maybe if this site tpouched on non-northern euopean beauty further---- you might avoid these comments--eric--as of now, you should possible rename it as anglo-saxon/nordic feminine beauty, as the spectrumof women that it really covers only includes 15 percent of the world. if you want to use some models of femininty for medit. women--try sarah shahi(there are tons of [ics of her on www.bastardly.com) for hispanic women--- just ask for suggestions vs. comparing ana barros to a northern european women---and ana is obviously of african/mediterranean heritage. i realize you have awesome intentions. i am just offering my opinion.
You cannot deny the Nesids femininity by only the mid-facial flattening . Even if it were the case as you wrote (but see my homo-erectus-argument) ,the Nesids are more feminine (due to a overwhelming number of paedomorphous traits) than the Palaungid , Tungid and Sinid Asians. There is a racial continuum of feminine to masculine among the Mongolids as follows: Nesid-Palaungid-Tungid-Sinid-(Turanid).Thank you very much. I am looking forward to your reply, Mr. Holland. d'Artagnan
For less male hormons of Mongolids see Jean Philippe Rushton and his extensice charts(wikipedia article).Primitivity and paedomorphosis are antagonistic basically , so a flat nose can mean both, we have to differentiate. The Nesid nose resembles the human child form differing from the very robust nose of the homo erectus.The single trait of the long teeth of the Mongolids (not the Nesids as you stated) are explained by Ashley Montagu (alias Israel Ehrenberg)in "Growing young" devoted to Mongolid neoteny/paedomorphosis : the neotenization
of the Mongolids left out some features, the jaws got more gracile but some upper teeth were left out.I am astonished that you do not know this literature. Thank you very much Mr. Holland, I am looking to your reply. d'Artagnan
The question was if we can compare the attractiveness of women from different populations. The answer is yes, and I was the first to introduce the two relevant anthropological arguments: femininity is attractive to non-androgynous Nordish men (Rainer Knußmann,Max Hartmann;the "European consensus" as you called it in cultural terms); the about 36 races exist , have great relevance to aesthetic reasoning, and can be classified on a continuum of masculine-feminine with the Nesids on the feminine end. In your showing Europeanization as feminization and therefore more attractive to non-androgynous men, it is obvious that you compare the European woman to a
Nilotoid mulatta. Compared to a Nesid , it would have been impossible to conclude a greater femininity. Of course there may be single traits
that are more masculine in the Nesids, but the feminine traits are overwhelming.
Rather strange are two comments of yours despite rejecting me nonchalantly as a serious discussion partner.You wrote above:"The libraries close to where I live do not have Knußmann’s book and it does not appear to be on sale by online book retailers, and hence I cannot check whether it really describes a concave nose as pedomorphic and ranks different populations on femininity, but if it is a recent anthropological treatise, I doubt that academics would be addressing such topics, i.e., either you are incorrectly representing the book or the authors have included absurdities in it." This could be labeled similar to the reasoning of an eight-year old who thinks that something stops existing after he stands behind a curtain and he himself cannot see anything any more.It illustrates well the Tolstoy syndrom in which you obviously are. A strange reaction of a scientist like you, but I gave you the ISBN so you can order the book easily.Secondly,
you admitted "If one were to consider the gracilization and size of the gonial region, one would classify Northern European women as the most feminine. If one were to positively relate backside protrusion to femininity, sub-Saharan African women would be ranked as the most feminine and East Asian women the least, but if we consider muscularity to be negatively related to femininity, then sub-Saharan African women would be ranked the most masculine and south Asian and southeast Asian women the most feminine. If stature is conceptualized to be negatively related to femininity, then pygmy women would be the most feminine". 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. So it would be difficult for you to present m o s t Nesid features as non-feminine(despite from citing Japanese authors who are obviously afraid to be seen as members of a paedomorphous race and so denying the Mongolid paedomorphosis incorrectly; numerous others example can be given , e.g. Franz Boas' Jewish scholars who controlled world anthropology after 1945 having a secret Jewish agenda; see. e.g. Kevin MacDOnald "The Culture of Critique",2002). Additionally, your classification can be seen as "idiosyncratic" , because you ackwoledge the buttocks and breasts and a certain waist-to-hip ratio as feminine ("hourglass figure") , but not e.g. a gracile body of about 158cm whichNordish women definitely have not compared to Nesid women on average.The consequence of your ideas are the völkische death of the Nordish race.Drawing the attention of men towards Nordish Europid women will help the extinction of the Nordish race until the end of the 21th century.This is of course not your intention , but given no political shift , this would be the inevitable consequence.Can women be feminine whose majority is so deeply infected with feminism and viragodom? Definitely not.But I can only emphasize again that I am a fan of yours and your website and I only want to help you as I have about 40 years of experience as a physical anthropologist in leading positions of the science establishment. Additionally you seem to be the author of a book on homosexuality and the homosexuals spreading AIDS predominantly , pointing out the biological nature of homosexuality, ideas which I support totally. Thank you very much , Mr. Holland.I am looking forward to your reply. d'Artagnan
Ross: It is easy for you to accuse me of using quasi-scientific arguments, but you have not shown that the arguments are quasi-scientific. See if you can show the latter. Belittle is an inappropriate words as far as the comparisons go. Pointing out the masculinization in masculinized women is stating a fact. If a woman looks like an eunuch or male-to-female transsexual, then there is no easy way of saying this nicely, and to say so is not to belittle. There is no criticism of the looks of women from an ethnicity standpoint within this site.
