You are here

Recent comments

Datesort ascending Author Article link, comment
Tue, 11/21/2006 - 00:53 Erik The transsexual parade otherwise known as the Victoria’s Secret lingerie show: part 4

Sandy: It is a great compliment to have his site being called pro-woman even though this site’s intent is neither to be pro- nor anti-women. I appreciate it. Some other women have told me similar things; one even found it surprising that she agreed with this site. Her surprise was presumably a result of encountering useful information/objectives, notwithstanding the extreme “objectification” of women here, which flips feminists, although I have had one self-described feminist tell me that she appreciated the site.

Regarding the comparison of Alessandra with Sophie, I know that it is extreme, but given the lingerie modeling issue, it firmly drives home the point about Alessandra’s unsuitability as a lingerie model. Since I had already featured a comparison of Alessandra with a petite but feminine woman previously and planned on showcasing two women apart from Sophie for less extreme comparisons, the Sophie comparison is not that out of place.

Adding a section showcasing petite but feminine women is not a bad idea. On a related issue, I have been mulling adding a sexy women section, which would feature women considered sexy by heterosexual men. Slight masculinization is a correlate of sexiness in women, but women who happen to be sexy by heterosexual male standards will still be much more feminine than the likes of Alessandra.

Madeline: What do women wear lingerie for? To make themselves more sexually appealing to their male partners, who would typically be lifetime-exclusive heterosexual. Heterosexual men will also normally be interested in a lingerie show. Therefore, lingerie models directly or indirectly cater to the preferences of heterosexual men, and their looks should reflect this, but this doesn’t happen to be the case for too many Victoria’s Secret models. Besides, men and women rate women’s beauty similarly, and both overwhelmingly and strongly prefer above average femininity in the looks of women. Therefore, it is far from the case that the looks of Victoria’s Secret models reflect the aesthetic preferences of the general female population.

Although you say that you care more about the face than the physique of women, if you were to watch a lingerie show with the intent of purchasing lingerie, you will definitely have to look at the physiques of the lingerie models. The choice of Alessandra as a lingerie model simply cannot be justified from any perspective other than the preferences of homosexuals.

Mon, 11/20/2006 - 20:28 madeline The transsexual parade otherwise known as the Victoria’s Secret lingerie show: part 4

in this entry you refer to masculinizations of alessandra in both her face and body, and therefore i'm pointing out the fact that i care more about the face than the physique of a woman.

lingerie companies are supposed to cater to the desires of women, so that they can sell their product (men don't buy stuff from victoria's secret).

Mon, 11/20/2006 - 19:33 Erik Nonheterosexual vs. heterosexual male preference for petite women: Alessandra Ambrosio vs. Camille

Soccer: Talk about chutzpah, not to mention insanity! An apparent homosexual calling the webmaster a derogatory term for homosexuals! Alessandra is not masculine because she is slender. Here is a woman skinnier than Alessandra but obviously much more feminine. Besides, the woman that Alessandra is compared to is petite but clearly more feminine. The women shown in the attractive women section are far from obese. Additionally, most men in Western societies prefer women with a normal amount of body fat rather than women that are slender or obese.

Mon, 11/20/2006 - 13:24 soccer Nonheterosexual vs. heterosexual male preference for petite women: Alessandra Ambrosio vs. Camille

oh and one more thing dumbass... my girlfriend is shorter, petite, and not as skinny in the face.. would you consider her a man? your an idiot, get a life fag

Mon, 11/20/2006 - 13:06 soccer Nonheterosexual vs. heterosexual male preference for petite women: Alessandra Ambrosio vs. Camille

the maker of this site has absolutely the worst taste in women I have ever seen.. if you think that ambrosio has a masculine figure, this practically means that you think she is gorgeous but you just wish she was a man when in fact so that is the only side you see of her. open your damn eyes and notice that she is one of the top models for victoria secret and many people would give anything to even see what she looks like in person and not just in front of a camera. if you like men and are homosexual, that does not mean you have to degrade the top models in the world to TRY and make other people see things the way you do and see the masculinity of them. 99.9% of men love petite girls and not obese girls. when a girl is petite, she is petite all over her body, even in the face. So quit being a homosexual and go put pictures of naked fat guys all over your computer so you can judge them every day and quit degrading women that everyday men love to look at and every day women wish they could be.

