstheorie und “Theoretische Biologie” von Max Hartmann in der ersten Hälfte des zwanzigsten Jahrhunderts. Sudhoffs Archiv Beiheft, 46.

3. M. Hartmann (1956) Die Sexualität: Das Wesen und die Grundgesetzlichkeiten des Geschlechts und der Geschlechtsbestimmung im Tier- und Pflanzenreich. (Jena, 1943; 2nd ed. 1956)

4. R. Knußmann. (1996) Vergleichende Biologie des Menschen: Lehrbuch der Anthropologie und Humangenetik. Fischer, Stuttgart;ISBN 343725040X,
please buy this book, Mr. Holland, it’s unique

5. R. Martin and K. Saller. (1956) Lehrbuch der Anthropologie in systematischer Darstellung mit besonderer Berucksichtigung der anthropologischen Methoden. Fischer Verlag, Jena.

6. A. Montagu (1989) Growing Young. Bergin and Garvey, New York. 2nd ed.

7. G. M. Smith, 1956. The Role of Study of Algae in the Development of Botany. American Journal of Biology, 43:(7), pp. 537-543

As one can see from Knußmann's 1.edition of his manual , he dimmed down his real opinions on
"asocials" , "Jews " and "race" e.g. due to political correctness.
He was terrorized by leftist-initiated judicial
trials in Hamburg, similar to experiences Rushton and Lynn had.
I hope you mean by "health consellour" not that Jewish psychoanalysis which was falsified and shown a Jewish destruction strategy by Kevin MacDonald in the Culture of Critique(2002).
My advise for you (which you will follow in any case due to the Tolstoy effect;-))is just to go on with your pseudo-scientific Boasian anthropology celebrating Aryan womanhood, the sooner the Whites die out who sponsor this leftist Entartung due to a genetic predisposition shown by Kevin MacDonald.We do not know exactly if the future rulers of the world are 20% Sinid or 60% Nordish or 35% Palaungid. But they will not be sons of those lipstick lesbian Aryan Fräuleins shown on this page.

Wed, 12/06/2006 - 20:46 Erik Is it possible to objectively compare the attractiveness of women from different populations?

d’Artagnan: I have repeatedly requested you to stop commenting here. Why do you not heed my request? I don’t want you to trash this site.

Leftist haters of physical anthropology have not been able to sabotage research within this discipline like you assume; the only thing that has happened is that the kind of terminology that you are using has been discarded, but then this terminology is not needed and there is no loss. I have cited some major recent studies within this section that you have been unaware of; there are other interesting studies that you will come across if you bother to read current literature.

If this were a site about physical anthropology I could easily fill it with a lot more recent and interesting studies. For instance, the Boasian school of anthropology has taken devastating blows in recent years. Margaret Mead’s Coming of Age in Samoa has been exposed as fraudulent, the notion of the “noble savage” has been shown to be a way-off myth, a leftist attack on the work of Napoleon Chagnon and James Neel by Patrick Tierney in the Darkness in El Dorado was quickly condemned by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, and Boas’ famous study on ethnicity and plasticity of skull shape has been debunked. Are you aware of such finds? How has this been possible if Boasians have some kind of stranglehold on anthropology like you are implying?

My lack of knowledge of German is not a problem as far as anthropological research is concerned. English is the most widely spoken language in the world. It is highly unlikely that important anthropological papers in non-English languages have not come to the attention of English-speaking anthropologists and then described/summarized in English. I have specified the kind of evidence that would be needed to compare femininity across populations, namely evidence from sex hormone profiles and skeletal studies where confounds are controlled for. If such data exist in a German paper or Knußmann’s book but no English publication, then all you need to do is to scan it and email it to me or host it at imageshack.us and post the links in your comment, but you have not done any such thing. Do not accuse me of ignorance unless you can cite such data.

Regarding censorship, it is unlikely that there is more censorship in the U.S. compared to Germany; at least Germany is a joke when it comes to freedom of speech. Don’t tell me that Knußmann’s book is more unacceptable in the U.S. than in Germany.

I am tired of your repeated insistence without any proof that “Nesid” women are the most feminine. Cite evidence in the form requested or quit saying this. Some of the alleged feminine features in “Nesid” women turn out to be ancestral features; “Nesid” women have less feminine curves and a lower frequency of an hourglass figure compared to Northern European women; you have completely ignored the fact that comparisons regarding psychological masculinity cannot be made unless the level of literacy, women’s freedom and the extent of male domination of society is similar among Northern Europeans and “Nesids”; and you have never cited any evidence that the reduced height of “Nesids” is related to greater feminization.