As far as the sourcing of the women in the attractive women section goes, as already explained, only some of them are taken from porn sites, several have been taken from sites depicting artistic nudity but no pornography, many women are nude models that do not involve themselves in pornography and some don’t post nude. The majority of the women are taken from adult-oriented sites because the male homosexual domination of the fashion business is so extensive that the vast majority of feminine and attractive women that refuse to pose nude or to deal with the casting couch remain out of the limelight. If this site is successful in the long run, you will see mainstream appreciation of feminine beauty and a correspondingly increased proportion of non-nude women in the attractive women section.
grrrrforgotten: You are clearly a retarded individual...bringing Hitler into the picture! The women shown in the attractive women section are 18-plus; they don’t look 16, and two are even in their thirties. Besides, pedophilia is defined as a preference for pre-pubescent children.
grrrforgotten: How exactly is white supremacism being espoused here? And how have you inferred what parts of the world I have not been in? There are no white supremacists affiliated with this site. Based on your two other comments elsewhere, it is confirmed that you are mentally challenged. There is no pretence here that only white women can be beautiful. Attractive women exist in all populations, but this site is targeting the general Western public, not catering to your aesthetic preferences, and hence non-white women are generally not addressed. However, to illustrate the point that there is a large presence of masculinized women in high-profile beauty pageants, it is necessary to point out the masculinized non-white women, too.
yeah, Ross, agreed, I just posted something similar myself. This is very similar to what Hitler said about blonde/blue eyed Nordic women being the only feminine women out there compared to the "dark" non-"Aryan" women.
Where is Erik from? Is he from Europe?
And the pedophile issue, I'm sorry Erik but you clearly are the type who likes 16yr old girls. If you're over 23, that's pretty gross (as a former 16 yr old girl, I can tell you teen girls find men like you really creepy)
I think all your site does is display your prejudices and preferences in terms of a woman's look.
Your use of a quasi scientific approach to belittle woman of a certain shape and look and for that matter race shows you up for what you really are.
It is interesting that all the women you pick as exemplifying your idea of good looks/beauty are young women from porn sites - what does this really say about you?
dude, you are clearly a white supremacist, veiling your beliefs with questionable photos of women from "ethnic" backgrounds. Be a white supremacist, just don't use such nonsensical propaganda. Some of your "attractive women" are very average and boring looking. Some of your points are reasonable, yes Gisele is very manly, in fact the high fashion models do kinda look like how you described them. However, when you try to pretend that white women are the only beautiful women out there, you completely ruin your credibility and come across as a foaming at the mouth KKK/neo-nazi freak. Seriously, you probably have never been to Africa, Asia or the Pacific. Until you have, and have seen a substantial number of women from these regions with your own eyes (there's a whole psychological implication in that), then you can start preaching about who is beautiful and who looks like a man.
d'Artagnan: This discussion is not productive. The classification of human populations and attaching labels to them are not relevant to this section. Besides, you are supposed to email off-topic comments to me. Arguments are not made by authority in science but by evidence. What evidence is there that “Nesid” women are more feminine than others? This evidence has to be in the form of sex hormone/steroid receptor profiles and/or showing that the purported characteristics that you are labeling more feminine, such as the greater mid-facial flattening of the “Nesids” compared to Europeans, are caused by increased feminization.