Sun, 11/19/2006 - 23:00 sldk Nonheterosexual vs. heterosexual male preference for petite women: Alessandra Ambrosio vs. Camille

I don't even know where to begin. You are more full of bullshit than anyone else I have ever come across. Why don't you just shoot yourself and stop trying to convince the other 99.9999999% of the world that such beautiful women are manly? You're fighting a lost and retarded cause.

Sun, 11/19/2006 - 20:28 Sandy The transsexual parade otherwise known as the Victoria’s Secret lingerie show: part 4


I agree that Alessandra does have a very boyish figure but I think she is best and more fairly compared to a more petite (i.e. slender) woman, as you did in another section of this site. I laughed when I saw her next to Sophie: certainly very few women would appreciate or measure up to that comparison!

I think there is a reason however that men appreciate a petite frame and when you look around you it is pretty evident that with the increasing obesity in western nations, a smaller less-likely-to-get-fat woman has become more appealing. Why don't you add a section that showcases smaller, less voluptuous but still feminine women?

There are some things I don't necessarily appreciate about your site, but here are a few things that I consider very pro-woman, regardless of her shape:

1. Your models are of normal weight and are not skinny.
2. Real women have THIGHS, as do your models. Someone like Alessandra has sleek, attractive legs, no doubt, but in general, a nicely proportioned female will have meat on her thighs, something we as women have learned to eschew. That has been one of the negative impacts of showcasing tall, pencil-thin models with impossibly long legs as the pinnacle of womanly beauty.
3. Your models aren't necessarily large-busted. The idea that women should be very, very thin with large breasts (in many cases achieved with implants) has also had a negative impact on "normal" women.
4. You do not showcase models with breast implants (as far as I saw). This site seems to be about what you consider "natural" beauty in a woman, not beauty achieved via plastic surgery. Again, most woman have real breasts. How soon will it be before people think implants are more attractive than the real thing?

These points do pertain to Alessandra in that she represents the pencil-thin, insubstantial thighed, breast implanted model who is very, very far from what a real woman can or should even want to achieve. While "real" women in the main fall far short of some of the criteria you consider the hallmarks of beauty in a woman, I do appreciate this idea that the average woman may be far closer to the ideal than what the fashion industry and Hollywood would have us believe.

Sun, 11/19/2006 - 16:54 Erik Nonheterosexual vs. heterosexual male preference for petite women: Alessandra Ambrosio vs. Camille

Simon: Addressing the masculinity-femininity of Aishwarya Rai forces one to deal with an ancestry confound. If you look at this picture (Aishwarya is at the bottom left), it should be obvious that her face is in between Europeans and East Asians. Therefore, compared to Europeans norms, the reduced angularity, broader face, more protruding jaws, etc. of Aishwarya cannot readily be ascribed to femininity.

Aishwarya also has a very flat forehead in profile view, but it cannot be assumed that the smoothness and reduced curvature have anything to do with greater femininity. Flat forehead profiles are most extensively found among sub-Saharan Africans and aborigines ranging from India through southeast Asia to Australo-Melanesia. The sub-Saharan African/aboriginal element is strongest in the southern portion of India where Aishwarya is from.

If you are aware of face variation as a function of ethnicity and sexual dimorphism you will not conclude that Aishwarya has a feminine face, but it is not manly either; it just looks normal.

If you look at her physique though, there is no doubt that Aishwarya is not feminine, though once again one would not call her manly. Her backside is flattened, her ribcage is broad, her shoulders and waist lean toward wide and her physique doesn’t come anywhere close to an hourglass figure.

Sun, 11/19/2006 - 16:13 Erik The transsexual parade otherwise known as the Victoria’s Secret lingerie show: part 2

Richard: The fashion industry is not trying to “brainwash civilization into becoming obsessed with young boys”; no such thing is implied within this site; there is no conspiracy argument here. Homosexual fashion designers are simply selecting models with the looks they find appealing. Stating unflattering truths does not constitute sarcasm. Anyway, there is no “nice” way of bringing some problems addressed within this site to the attention of the general public.

The belief that beauty is in the eye of the beholder has been falsified many times over; see this, this and this for proof that although there is no universal agreement, broad agreement exists in the population.