Your assertion that there are other anthropologists that have gone through this thread and agree with you is a mere assertion. Why should I believe you? The others have not left any comments, let alone comments suggesting that they have the requisite anthropological knowledge.

You have once again resorted to adopting a deconstructionist strategy, now by assuming that I have “stronger femininity” because of the supposed inflexibility of my thought processes and the Nazi Nordic ideal that I subscribe to! How have you made any inference about my unwillingness to reconsider my views? Unless you cite the kind of data that I have requested you will not give me any reason to reconsider my views. The Nazi Nordic ideal notion once again makes a case that you are insane. Millions of white women dye their hair blonde. Is this because they harbor the Nazi ideal? Whites undergoing cosmetic surgery try to acquire facial features closer to those of Northern European norms. Do they harbor the Nazi ideal? Many people in ancient Greece and Rome admired blondeness. Did they harbor the Nazi ideal, too? MC1R data show a recent (< 15,000 years ago) origin and rapid increase in blondeness among Northern Europeans, almost certainly as a result of stronger sexual selection, i.e., by implication a preference for blondeness among a large number of the pre-historic ancestors of Northern Europeans. Did these pre-historic people harbor a Nazi ideal? The Nazi admiration for Nordic features was an admiration that they shared with many Northern and other Europeans at the time and also their ancestors; there is nothing Naziesque about a preference for Nordic features.

If you have problems with Jews, then this is not the place to vent your frustrations with them; do it elsewhere. Curiously, on the one hand, you express concern for whites and lament the loss of power of Northern Europeans compared to the early twentieth century, but on the other hand you express concern that my site will prompt Northern Europeans to have children with Northern Europeans rather than with East Asians! You have to be insane. Mixing Northern Europeans with East Asians will make Northern Europeans disappear in the first generation mixed offspring; since East Asians are much more numerous, they will be largely unaffected by the minor loss of their people to admixture. What kind of madness has made you harbor the absurd notion of increasing the competitiveness of Northern Europeans by mixing them with East Asians? Even if the mixed-population has greater fertility and ethnocentrism, it will not be white, let alone Nordic. Please see a mental health counselor. There are easily well over a 100 million Northern Europeans; if their population shrinks somewhat, you are still looking at an absolutely large number of them. Masculinized Northern European women who do not have children do not produce future feminists to bug you; you should be pleased. Do not comment here; please leave me alone.

Wed, 12/06/2006 - 12:59 Erik The transsexual parade otherwise known as the Victoria’s Secret lingerie show: part 1

Laura: If masculine women with fake breasts are being used when feminine ones are required, you are looking at a big aesthetics disaster from the perspective of the general public, especially lovers of feminine beauty. More importantly, the criticism here is not about the looks of Karolina Kurkova but the circumstances/people that have led to her modeling lingerie in a high profile setting. I have nothing against the looks of Karolina Kurkova or anything else about her, but she is unsuitable for lingerie modeling, and it is not possible to point out her unsuitability without resorting to an analysis such as above.

Wed, 12/06/2006 - 12:45 Erik The importance of femininity to beauty in women

To compare women, one will have to compare individual parts, but it all needs to be seen in reference to whole body appearance since sex hormones only partly shape the physique and factors not contributing to sexual dimorphism could contribute to a masculine or feminine appearance of an individual body part.

Wed, 12/06/2006 - 07:27 d'Artagnan Is it possible to objectively compare the attractiveness of women from different populations?