Now you have said that humans are pedomorphous as a whole, and some populations are extremely pedomorphic and thereby least retain ancestral features. Humans weigh less than gorillas and could be considered pedomorphous on this count by your criteria, but humans are larger than a closer relative, chimpanzees. Therefore, what kind of pedomorphy characterizes humans? Flattened noses are pedomorphic according to you, but the nasal bones in the great apes are flatter than among humans. How is this possible if humans are more pedomorphous than apes? If you consider the lower jaw, who do you think has the most overall derived, i.e., least ancestral, lower jaw? Why do “Nesid” women have larger teeth than European women if they are more feminine and less likely to retain ancestral features? The citation for the teeth size find is:
Quote:
Hanihara, T., and Ishida, H., Metric dental variation of major human populations, Am J Phys Anthropol, 128, 287 (2005).
The Pleistocene samples that I have talked about are not from a particular region; they are from humans populations all over the globe and reveal more or less flat mid-faces. It seems that I have wasted my time posting the results from the canonical correlation analysis; why can’t you understand that the mid-facial flattening of East Asian populations is an ancestral feature, not something feminine or pedomorphic? Why have you repeatedly ignored evidence that mid-facial flattening is greater in Northeast Asia than in mainland Southeast Asia and thereby the mainland Southeast Asians are less feminine/pedomorphic by your criteria?
I do not have an Anglo-Christian background, and any background is irrelevant as far as the central tendency of erotic preferences in a population goes. This central tendency obviously is to prefer sexually mature young adults. I need to cite evidence for this? Why would it be otherwise? Fertility and fecundity drop as one moves away from young adults. Like I said, “more attractive features that appear to be paedomorphic are either somewhat more feminine than average features (e.g., less prominent noses and broader faces, controlling for other factors) and thereby more attractive in women or somewhat more gracile than average features and thereby more attractive in both men and women.”
This discussion is completely useless as far as the question that is the title is concerned. I may address additional comments by you if you email me, but please don’t post here anymore.
Let us start systematically with the about 36 human races http://209.85.129.104/search?q=cache:YOPN0F99550J:www.snpa.nordish.net/charts.htm+zentralid&hl=en&gl=uk&ct=clnk&cd=5
Do you acknowledge the about 36 distinct races of mankind (see especially the colour photos by Glowatzki from the 1970s confirmed by Knußmann,Germany's no.1 of anthropology, in 1996) ? Then we take Knußmann's 1996 confirmation of the Nesids as the most feminine race and the comparability of all races concerning femininity/masculinity (and therefore attractiveness to non-androgynous men, Max Hartmann, Knußmann).(s. e.g.www.dewa.com/big/2001/6.jpg representing the average racial femininity of the Nesid women being much more feminine than the viragos of e.g. Osteuropid type from e.g. Zarys Antropologii Polski on the first-mentioned site;Schwidetzkis "Racial history of mankind" confirms this,too).Do you agree ?
There are, as Knußmann writes , some exceptions of the Nesid femininity, but the overwhelming number of their features are feminine/paedomorphous.
Mankind is paedomorphous as a whole (John Randal Baker,Race,1974, Oxford University Press), but some races are extremely paedomorphous and therefore have retained the least ancestral traits. In contrast to your cited studies , we have to compare modern races with the old ancestral forms of e.g. homo habilis or homo erectus , not with pleistocene men which themselves could have been proto-Europids or proto-Mongolids (logical fallacy,petitio principii).It is even assumed that racial differentiation could have started with homo erectus about 500000 years ago (!).
Additionally , it seems that you rule out even the possibility of facial and body type paedomorphosis(= femininity) being attractive to men due to your obvious Christian Anglo-American cultural background ("It should also be noted that normal developmental processes are expected to orient a person toward sexually mature individuals rather than sexually immature individuals. Therefore, pedomorphy is not a correlate of beauty, and more attractive features that appear to be paedomorphic are either somewhat more feminine than average features (e.g., less prominent noses and broader faces, controlling for other factors) and thereby more attractive in women or somewhat more gracile than average features and thereby more attractive in both men and women."One could label this "scientific paedophobia" .This is counterintuitive,not substantiated by facts, in total contrast to Knußmann's unique manual (1996) and my reasoning.