Sun, 11/19/2006 - 15:43 Erik The transsexual parade otherwise known as the Victoria’s Secret lingerie show: part 4

maddie: Links are allowed. However, if you post links to images and the site hosting the images doesn’t allow hotlinking, then you will get blanks as when you first posted. I took care of the links and now they point to the images.

Anyway, as mentioned in the first part of this series, to justify the title, it is sufficient to show that a large number, not necessarily all, of Victoria’s Secret models look like male-to-female transsexuals and that several of those that don’t are still often too masculine for the job. This is easy to show though it will take time; only four models have been addressed so far. Nowhere has it been asserted that all VS models look like male-to-female transsexuals.

Regarding your links, only one of them, Heather Marks, is passable as feminine. Karolina Kurkova easily qualifies as a woman that looks like a male-to-female transsexual; she was extensively addressed in the first part of this series. Your picture of Alessandra doesn’t undermine any of the photographic evidence presented here and elsewhere within this site; her waist-hip proportions remain unfeminine; the picture that you posted was snapped at an opportune moment while she was involved in exaggerated hip swinging while facing the camera obliquely. Doutzen Kroes has a masculinized face; see this comparison (Doutzen is on the left for those who don’t know who she is). Your link shows that Andi Muise has a masculinized face, and even if her breasts are natural, a number of male-to-female transsexuals on cross-sex hormone therapy develop female breasts. Therefore, citing masculinized female models with naturally prominent breasts does not undermine the title of this entry.

If you are a woman that looks at faces but no so much the physique, then why bother commenting on this entry? Lingerie models directly or indirectly cater to the preferences of heterosexual men; at least they are supposed to, and overall appearance, especially of the body, is what really matters rather than the face being the main focus.

Sun, 11/19/2006 - 11:23 d'Artagnan Is it possible to objectively compare the attractiveness of women from different populations?