1.) You write that your cited anthropological studies are beyond the understanding of the lefetists. Unfortunately , they are not. Boasians have managed to manipulate successfully documentations, analyzes, interpretations and evaluations in anthropology. Essential among them
were Ashkenazim which as a group have a mean IQ of 115 ,the highest worldwide of any group, but Boasians like Ashley Montagu (aka Israel Ehrenberg), the most popular anthropologist of his time, and Franz Boas , the father of multiculturalism, had a much higher IQ
2.) Who benefits from the real
consequences of this website ?
The Nordish race will have become an insignificant
minority during the 21st century which is a direct consequence of Nordish men pairing with Nordih women, what this site is promoting indirectly.
3.) In this context of my intention to transform the Nordish race or at least a part of it into
another competetive race with Eastern-Asian admixtures, you asked if I am "insane". The pathologization of people who care for the White race is a trick among Jewish leftists,
Freud , Adorno (aka Wiesengrund) and the Frankfurt School, and Boas tried to do so e.g. There is nothing bad in promoting group interests. So the Jews themselves did not adopt the enlightenment and maintained a hyperethnocentric group cohesion until now. My suspicion concerning your site is
justified in any case: there has never been such an abdication of power than this overthrow of the Nordish race that ruled the world in 1930. But I can assure you, that the people responsible for that overthrow will be made responsible in the future. The "patient" may be dead, but the "doctors" will not get away at least.
4.) You cannot understand German, which shows that
you are restircted to about half the important literature in anthropology. I speak five languages, John Randal Baker e.g. understood even more, as his massive "Race" (Oxford University Press, 1974) shows.Additionally you are a victim of the Tolstoy syndrome, you reject to buy the Knußmann
which of course is not e.g. in the library of Congress
due to their effective censorship and "throw-away" system.
5.)You should do an immersive approach concerning the Nesid race, that means to appreciate the femininity from the closest possible distance as I recommended before. In the end the overall femininty is what counts, the overwhelming amout of features are feminine in the Nesid women. Even highschool textbooks in Germany acknowledge this, it is and was commonplace.
6.) Again , I informed two further European capacities in the field whom I showed this thread and who agreed to me smilingly.Again I have to state that we have no animosities towards you.
7.) According to Hartmann's theory of sexuality,
we ask ourselves what kind of scientist you are.
Hartmann predicts a stronger femininity in people who are too zyclothymous to have a
flexible and developping way of thinking ( the "Bewahrungsgesellschaftsmentalität", Claus) and who cling to the Nordish women ideal (a Nazi ideal by the way, just like your insisting on "easy" scientific English terms despite of twisting the anthropological reality).So Adorno was even a bit more efficient in (consciously or unconsciously)twisting reality: he used an unprecedented difficult elaborated style to confuse the poor Nordish men totally.

Wed, 12/06/2006 - 03:20 Laura The transsexual parade otherwise known as the Victoria’s Secret lingerie show: part 1

Seriously who fives a fuck if she is or not.. What does it matter? You people are so judgmental and stupid.. Get over it.. At least she made it .. Thats all that matter. So stop critisizing her you pathetic foolish ignorant humans UGH you make me sick

Tue, 12/05/2006 - 00:53 Anon The importance of femininity to beauty in women

Hello

Wouldn't it be better or to compare individual body parts rather than the whole package? Woman 4 seems to have the largest (relative) hips compared to woman 7, yet as you mantioned, woman 7 has a more slender skeletal build.

Sun, 12/03/2006 - 23:20 Erik Miss Universe 2006: beauty pageant par excellence!

Tropp: What is the need for me to post pictures of my female relatives or female intimates? None of them have participated in beauty contests, including the one being addressed. Talent scouts wanted my mother to participate in a beauty pageant, but her parents were conservative and she did not get their permission. Anyway, this entry is not about the masculinity-femininity/attractiveness of random women, but contestants in a high profile beauty pageant, and their participation implies that they have consented to have their looks evaluated by others. Therefore, I can address their looks without being obligated to also address/have addressed the looks of my female relvatives/intimates. I cannot post a picture of a female relative/intimate without her permission or I could get in trouble with her, but there is no need in the first place.

Sun, 12/03/2006 - 22:05 tropp Miss Universe 2006: beauty pageant par excellence!

Mr. Holland,

Perhaps you would like to include a picture of your wife, girlfriend, mother, or sister on your website...and let all those who visit comment on their 'femininity or masculinity', or are you brave enough?

I didn't think so!

Sun, 12/03/2006 - 17:02 Erik Miss Universe 2006: beauty pageant par excellence!

Paul Rugerd: Optomatrist? Learn to spell before accusing anyone of being a liar. It is unclear what lie you are specifically referring to, but if it concerns the masculinization of the women labeled masculinized, which should be obvious, then you need to understand what feminization is about; read the “feminine vs. masculine” page, and if this doesn’t help you then you may need to have your vision examined by an ophthalmologist.

Sun, 12/03/2006 - 15:00 Paul Rugerd Miss Universe 2006: beauty pageant par excellence!

The person writing the above is a liar at best, and has his eyes in his rear end. I suggest he see a reputable optomatrist and fast.