Thank you very much, Mr. Holland. I am looking forward to your reply.d'Artagnan
wtf?: Read carefully; the statement about Victoria’s Secret models uses the term transsexual, not transvestite. Male-to-female transsexuals, on average, look more feminine than male transvestites.
Your objections have been previously addressed. Yes, there are female designers, but the top ranks of the fashion business are dominated by homosexual men, and designers that are not male homosexual have to comply with the status quo. There is no implication within this site that all gay fashion designers are attracted to young male transvestite looks. For the central tendency of high-fashion models to approximate the looks of adolescent boys, it is sufficient that the majority of the dominant fashion designers have a high aesthetic appreciation for the looks of adolescent boys; all of them do not need to have this preference.
The central tendency among high-fashion models is not to combine masculine and feminine features but all-around masculinization. It could be supposed that there is a need for exotic-looking models, but how come the central tendency of such exotic looks bears an uncanny resemblance to adolescent boys? Ever heard of Occam’s razor? What is the most parsimonious explanation given the gay domination of the top ranks of the fashion business? A rebuttal to a great deal of apologetics has been provided on the “skinny fashion models” page; read it.
Speaking of Victoria’s Secret models, they are currently being addressed in a multi-part series; see Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3. Go through these entries and notice the masculinization and fake breasts in the three top-ranked Victoria’s Secret models addressed so far. What possible justification could there be in using masculinized women with fake breasts for lingerie modeling other than the homosexuals responsible not willing to tolerate anything beyond the minimum femininity that it takes to get the job done? If this minimum femininity can be achieved via breast implants and posing tricks, then the homosexuals would be only too happy to avoid using feminine women. One could argue that the women in question are being used because they are famous, but whose aesthetic preferences have made these women famous in the first place?
Kristin: Weight gain or loss is not going to change the masculinized skeletal proportions of Ana Beatriz Barros. Your picture, which is not very clear, just shows Ana’s face, which doesn’t manifest a feminine chin length or feminine supraorbital region. There are plenty of pictures of Ana where her face doesn’t look that masculine. Seeing her face from multiple angles and her physique leave no doubt about her above average masculinization.
d'Artagnan: If you are an anthropologist and wish to educate the public, believing that you have a responsibility toward humankind to do so, then I recommend that you familiarize yourself with current anthropological literature, avoid the use of outdated/obscure terminology and set up a website since publishing in journals will only expose your work to a handful of academics.
There are no long-established facts about the femininity-pedomorphy equation like you have stated, the concept of neoteny as you have used and the mid-facial flattening of “Nesid” and other East Asian populations being an example of pedomorphy as my citations and comments amply illustrate. You have ignored evidence that mid-facial flattening is less among “Nesids” than among Northeast Asians, on average, making the “Nesids” less facially pedomorphic than Northeast Asians by your reasoning.
In my previous comment, I specified the mainland Southeast Asian populations being addressed, i.e., there is no need to use outdated and obscure labels such as “Nesid” or “Palaungid.”
You want me to acknowledge the “extreme facial and body type feminity of the Nesids”? Where is your documentation of such extreme femininity? I am not interested in “so and so said this.” Come up with pictures of their physiques which show greater femininity than that of the feminine European women documented in the attractive women section.
Let me make it clear that if you repeat your assertion about the mid-facial flattening of any adult human population being pedomorphic and thereby feminine then you will need to explain the results from the canonical correlation analysis presented above, as well as the facial flattening data provided by Hanihara, and show how the finds fit in with your statement or else you are not welcome to continue commenting here. And no, I haven’t labeled “Nesid” women more masculine than European women. I am interested in the question that is title of this entry, not attaching masculine-feminine labels to different populations.
Regarding the pictures of the African with a protruding backside and the Australian that you believe to not be attractive, these pictures are shown in the context of extreme contrasts, whereby it is not necessary to select pictures based on attractiveness or representativeness. Therefore, your stated concerns are not applicable.