Hello Mr. Holland.
Again I have to cite the Knußmann-Weininger-Martin-Saller-Hartmann-v.Eickstedt-Schwidetzky concept of femininity, the mainstream concept for 150 years until Boasian Jewish anthropologists hijacked anthropology (for how this could happen, how the Nordish race that ruled the world in 1930 could be destroyed during some decades see Kevin MacDonald, The Culture of Critique,2002).Have you bought the Knußmann yet?
1.) Knußmann et al. concept of femininity has two extremes : femininity and masculinity. There is one big exception, the small buttocks and breasts which can be seen both as masculine and feminine. If one would try to optimize the Nesid
paedomorphous average women by bigger breasts and buttocks, one would get in some respects a more feminine woman, but the aspect of childlikeness and youth would be dimininished (according to Knußmann's concept).I do not idolize all Nesid features in contrast to your idolizing the Nordish women in general. Despite the European Nordic women having a lot of masculine features (Knußmann), you do not acknowledge one single masculine trait! This is putting it upside down. Of course one reason for this is your not differentiating between the Mongolid races . But the Sinid race which is numerically very relevant in studies that do not differentiate between the Mongolid races, is Europiform . You prove the masculininity of the Asians mostly by the Europiform Sinids ! Aditionally , allometry ,racial primitivity,paedomorphosis are means for you to sweep away any allegations of Nordic women's masculinity.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 .But Knußmann, Rushton and Baker clearly state that e.g. the Sudanids ancestral primitivity is connected to higher aggressivity, higher level of hormons,more sexuality. Allometry is a nice thing, you may explain one third of Brigitte Nielsen's masculinity by allometry , but nevertheless, dolichocephalic, lepteroprosopic, macrosomic, Nordic,athletic, melancholic-thrillseeker, agressive, less heterosexual ," women" (viragos) are more masculine as all these traits have been
analysed as typically masculine by anthropologists. There are no Rices, Albrights, Angela Merkels, Ségolène Royals,Susan Sontags , Bella Abzugs, Alice Schwarzers, Mary Robinsons, Margaret Thatchers,Queen Elizabethes , Ruth Dreyfusses in Southeast Asia. Even the Philippine woman president looks very feminine compared with those (Nesid).So your strategy was
1.)Presenting me as a ridiculous "old European" scientist who is not worth of even discussing with.
2.)You use allometry, primitivity and paedomorphosis to esacpe the femininity debate (possible example:Brigitte Nielsen is not masculine , "she" is only a compound of allometrical traits based on some basic traits)
You say that paedomorphosis is not attractive to men. The Nesid women are paedomorphous, why are they attractive to Nesid men ? Ah, I forgot, the "racial mating scheme" (that I introduced as a valid scientific concept by the way, whereas you only heuristically spoke about the "common consensus"among men , whatever this may be).
3.)You are promoting Nordish women's assumed femininity. Of course, their facial femininity is bigger than the Nilotoid woman's you compare to them.Additionally due your confusions concerning paedomorphosis , you present a lot of so-called type-B-viragos (childlike features mixed with masculine ones,Kate Moss-like)wrongly as more masculine than some type-A-viragos (e.g. the blonde which is marking the feminine end compared to Brooke Shields being more masculine on your feminization vs. masculinization page).But this blonde is much more masculine than my Nesid example overall.Why do you not know the categories virago or type-A-virago and type-B-virago which are absolutely necessary in this discussion?And it can be expected that a blond Nordish woman like her is e.g. much more prone to homosexuality and aggression. This could be interesting to you as you have written obviously a study on homosexuality available on amazon. Furthermore, those Nordish women are more and more unwilling to get babies and to marry being terrorized and
terrorizing by feminazism (viragonazism).All other labels are too weak as this produces the völkische death of the Nordish race induced by a hostile leftist minority .
4.) If necessary you adopt subversive Boasian and deconstructivist strategies. For you and them it is has been of crucial importance to hinder a holistic discussion concerning all documentaions,all literature, all opinions and the referential interpretation of the authors who too often had political agendas.Your preliminary exclusions are the psychical femininity(I was the first to analyze your intra-European special fetish of the "Nordish women" because you do not seem to like Sudish greater femininity). Concerning psychical femininity which is a correlate of physical femininity , Europid women will fail of course, too.And as you stated,too, masculinity of women makes them more promiscuous, so it is no wonder that nearly all Europid porn actresses and prostitues are viragos being even harder than the hard racial Europid average.
5.) Due to my referential approach and the Boasian agenda, I have to ask you: Are you (partly) Jewish and/or do you have a Jewish self-identification ? "Holland" seems to be a typical Ashkenazim name.Concerning the matters above, this point is of essential importance.I myself come from a liberal Christian cultural background.
If your proposals of this website are applied and acknowledged, there are only the viragos , leftists and Ashkenazim who would benefit from the völkische death of the Nordish race. But in 2060 they will discover that the Chinese won't have become her new "big mama" (why ?) , neither the Islamic "Europe" or the still poor and anti-Semitic Afro-Americans (why?)in the US.
Again I would like to state that I have no animosities against anybody. But this cannot prevent me from having a realistic and honest approach in science.As there is of course no distinction between prescriptive and descriptive
science despite leftist assertions, the immediate consequence of my reasoning (and of numerous students of mine) is the negative discrimination of viragos in mating by Nordish men. We have been launching a campaign to promote Nesid women which clearly proves your main Mongolid races error with abundant material (including the first complete bibliography on Nesid paedomorphosis).By the way , there is a consensus among Western men about the greater femininity of Mongolids (China dolls). That only minority prefers them sexually is due to the racial mating scheme and the media propaganda
with ridiculous "feminity" as in "Sex in the City".In case of not being married, Mr. Holland, couldn't you test some Nesid women as girlfriends? Maybe then you feel the difference concerning femininity.
Thank you very much, Mr. Holland. I am looking forward to your reply.

Sun, 11/19/2006 - 09:58 simon Nonheterosexual vs. heterosexual male preference for petite women: Alessandra Ambrosio vs. Camille

Erik would you class aishwarya rai as feminine or masculine?

Sun, 11/19/2006 - 02:28 Richard The transsexual parade otherwise known as the Victoria’s Secret lingerie show: part 2

I must say I somewhat agree with Alec. While it may seem that the fashion industry is out to brainwash civilization into becoming obsessed with young boys, I highly doubt there is any such conspiracy taking place. I think a truly unbiased study of femininity in women would take a far less definative approach. It was an interesting study of comparing body types, but I think it would have held more bearing without the sarcasm and prejudice.