Sat, 12/02/2006 - 00:33 Erik Nonheterosexual vs. heterosexual male preference for petite women: Alessandra Ambrosio vs. Camille

Bron: Click on the “email” link toward the top right of this page and you will be taken to a page that mentions my email address. The article that you have linked to has a couple of problems. It features an ethnicity confound. Differences in longevity between ethnic groups can easily be a function of genetic differences unrelated to height, diet and/or environmental factors. Additionally, in multi-ethnic populations, some ethnic groups may not be representative of their group of origin. The article also mentions evidence from studies on dogs, but dog breeding has been heavily manipulated by humans for a variety of reasons, including size, but longevity considerations have probably been absent. Evidence from caloric restriction studies is also not the best evidence since this affects body weight for a given height/length in addition to height/length.

One would expect a non-linear relationship between height and longevity such that longevity is greatest for people in the neighborhood of average height for their ethnic group. Anyway, the article addresses height, and as far as the height-beauty association goes, it doesn’t address it except saying that tallness is socially valued in men. Somewhat above average height [not too tall] is generally considered aesthetically pleasing, especially in men. Fertility cues are a correlate of attractiveness, and these cues include evidence of sex hormone profile in physical appearance. Since part of the reason women are shorter than men is their development under greater estrogen levels, men with above average height and women with below average height will tend to have, on average compared to others of their ethnic group, below average estrogen levels and above average estrogen levels, respectively. Since above average fertility in men corresponds to below average estrogen levels and above average fertility in women corresponds to above average estrogen levels, one would expect to see aesthetic appreciation of tall men and somewhat below average height women in so far as fertility cues go. The height preference in women is shifted in opposite directions by fertility considerations and a general aesthetic preference for taller people. Therefore, one would expect the aesthetic preference for tallness among men to be much stronger than in women. As far as the general population is concerned, the height of a woman would not be an important consideration from a beauty standpoint unless the woman happens to be very short or very tall.

Hanssss: You are correct that femininity and attractiveness in women are not synonyms, but I have not implied anything to the contrary. However, femininity is a very powerful correlate of beauty in women. For a comparison within the same ethnic group, the only way a masculinized female face is going to be rated more attractive than a feminized female face by the general population is if the feminine face is malformed/has some notable anomalies or abnormalities.

Fri, 12/01/2006 - 19:34 Hanssss Nonheterosexual vs. heterosexual male preference for petite women: Alessandra Ambrosio vs. Camille

Just becuase a face may show a high level of femininity, it doesn't neccassrily mean that it will be attractive - therefore faces ranked as 'normal' or even 'masculine' could show a much higher level of beauty.

Thu, 11/30/2006 - 20:54 Erik Is it possible to objectively compare the attractiveness of women from different populations?

d’Artagnan: Quite saying that your claims about femininity were the mainstream concept of femininity for 150 years before some political events removed them from anthropology. As the current evidence, cited above, indicates, your notions are incorrect. You need to stick to current evidence. If a long-standing belief has withstood the test of time, there would either be modern evidence in favor of it or no current evidence to dispute it.

There is no idolization of Nordish women here. Your claim that I do not acknowledge a single masculine trait among Nordic women is absurd. What is this site about? There are numerous comparisons of masculinized and feminized women here. Look around; you will see plenty of masculinized Nordish women. Once again, masculine and feminine women exist in all populations. The problem is with your assertion that a particular characteristic of a population can be described as masculine or feminine compared to the corresponding characteristic of another population. Your argument is:

Quote:

"You analyze traits correctly concerning allometry and ancestral traits, but in the end it is not important where it comes from, the features are either physically and psychically feminine or masculine."

What kind of a scientist are you? Not important where it comes from? Even if masculinization/feminization are not involved? One cannot talk about more masculine or more feminine features unless one shows that greater masculinization or greater feminization is involved, respectively, which is something that you have been unable to show to back up your idiosyncratic notions.

No, I have not argued for the greater masculinization of East Asiatic women. I have simply disputed your assertion of their greater femininity. What is this talk about “Europiform Sinids”? All East Asian populations are strikingly different from Europeans. Besides, by your reasoning, even the “Europiform Sinids” have to be assigned greater femininity compared to European women. For the umpteenth time, I have to point out that the flattest mid-faces are found among the East Asiatic people whom you classify as most masculine (Sinids/Tungids) among East Asians.