What I meant by that line " I dont buy your argument that a hetrosexual man wouldnt find even the least masculine looking woman less desirable than the most feminine looking women" is bascially in relation to where do you draw the line as to what is masucline and what is feminine a question which you have already answered and the fact that femininity can be relative so what is masculine may be percieved as feminine on a different scale a point on which you raised the issue of average femininity. I do agree with you the women you have put forward as masculine looking are masculine looking from an objective point of view if one is to go by your argument of average femininity.
Can I just ask how many, or what sort of adolescent male transvestites the designer/editor of this site has seen? I can't say for certain that I have ever encountered one, but the male transvestites that I have seen in photographs or on television (bizarre programs like 'Maury' or 'Jerry Springer'- not trustworthy by most standards) are not at all comparable to the likes of the Victoria's Secret models. I am sure that if they did resemble one, they would be tremendously pleased with themselves for so accurately portraying such an acclaimed example of female beauty.
That said, I agree, or at least understand, most of what you've argued on this site. It is true that many (even most) high-fashion models have a tendency towards "masculine" features- high cheekbones, heavier brows (in general, more defined features- less of the softness, roundness associated with females), broader bodies, narrower torsos and hips; however, while your theory that this is related to the homosexual influence in the fashion world is interesting, there are certain variables and factors that contradict your theory, that you have to account- which (I'll admit I have not looked at the entire site), I don't believe you have.
First, although there are a great deal of homosexual fashion designers/photographers/clothiers/etc. involved in the world of fashion, there still exists a heterosexual influence (i.e., female designers- and no, they do not choose boyish females models because they are attracted to men-, straight male designers) and a need to appeal to a predominantly heterosexual society. As such, it cannot truly be assumed that the world of high-fashion chooses female models with masculine features because they resemble the young male transvestites that all gay fashion designers are attracted to- the idea is really pretty absurd. It can be said, though, that the perception or definition of female beauty in the world of high-fashion is a bit skewed- the extreme thinness, to start with, is a bit disgusting- if women, girls, who were merely slender, just a bit meatier, were used, their frames (?) would be equally as versatile, and they would likely be more attractive (it should be mentioned that the idea that all high-fashion models are naturally as skinny as they are is hard to believe- for that many women, already predispositioned to gain weight more easily than men, to have so very high metabolisms and to be so very thin, seems weird, but maybe I don't have a great enough understanding of human metabolism, or diet, or the prevalence of ectomorphs.
Second (and probably last, because I've already forgotten why exactly responding to this site is so important to me), perhaps it should be considered that the appearance of more masculine features on a feminine face or person is unusual, exotic, and therefore desired. Especially given all the mention of "exotic" beauties like Adrianna Lima and Jessica Alba (the latter of whom seems frankly more commonplace to me, aside from her coloring) this idea seems to be something that could factor in to the preference for high-fashion females models with seemingly incongruous features- the contrast of high cheekbones with fuller lips, of heavier brows with large eyes and long eyelashes is interesting and unusual, thus exotic and attractive. Of course, not all women with such combinations are incredibly attractive, and sometimes, the presence of overtly male features can be incredibly ugly- as well though, as the presence of overtly female features. I don't know if anyone has said this, but I don't think that women should be assumed to be ugly or unattractive just because they have masculine features or boyish bodies- in some cases, such women are attractive due to the overall impression of their features, but in other cases they may be less attractive for the same reason.
Might I also mention that the VS models are considerably more attractive than the typical runway model- there is a big difference between the type and features of models used strictly for fashion shows and runways, and those photographed for fashion magazines/ads/etc.
take a look at ana beatriz in one of her first covers as a teenmodel--- its all the weight loss that has made her look masculine(low body fat to be specific). her face looks lotally different.
I agree with the founder of this site somewhat: Alexandra's face DOES look like a man's, she has enlarged jaw bones and thin lips, small teeth and also very "bony" body. KArolina Kurkova has gorgeous face despite her long nose, but she has very wide rib cage and it's not proportional to her body. Adriana Lima has the most GORGEOUS face of all of them, BUT...take a look at her legs(knees in particular), her knees are zig-zag bended the other way(very-very-very ugly legs). I agree that those Victorias Secret girls have their defects(we all do), but they look flashy because they are tall and in shape, they have no cellulite. I have respect for women who take care of them selves.