So who cares if people believe Gisele Bundchen is sexy or not? Beauty is after all in the eye of the beholder. I just hope individuals will one day be able to think for themselves rather than letting someone else do it for them. Turn of the TV damnit!!!! It will rot your mind without you even knowing it.

Sun, 11/19/2006 - 01:04 maddie The transsexual parade otherwise known as the Victoria’s Secret lingerie show: part 4

apparently, you don't allow links, so the pictures don't work. if you can find pictures from the VS show however, here are the photos i'm talking about.

the first one is of doutzen kroes.
second is of heather marks.
third is karolina kurkova.
fourth is of andi muise.
fifth is of alessandra ambrosio.

if you go to and visit their celebrity pictures in the forums, you'll find a link to all these pictures from the VS show. take a look at the girls i mentioned.

Sun, 11/19/2006 - 01:01 maddie The transsexual parade otherwise known as the Victoria’s Secret lingerie show: part 4

first of all, i'm a girl.

because i'm a female, i mostly pay attention to a woman's face instead of her breasts, and therefore i find sophie howard to be ridiculously ugly.

have you seen pictures from the 2006 VS fashion show yet? now please don't tell me you think this is at all unattractive or masculine.

gorgeous face:

womanly body with a nice waist to hip ratio:

horse face and ugly fake boobs, but sexy body (especially her legs):

pretty real looking, full breasts to me:

and your favorite model of all, having a tiny waist to die for:

if you think they all look like trannies, you're insane.

Sun, 11/19/2006 - 00:46 Erik Nonheterosexual vs. heterosexual male preference for petite women: Alessandra Ambrosio vs. Camille

Hans: The women that you have cited appear to be normal; there is nothing especially feminine or masculine about them. Anyway, please email off-topic queries to me instead of posting them here.

Sun, 11/19/2006 - 00:21 Erik The transsexual parade otherwise known as the Victoria’s Secret lingerie show: part 4

maddie: Sophie Howard does not have saggy breasts. Her breasts will sag when she is older, but the context of this entry is lingerie modeling, and lingerie models are expected to be young adults. Therefore, using a large-breasted woman like Sophie as a lingerie model is appropriate.

Saying that Sophie looks like a transvestite is insane! If so, then Alessandra looks like a masculine man. Sophie doesn’t have the best looking face, but as I have already mentioned, the face is not the object of focus as far as lingerie modeling goes.

Daria’s face is less robust than that of Kirsten Dunst. Although Daria has dyed her hair an unnatural shade, she is a redhead.

Sophie Howard is a popular [among heterosexual men] British pin up, which shows your preferences to be very anomalous given that you call her hideous. Besides, your comment, “don’t tell me you wouldn’t be ecstatic if a girl like that [Alessandra] even said a word to you in real life!” pretty much confirms that you are not a lifetime-exclusive heterosexual man. A top-ranked lingerie model is expected to cater to the central tendency of [discerning] preferences among heterosexual men, and Alessandra is nowhere close.

The threads deleted at Alessandra’s fan forum can only be the work of Alessandra or another forum admin, but a forum admin other than Alessandra would probably be inclined toward leaving the threads intact to illustrate examples of the kind of lunatics that lurk in cyberspace, i.e., myself for calling top-ranked fashion models masculine and unattractive to most people. However, the admin would have notified Alessandra if she didn’t find out first. Alessandra knows the extent of her masculinization better than others, and this site’s contents obviously struck a little too close to home. Therefore, either Alessandra deleted it or another admin did after Alessandra requested deletion.

Sat, 11/18/2006 - 21:20 Erik Is it possible to objectively compare the attractiveness of women from different populations?

d’Artagnan: Now that you have attempted to address the question that is the title of this entry, you have posted something that is partly relevant to this section for the first time. However, your arguments remain absurd as usual. I have addressed numerous objective correlates of beauty and shown that the answer is no, but you have only addressed femininity and answered yes to the question. How can you say “yes” after ignoring the other correlates? Besides, where have I portrayed Europeanization as synonymous with feminization?