Don’t accuse me of not distinguishing between different East Asiatic populations. I have previously cited evidence that the Northeast/East Asian group (Chinese, Chukchis, Mongolians, Koreans, Buryats and other Siberians) is mid-facially flatter and more jaw-regressed than the mainland Southeast Asian group (Vietnamese, Cambodian, Thai, Malay, Myanmar), and then I also presented data from the lesser Sunda Island group (Bali, Timor, Sumbawa, Flores people). Hanihara’s paper presents data on the individual populations named plus a lot more. The very fact that I am citing a paper where the populations of East Asia are divided into many more groups than what you have grouped them into argues against your accusation that I am committing some kind of classification error. The geographic trend in East Asia is evident from the data cited.

Brigitte Nielsen is a masculinized woman; I wouldn’t bother invoking allometry. But once again, there are feminine and masculine women in all populations.

You are again bringing in behaviors/psychological make-up into the picture when these are irrelevant to the physical appearance question being addressed within this section. True, the radical feminists you have named do not have counterparts in southeast Asia, but these women also didn’t have counterparts in medieval Europe. What happened within a few centuries to make the European women more masculine? European women did not become more masculine; the Church lost power, society became less male dominated and people became more respecting of individual rights and freedom; the key individuals that initiated this process were men. In the process, several radical feminists came to the limelight in the West, most of the rabidly anti-male ones in the latter half of the twentieth century, but these women remain a very miniscule minority in the general European female population, and many of the prominent radical feminists have been Jewish (Middle Eastern/Southern European equivalent) rather than Nordic, notwithstanding your assertion of greater femininity of Mediterranean women. How reasonable is it to assign greater psychological masculinity to European women in general and especially Nordic women because of a handful of prominent radical feminists among them compared to the relative absence of these women in religion/male-dominated non-European societies?

Why do “Nesid” men like their pedomorphous “Nesid” women? Firstly, the “Nesid” women are not pedopmorphous; none of their allegedly pedopmorphous features have been shown to be a result of pedomorphy by you, and I have already cited evidence refuting the notion of selection for pedomorphous faces among humans, which you have yet to dispute. Besides, whereas “Nesid” women may be too short for Northern European men, they are not too short for “Nesid” men, i.e., there is nothing pedomorphous about their height from the perspective of “Nesid” men. Similarly, whereas “Nesid” women have flatter mid-faces than European women, so do their male counterparts compared to European men, i.e., the mid-facial flatness of “Nesid” women is not childlike from the perspective of “Nesid” men. If heterosexual men had to choose between women with less feminine curves vs. no women, most would take the women with less feminine curves, but this will not mean that they have a preference for women with less feminine curves. “Nesid” men pick the best of what is available to them, which is not to say that the women they pick conform to their highest standards.

There is no consensus among Western men about the greater femininity of “Mongolids.” As anyone can see, they have less feminine curves. Don’t blame media propaganda for most white men not being attracted to “Mongolids.” Media propaganda (ubiquitous fashion imagery) has not succeeded in making heterosexual men attracted to skinniness or masculinization in women. There are innate elements to aesthetic preferences, and the physical appearance of East Asians simply doesn’t interest most white men. Besides, whereas you have mentioned the ridiculous “femininity” portrayed in “Sex in the City,” this show doesn’t depict any type of femininity; if I am not mistaken, a homosexual man wrote the script.

Your comments are worse than useless, and here are additional reasons:

1. You do not seem to have an interest in disseminating anthropological knowledge to the general public. For instance, you use dolichocephalic instead of long-skulled, lepteroprosopic instead of long and narrow faced, macrosomic instead of large bodied and other obscure terminology.

2. You keep citing Knußmann’s book whenever I ask you for evidence. The evidence should exist in the form of numerical data/peer-reviewed journal articles, which is what you need to cite, but you cite a book that does not appear to have an English version, and which I therefore cannot read. Knußmann is unlikely to have made his arguments by conducting a massive amount of unique research specifically for his book. Most of the material in his book should be a literature review. If there is any merit to your portrayal of population differences, you should be able to cite current literature published in journals, but the only journal articles that you have cited are tangential to the discussion. Even numerical data/analysis from Knußmann’s book would be helpful, but you have not provided any such data to back your classification schemes.

3. You show no sign of giving up your idiosyncratic stances. For instance, you assert without any justification whatsoever that the rightmost woman in the image series featuring Brooke Shields is more masculine than the Bali woman you pointed out, and accuse me of being confused about pedomorphosis. Hello? Read the paper by Penin et al. and see clear evidence that the concept of neoteny does not apply to human face shape! Look at the canonical correlations involving Hanihara’s sample and notice that the features you are calling pedomorphic are ancestral features. Once again, note that you have never cited any evidence relating the shorter height of Bali women to greater feminization.