Regarding Jessica Alba --- she is my favorite actress, in my opinion, she is perfect: great body, big eyes, full lips, nice teeth. She looks amazing in "Into the Blue".
By the way, I don't think that Jessica Simpson or Paris Hilton are beautiful, in fact they are the most ugly girls on TV + neither of them has manners. Sorry for my poor English.
Sandy: The 0.71 WHR is from a study by Tovee et al., and the authors actually used the statistic to describe fashion models as hourglass figured! However, as you have correctly described, fashion models hardly approach feminine waist-hip proportions, even if you consider fashion models that are not stereotypical runaway models and are used more for lingerie modeling. The authors took the statistics from a modeling agency and stated the measurements as reliable because the models need to be accurately reported in order for them to get work, which sounds reasonable unless there happens to be an unwritten industry rule to lie in a specific manner. Consider the following.
If you translate the measurements in the table to bust-waist-hip measurements for a constant hip size of 35 inches, you get fashion models (35-25-35), glamour model (36-24-35) and normal young women (32-26-35). The glamour models chosen were Playboy centerfolds, a bad choice given their increasing masculinization from the 1960s to 2000 and also that too many of them have breast implants. A better choice of glamour models would measure as a natural 34C/D-23-35 (WHR = 0.657) if the hips are maintained at 35 inches. The fashion models would have a bust that is 35AA or 35A, i.e., a much larger ribcage than glamour models. In front view, the broader ribcage of fashion models would stretch out the waist region, notably decreasing the odds of an hourglass shape, but if you look at the fashion models from the side, then waist thickness will not be much given their skinniness. In other words, you need to consider the distribution of mass, not just the circumference; the increase in waist circumference above is small, but the distribution of mass in the waist region is changing by a greater degree, with a notable spreading out of the waist region in front view. Of course, if there is an unwritten industry rule to lie in a predetermined manner, then the actual WHR is greater than the reported one. The contents of this paragraph should have been added on the page where the WHR table is presented a long time ago, but better late than never.
Yes, leg proportions are relevant to female beauty. Long legs, absence of flab and cellulite, and fuller muscles (longer muscle bellies) are some correlates of beautiful legs in women; some correlates of aesthetically pleasing leg proportions in European women have been addressed on this page. The problem is that increasing feminization relatively shortens the legs, as you have alluded to. Since sex hormones only partly influence leg length, a population could select for both leg-long and feminine women over a long period of sexual selection. An example of this is found among Scandinavian-type Northern Europeans, where one comes across plenty of leg-long feminine women that do not correspondingly have long arms, i.e., the longer legs are not explicable in terms of general lengthening of the limbs; see this example.
I am not employing a mathematical description of an hourglass figure; just focusing on looks. The actual look of a woman easily beats a description of her in terms of bust-waist-hip measurements. You are right that some women in the attractive women section do not have large breasts, but this section is focused on overall looks, and several women without large breasts are sufficiently feminine and attractive on other counts to be showcased. Similarly, there are several women with large breasts that are not otherwise feminine and/or attractive enough to be showcased. The quality of the attractive women section will improve with time. Eight women added to this section, mostly initially, have been removed so far, and some of them had small breasts. Some more women will be removed later. This section should acquire a greater proportion of hourglass-shaped women given enough time and some luck.
Men and women do not see the beauty of women very differently; the influence of fashion media has driven some women toward an appreciation of skinny looks, and if such women are disproportionately among your circle of friends and acquaintances, then you may infer a large discrepancy between the preferences of men and women. Skin, hair, flabbiness and cellulite are all relevant to beauty a far as both men and women are concerned, but since this site addresses young adult women who happen to be models and beauty pageant contestants, comparisons on these measures are hardly relevant. On the other hand, the bottom of this page links to various articles on skin and hair-related issues of interest to women with problems on these counts.