Your accusation that features that I labeled more feminine are idiosyncratic is patently absurd. I have cited numerous studies relating waist-to-hip ratio, breast size, facial femininity, etc. to sex hormone profiles; see, for example, the “eating disorders” page; these results and this study. I have also cited studies where craniofacial variation within the same population was partitioned into allometry and sexual dimorphism factors, easily allowing one to infer what constitutes feminization; see the “feminine vs. masculine” page.

On the other hand, what evidence have you cited that the features that you are calling feminine, pertinent to between-populations comparisons, are related to feminization but not other factors? Consider the following three items.

Item A. You have not cited one study where skeletal/facial variability was partitioned into three components – an ancestry component, an allometry comment and a sexual dimorphism component -- and it was shown that after controlling for the ancestry and allometry factors, the sexual dimorphism factor allows one to label some populations more feminine and justifies your reasoning. For instance, where is your evidence that the shorter height and less bone mass of “Nesid” women is a result of greater feminization?

Item B. It is pathetic that once again I have to point out that mid-facial flattening is greater in Northeast Asia than in Southeast Asia (see Hanihara’s data), which by your reasoning should imply that the Northeast Asians are more feminine, yet among the East Asians, you assign the highest femininity to the southeast Asian groups.

Anyway, I have had enough of your absurdities and hope that you quit posting them after looking at the following important data on the Lesser Sunda Island populations (Bali, Timor, Sumbawa, Flores people; “Nesids”) vs. Norwegians: index of depth of infraglabellar notch (102.0 vs. 101.6), index of prognathism (97.9 vs. 94.9), index of fronto-orbital flattening (18.0 vs. 18.8) and index of nasal bone flattening (38.1 vs. 52.0). See Hanihara’s paper for the standard deviations. Consider also the Nesid vs. Norwegian measurements for basion-prosthion length (96.5 vs. 95.1) and basion-nasion length (98.7 vs. 100.2). In addition, I have already cited evidence for the larger teeth of the “Nesids” compared to Europeans; read the paper; the “Nesids” as well as “Mongolids” have larger teeth than Europeans. What is the big picture? The Nesids are shifted toward the ancestral condition on multiple counts: deeper infragalbellar notches, flatter mid-faces, more protruding jaws, larger lower jaw and bigger teeth; the latter two in spite of their much smaller physical size. Are “Nesid” facial features more derived than Northern European? Please! Look at the table showing the canonical correlation coefficients again. Why don’t you see that the features that you have been calling more feminine are actually ancestral features?

Quit saying that I am implying that the Nesids are somehow more masculine. Masculine and feminine women exist in all populations. If there is a way to compare the masculinity-femininity of different populations, then it surely isn’t using your idiosyncratic criteria, which are not supported in the literature.

Item C. You have mentioned lower androgen levels in East Asian women compared to European women, but does this make them more feminine? Anorexic women have lower androgen levels than normal women; see the “eating disorders” page. Do anorexic women appear more feminine than normal women? What about estrogens? What about testosterone-to-estradiol ratio? Take a look at the following table.

Sex hormone profiles in African-American, white, Chinese and Japanese women.

Data above reproduced from: Sowers MR, Wilson AL, Kardia SR, Chu J, Ferrell R. Aromatase Gene (CYP 19) Polymorphisms and Endogenous Androgen Concentrations in a Multiracial/Multiethnic, Multisite Study of Women at Midlife. The American Journal of Medicine. Volume 119, Issue 9, Supplement 1, September 2006, Pages S23-S30.

Testosterone is 9.22% higher among North American white women compared to the average of Chinese and Japanese women, but estradiol is 22.66% higher. The tendency is for testosterone-to-estradiol ratio to be lowest among white women; larger sample sizes will show statistically significant differences in this regard. Estradiol is a much more powerful hormone than testosterone; just note the nanomolar but picomolar concentrations of testosterone and estradiol, respectively. In other words, a 20% increase in estradiol levels is going to have a more powerful effect than a 10% increase in testosterone. The study cited has some limitations, given that the women are around age 45 and number 412 African-Americans, 807 whites, 151 Chinese and 168 Japanese, but the picture is consistent with other research. If you look at this study, it is clear that the “Tungid,” “Sinid” and “Palaungid” people belong to the same population cluster, i.e., overall differences between these groups are going to be less than the overall differences between either of these groups and Europeans. In other words, one can be quite confident that the “Tungids,” the “Sinids” and the “Palaungids” have testosterone-to-estradiol ratios that are higher (more masculine), on average, than in European women, Northern Europeans in particular. This is consistent with the less feminine-looking physiques of these East Asian populations. You have yet to cite examples of East Asian women that have more feminine-looking physiques than the physiques of the feminine women (exclude the somewhat masculinized ones) shown in the attractive women section.