4. You are talking about Nordic women not being very willing to have children, but a quick fertility rate check will reveal the Nordic average to be higher than the European average. For instance, in 1998, the average fertility rate in Europe was 1.5, but in the Nordic nations it was: Iceland (2.0), Norway (1.8), Sweden (1.8), Finland (1.7) and Dennmark (1.7). So how is it possible for the allegedly most masculine European women to have higher fertility than the average for Europeans? The highest fertility was observed in borderline European populations where many people are the equivalent of Third World populations, and in southern European nations not adversely affected by large-scale poverty or general malaise, the fertility rates were Italy (1.2), Spain (1.2) and Greece (1.3). So much for your argument!

5. You accuse me of adopting Boasian and deconstructionist strategies. Your justify labeling my arguments Boasian by virtue of me preventing a “holistic” discussion; for instance, not addressing psychological femininity or your classification schemes. However, a quick reading of the title of this entry will reveal the unambiguous irrelevance of psychological femininity to this discussion. It also doesn’t help that your assertions in this regard are idiosyncratic and poorly informed like your other arguments. Regarding the classification schemes that you have mentioned, it is curious that on the one hand you complain about vested interests removing your terminology from mainstream anthropological literature and then come across as a person wanting to resurrect old terminology/typology...to achieve what exactly? Please the leftist haters of physical anthropology? Here is news for you. Whereas 20th century political events did remove your cherished terminology from mainstream anthropological literature, they did not sabotage anthropological research in the long term. Knowledge of differences and similarities between human populations has never been stronger. I have presented current literature within this section that you, presumably a professor of anthropology, were oblivious to. There is a lot of other interesting anthropological research that you either have no idea where to look for or wouldn’t understand if you encountered it. How do modern physical anthropologists proceed? Take Hanihara’s study as an example. Hanihara presented data on 112 populations but did not bother dividing them into 36 clusters like you have been harping on. If one had to explore population structure, one could use cluster analysis and present discriminant scores (probability of misclassification) to lay to rest any accusations of arbitrary classification. Hanihara presented canonical variates analysis; similar studies may employ other multivariate tools such as Penrose analysis, principal components analysis, MANOVA, Mahalanobis distances, etc. These methods are beyond the understanding of the typical physical-anthropology-hating leftist or the typical person with ulterior motives. Therefore, anthropological research can continue with minimal interference, but then people like you come along to sabotage further research. Attempting to resurrect old typology will create more leftist problems for anthropological research, and is something that is completely useless and unnecessary to advance the field. Why can you not understand this? I am not trying to undermine “holistic” discussion, just trying to avoid a useless discussion.

Regarding deconstructionism, I don’t like deconstructionsts; they are filth. Deconstructionism involves critiquing an argument by questioning the motives of or assigning malicious motives to the author rather than addressing the evidence cited. Where have I done this in the exchange that I have had with you? I have cited plenty of empirical evidence. You, on the other hand, are the one attaching motives to me and ignoring the evidence cited. You have accused me of “Nordish fetishism” and have started wondering whether I am Jewish. So who has been adopting a deconstructionist strategy? I have told you before that Nordic women are overrepresented among high-end models, and the attractive women section simply reflects this, and also that the concept of fetishism applies to non-living objects, not living beings. Besides, I do not have Jewish ancestry and do not identify as a Jew.

6. You have again mentioned the incredible absurdity that if this site’s goals (promotion of feminine beauty) were to be implemented then Northern Europeans would be eliminated and “viragos,” leftists and the Ashkenazim would benefit! I have replied to this absurdity previously but now I also have to ask, are you insane? You have mentioned that you have been promoting Nesid women. What for? To help Northern Europeans?

7. You talk about no distinction between description and prescription in science! This is incredible. So much for the notion of dispassionate research, right? A pursuit of knowledge is an end by itself for some people, and is the essence of science. Science should be distinguished from applied science and engineering. Basing prescriptions on [scientific] knowledge is recommended, but description and prescription remain separate issues.

The discussion here is over. I cannot allow you to continue addressing off-topic issues and absurdities endlessly. I have asked you many times to stop commenting here and email me instead, but you have not heeded my request. Seriously, email me your response if you wish to continue this discussion. My email address can be found on the “email” page; see top-right corner. Please DO NOT leave comments here anymore.