Once again, I asserted that Nesid women have a much more feminine face and body type Nordid women (for breasts and buttocks my comments above). v. Rudolf Martin, Karl Saller,Eickstedt Knußmann (1996) and me think so. I took your comments very , very serious , but now you call long-established facts "ridiculous".And again , you avoided the term "Nesid". Of course, it is ridiculous to call the "East Asians" (to use your term) feminine, as e.g. the Tungids and Eskimids are extremely masculine in many respects.Being a professor of anthropology myself and you seemingly a scholar of biology/anthropology , too,
I ask myself why you as an obviously brilliant scientist with a definitely unique website avoid
so much to acknowledge the extreme facial and body type feminity of the Nesids. As seems as your photos of other races a steatypygious Negritid girl, an Austarlid man etc. are meant to be kind of a "gothic " show as e.g. Stratz's "Women's Racial beauty " show much more appealing women from e.g. the Australid race despite your correct
assertions of their greater facial masculinity. A very critical thinker could assume that this is something like the ironic website "March of the Giants" were with the "ugly face trick" e.g. the Nordic race is presented as aesthetically inferior. I don't assume this, but someone could suspect so.If this would be the case what I don't think and hope, there could arise the accusation of Nazi-like methods, e.g. presenting the Jews in the propaganda film "The eternal Jew" having a "aesthetically" "inferior", "disgusting" and "offending" physical appearance.I consider these reasoning as basically belonging to this discussion, because everything starts with a guts feeling, I would like to know what your guts feeling about Nesid
women are despite your labeling them as more "masculine" than Europid women. As we anthropologists have an especially high responsibility towards mankind,could you please excuse my digging to the core of the issue which not only for historians of science is of great interest.Thank you very much , Mr. Holland. I am looking forward to your reply.
d'Artagnan
I'm not sure how I ended up here but you have an interesting site. A few questions though:
1. You say a high-fashion model normally has an average whr of 7.1 but from some of the photos I see and what I note of fashion models, this seems too low. Many of them are completely straight waisted with no deliniation whatsoever. A 7.1 waist to hip ratio, while not what you deem the most aesthetically pleasing, is nonetheless considered quite attractive, especially compared to the norm. I myself am in that category and am noted amongst my friends as having a "waist": something many women in my age category have sadly lost. Where does the 7.1 figure derive from and do you think these models are accurately reporting their measurements?
2. Many men and women consider long sleek legs an important component in defining female beauty, but often thinner more "rectangular" shaped women are the fortunate ones in this category. Does leg shape factor into your aesthetic definition of female beauty? If so, what is the ideal here?
3. I had always heard "hourglass" defined as having at least a 10 inch differential between hips and waist but I would not classify most fashion models as having an hourlgass shape, in spite of their measurements. Many of your models have what you state as very feminine whrs...with a very exaggerated hourglass shape. Do you have a definition of the hourglass shape? I note many of your models are not hourglass but pearshaped, based on the fact that they do not have substantial breasts.
4. Finally, what I found interesting about this site was how women and men view female beauty so differently...(Although I would love to have more of a more pronounced waist)...I do know that most of my female friends are more apt to comment on these things: Thinness, flat stomach, slim legs, no body fat or cellulite, hair and skin. It has been interesting to see another perspective.
d'Artagnan: It is high time for you to start emailing me off-topic comments rather than posting them here. How is your comment relevant to the reason why this section was set up? It is also time for you to advance beyond mid-twentieth century anthropology.
You have cited Ashley Montagu on the neotenous face form of the Japanese, completely oblivious to my citing current research(1) that neoteny doesn’t apply to human face shape; see page 6. Growth retardation among human skulls compared to ape skulls implies that the extent of jaw regression among humans is at most partly neotenous, but the jaws are most regressed among Northern Europeans, notably more protruding among Northeast/East Asians (Chinese, Chukchis, Mongolians, Koreans, Buryats and other Siberians) and, on average, even more protruding among mainland Southeast Asians (Vietnamese, Cambodian, Thai, Malay, Myanmar)(2).
Compared to the mainland Southeast Asian populations mentioned above, the Northeast/East Asian populations mentioned above also have flatter fronto-orbital regions, flatter zygomaxillary regions and the flattest nasal bones in East Asia are found in some Northeast Asian populations, i.e., mid-faces are less flat among the mainland southeast Asian populations, on average(2); see page 2. How then by your reasoning are the Southeast Asian populations such as the Malay/Thai more pedomorphic than the Northeast Asians?
More importantly, canonical correlation analysis of indices of facial flatness in the sagittal and transverse planes assessed by measuring skull samples from around the world revealed a statistically significant first factor, the standardized coefficients of which, shown below, reveal a tendency for deeper infraglabellar notches to correlate with sagittally flatter foreheads, more protruding jaws, a flatter fronto-orbital region and flatter nasal bones(2).