Therefore, your criteria remain idiosyncratic, and you have not provided any anatomical or physiological justification for assigning greater femininity to East Asian women.

Your assertion that “Of course there may be single traits that are more masculine in the Nesids, but the feminine traits are overwhelming” is nonsense. If one comes across a woman with above average femininity that has one or two masculine-looking features, then these features cannot be called masculine; they are simply masculine-looking. Once again, sex hormones only partly shape physical features, and it is possible for factors other than sex hormones to shape a feature such that it looks masculine.

Further Comments: Regarding your comparing my reasoning to that of an 8-year-old, I am aware that current anthropological literature does not describe a concave nose as pedomorphic or rank different populations on femininity. Therefore, I am justified in expecting that academics in a mainstream recent anthropological treatise will not be portraying the literature as you have described it, replete with decades-old and largely abandoned terminology. If the book is a lowbrow attempt at resurrecting old ideas, then it may not be part of the mainstream anthropological literature. I can’t really comment unless I get a hold of the book.

You said, ‘So you are very well aware of the classical concept of femininity, but you label it “idiosyncratic”. But you also use on your page the classical dichotymy of masculine-feminine, there is nothing else.’ My comment illustrated the inconsistency of classification if one were to use your idiosyncratic criteria; I was not describing the “classical concept of femininity.” Besides, masculine-feminine variation does not need to be described as classical. If there are only two sexes, then a dichotomy will result with respect to numerous sex differences.

I have cited Hanihara’s data and analysis as is. There is no reason to believe that Hanihara fudged up the data or the analysis to make East Asians look better. His data reveal features in East Asians that you are calling pedomorphic, but they don’t represent pedomorphy.

Your assertion that my drawing the attention of men toward Nordic women will make them disappear by the end of the 21st century is a 9.0 on a 0-10 absurdity scale. Most white women and Northern European ones in particular have no interest in non-white men, and Nordic women are incompatible with non-white men in general for some or the other reason. Your doomsday scenario requires a large non-European population living in the midst of Northern Europeans, but how likely is this to happen? Large-scale Immigration into Western nations has added a lot of people hostile toward Western culture and massively increased the underclass, and is thereby not sustainable in the long run. The immigrants in general are also not assimilating and this is bound to increase inter-ethnic conflict in the future, which in turn will lead to increased segregation and reduced odds of inter-ethnic marriage, notwithstanding increased ethnic diversity, which will not be increasing indefinitely. What do you mean by “I even could imagine that this site as I stated above is intended to be destructive to Nordish men’s interests as they are diverted from the völkische solution of the “feminist question “, to mix with feminine and intelligent Southeast Asian women.” You mean that I will be prompting the latter type of mixing? How?

Anyway, this site has nothing to do with drawing the attention of men toward Northern European women; it is about promoting feminine beauty among Western people. I told you before that Northern European women are overrepresented among high-end models, and the attractive women section simply reflects this.

You have repeated Ashley Montagu on the alleged neotenization of the “Mongoloid” jaw, oblivious to my citing recent evidence that 1) the concept of neoteny does not apply to human face shape, with the regression of the jaw at most being partially neotenous; 2) the jaws are more protruding among “Mongoloids” and “Nesids” and 3) “Mongoloids” and “Nesids” have larger jaws if you control for body size and often even absolutely.

In summary, it should be obvious why I do not consider you to be a serious discussion partner. You are unfamiliar with current literature and do not seem willing to acquaint yourself with it.

Sat, 11/18/2006 - 11:38 d'Artagnan Is it possible to objectively compare the attractiveness of women from different populations?