Wed, 11/29/2006 - 13:01 bron Claire: for the skeptics

That is gross insanity. Like there is something wrong to look like a young girl,it doesnt' even sound logical. Young face&feminine body vs. rough, masculine, prematurely aged face& skeletal body. Those haters must be bitter fashion models...

Tue, 11/28/2006 - 11:43 bron Nonheterosexual vs. heterosexual male preference for petite women: Alessandra Ambrosio vs. Camille

I want to send some pictures for your opinion, not to be added in any section of your site, and I don't know what is your e mail
Also,If it is not too much to ask, could you read the article on the following page : http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1071721il.and explain, whether healthy or unhealthy body size ( don't mean fat , you have explained that) have also any impact on perceiving beauty

Tue, 11/28/2006 - 01:06 Erik Nonheterosexual vs. heterosexual male preference for petite women: Alessandra Ambrosio vs. Camille

Bron: I didn’t say people should not email me pictures. What I said was that women who wish to be featured in the attractive women section should not send me their nude pictures.

Mon, 11/27/2006 - 06:00 bron Nonheterosexual vs. heterosexual male preference for petite women: Alessandra Ambrosio vs. Camille

all right, many people call such looks "ordinary"; but it is also perefect, I could not think of better one regarding such fine, flawless nose, fine lips and nicely wide set eyes. Of course, that is only in the movies, on the photos she looks too bony, long faced,large jaw etc. But why do so many people say Grace Kelly is such a stunning beauty, what is so good about her? Did you say you don't want photos to be sent on this site? Where could I send them, if I want to demonstrate ?

Sun, 11/26/2006 - 23:54 Erik Nonheterosexual vs. heterosexual male preference for petite women: Alessandra Ambrosio vs. Camille

Bron: One individual, not a team is behind my name. Lip thickness varies across populations and the norm for one population may be aesthetically too thin or too thick for another. However, for a given population, somewhat above average lip thickness is generally preferred among women. Gwyneth Paltrow has always looked ordinary to me; nothing special about her looks.

Sun, 11/26/2006 - 23:44 Erik The transsexual parade otherwise known as the Victoria’s Secret lingerie show: part 2

Henry: Related to your anecdote, there is the issue of the stability of attractiveness in life. Whereas absolute attractiveness diminishes with age, relative attractiveness is generally stable in lifetime. In other words, attractive children will typically grow up to be attractive teenagers, then attractive young adults, and so on. However, it seems that too many high-fashion models have a different profile, namely that they were unpopular, teased or picked on as a result of their looks when they were kids, but as teenagers/young adults they ran into a model scout and quickly became top models. What happened all of a sudden to make these women attractive? Typically, these women never became attractive as far as the general population is concerned; they were just lucky enough to run into model scouts looking for women with looks that would please male homosexual fashion designers.

Sun, 11/26/2006 - 19:37 Henry The transsexual parade otherwise known as the Victoria’s Secret lingerie show: part 2

Yes Erik, I have to agree with you, especially your last paragraph, although be it a generalised statement, as of course personal tastes/chemistry is a deciding factor.
I remember a girl back in high school who was considered by most to be the sexiest/most beautiful, by all the fella's in my form class, but also my many others. I moved away and never saw her again until 23 years later I bumped into her when on a holiday, she was beautiful at 14/15, but also at 38 I don't think there would be many other 38 year old women that could outclass her beauty, I look at many "models" and still think to myself if they were all lined up beside her, even now years later, she would beat them, pants on.

Fri, 11/24/2006 - 22:19 bron Nonheterosexual vs. heterosexual male preference for petite women: Alessandra Ambrosio vs. Camille

Erik, the way you master those stupid, brainwashed, glamour glare dazzled suckers, that have no exquisit taste. It is so obvious and photos are evident proof. Is there a team behind the name? You don't lack patience either. Obviously, women take it too personal and men... well feed them for 20 years with medieval images and see wether they would have the same preferences.
I myself think that ordinary look does not equate with lack of beauty, and vice versa exotic does not equate grand beauty. Although, majority people often do have too many flaws to be called beautiful. Also, many people I know don't find fat lips attractive, many address them as herpes look, or bee stung.
How would you describe face of Gwyneth Paltrow? It was a fine one when she was younger, if you dismiss her sharp jaw.
best regards

Pages