As long as you do not acknowledge the existence of the Nesid race, Mr. Holland, whose overall character is extremely feminine, we cannot come to terms. If a capable scientist like you with a unique website ignores quite simple and long-established facts , one could assume that you have a political agenda and/ or a"Nordih fetish" .This "Nordih fetish" may not only have its roots in your aesthetic evaluation due to Europid racial instincts ("racial mating scheme",Knußmann), but also could have been based on racist thinking as in Stratz's work "The racial beauty of woman"(1903) presenting all non-Nordish women as inferior.Or it is just the possible loss of reputation which hinders you from admitting the European women=femininity error ? I even could imagine that this site as I stated above is intended to be destructive
to Nordish men's interests as they are diverted from the völkische solution of the "feminist question ", to mix with feminine and intelligent Southeast Asian women.Your stating that you do not have a Christian-Anglo background points towards this direction. Inconsistent anthropological concepts can do much damage. In the recent Iraq catastrophe (Tony Blair), the military anthropologists ignored once again the racial character of the Arabids , which are not only the intelligent descendants of the founders of civilization, but also are fierce fighters against Westernization which will harm their civilization inevitably , e.g. by feminism. This war costs trillions of dollars and initializes the final stages for a fatal middle East atomic war within the next 40 years which could even end America's superpower status as China will use it for an additional huge gain of power in the East Asian theatre. It seems, that many anthropologists and psychologists within the CIA were well aware of this coming catastrophe, but they were silenced by its new "military " directors .

Sat, 11/18/2006 - 11:35 Hans Nonheterosexual vs. heterosexual male preference for petite women: Alessandra Ambrosio vs. Camille

Erik: Would these be examples of feminine faces/people your looking for?

Veronique de Kock -

Aishwarya Rai -

Tasmin Khan -

Alley Baggett -

Sat, 11/18/2006 - 01:53 maddie The transsexual parade otherwise known as the Victoria’s Secret lingerie show: part 4

first of all, let me just point out how hideous i think sophie howard is. although alessandra does show masculine features in her face, sophie howard is the true transvestite. her nose is massive and her eyes are scary; she has the perfect face of a witch. her body is a turn off as well. i'd take daria's perky, tiny breasts over enormous saggy ones anyday. imagine what those would look like in 10 years? ughh.

your paragraph about how men would react to having daria hit on them made me laugh out loud. she is attractive, but i think it's mostly just her thin body and glossy red hair (which is definitely fake). her face isn't that pretty.. kind of looks like kirstin dunst, the troll.

i agree with you on some of the things you say about alessandra, like the fact that she's not the greatest lingerie model, but don't tell me you wouldn't be ecstatic if a girl like that even said a word to you in real life!

and what's this about alessandra deleting links to this site? are you sure it's her and not just some fan that runs her site?

Tue, 11/14/2006 - 20:32 Henry The transsexual parade otherwise known as the Victoria’s Secret lingerie show: part 2

Well well, Alec, it sounds like you actually need to grow up, no one I don't believe in the above discussion thread has said anything about life being "unfair"
You are obviously the sort of person who can't have a debate without getting personal, as that's simply what this blog page is about... discussion and debate, not website owners been insulted about her pubic hair color or how much free time she has, which of course you have you must have too, hence your comment after viewing the page.

Tue, 11/14/2006 - 18:43 Erik Nonheterosexual vs. heterosexual male preference for petite women: Alessandra Ambrosio vs. Camille

Svitlana: Natalie Glebova looks good. She is not that feminine, but looks a lot better than the current Miss Universe, Zuleyka Mendoza (see a comparison).

Tue, 11/14/2006 - 01:26 Alec The transsexual parade otherwise known as the Victoria’s Secret lingerie show: part 2

The owner of this website has way too much free time on her hands and needs to seek professional help for her sandy vagina. This is so incredibly pathetic. Grow up. Life isn't fair. And yes, I used vulgarity in the same paragraph where I told someone to grow up. Get a pair and deal with it.

Mon, 11/13/2006 - 20:08 Henry The transsexual parade otherwise known as the Victoria’s Secret lingerie show: part 2

If anything she has nice legs, but no breasts and terrible posture, slouching, maybe just how she happens to be just in that pic, however, I don't find her sexy or attractive, whereas the dark haired one above (Grace) is, maybe because she looks a lot like my first girlfriend, and her eyes and face are bery pretty compared to Giseles chisled features. What say you Kristin?
and dot? (are you a Dorothy or a Douglas)