Whereas children do have flattened mid-faces, they do not have deep infraglabellar notches and protruding jaws. So how is the mid-facial flattening of the East Asian populations pedomorphic? Don’t you understand that the canonical correlation analysis and fossils of human ancestors point to the generalized skull form among humans, i.e., the mid-facial flattening of the East Asian populations considered appears to be differential retention of the ancestral form rather than pedomorphy? I have addressed all the data above within this site, but you either haven’t read it, don’t care or don’t understand it.
Your citations are outdated. Of the current references that you have cited, Knußmann’s book at most discusses published literature current in the early 1990s, and Chen’s paper (2003) is irrelevant since it is obvious that in a sexually dimorphic sexually reproducing species, the central tendency in the population will be for the masculine to prefer the feminine; there is no need to cite the behavior of algae. Early anthropologists did not have access to sophisticated statistical tools used by Hanihara and Penin et al. (the authors whose research is cited) and the three dimensional measurements made by Penin et al. Learn; read current anthropological literature.
Many white men do not find East Asian women appealing, and of the few who do, they prefer white women to East Asian women. Your assertions about the greater femininity of East Asian women are ridiculous. The Bali woman you cite does not appear to be feminine; she has small breasts and appears to have a tubular torso.
Stop commenting here unless it is relevant to the topic. Once again, email off-topic comments to me.
References
1. Penin, X., Berge, C., and Baylac, M., Ontogenetic study of the skull in modern humans and the common chimpanzees: neotenic hypothesis reconsidered with a tridimensional Procrustes analysis, Am J Phys Anthropol, 118, 50 (2002).
2. Hanihara, T., Frontal and facial flatness of major human populations, Am J Phys Anthropol, 111, 105 (2000).
maybe if this site tpouched on non-northern euopean beauty further---- you might avoid these comments--eric--as of now, you should possible rename it as anglo-saxon/nordic feminine beauty, as the spectrumof women that it really covers only includes 15 percent of the world. if you want to use some models of femininty for medit. women--try sarah shahi(there are tons of [ics of her on www.bastardly.com) for hispanic women--- just ask for suggestions vs. comparing ana barros to a northern european women---and ana is obviously of african/mediterranean heritage. i realize you have awesome intentions. i am just offering my opinion.
You cannot deny the Nesids femininity by only the mid-facial flattening . Even if it were the case as you wrote (but see my homo-erectus-argument) ,the Nesids are more feminine (due to a overwhelming number of paedomorphous traits) than the Palaungid , Tungid and Sinid Asians. There is a racial continuum of feminine to masculine among the Mongolids as follows: Nesid-Palaungid-Tungid-Sinid-(Turanid).Thank you very much. I am looking forward to your reply, Mr. Holland. d'Artagnan
For less male hormons of Mongolids see Jean Philippe Rushton and his extensice charts(wikipedia article).Primitivity and paedomorphosis are antagonistic basically , so a flat nose can mean both, we have to differentiate. The Nesid nose resembles the human child form differing from the very robust nose of the homo erectus.The single trait of the long teeth of the Mongolids (not the Nesids as you stated) are explained by Ashley Montagu (alias Israel Ehrenberg)in "Growing young" devoted to Mongolid neoteny/paedomorphosis : the neotenization
of the Mongolids left out some features, the jaws got more gracile but some upper teeth were left out.I am astonished that you do not know this literature. Thank you very much Mr. Holland, I am looking to your reply. d'Artagnan
The question was if we can compare the attractiveness of women from different populations. The answer is yes, and I was the first to introduce the two relevant anthropological arguments: femininity is attractive to non-androgynous Nordish men (Rainer Knußmann,Max Hartmann;the "European consensus" as you called it in cultural terms); the about 36 races exist , have great relevance to aesthetic reasoning, and can be classified on a continuum of masculine-feminine with the Nesids on the feminine end. In your showing Europeanization as feminization and therefore more attractive to non-androgynous men, it is obvious that you compare the European woman to a
Nilotoid mulatta. Compared to a Nesid , it would have been impossible to conclude a greater femininity. Of course there may be single traits
that are more masculine in the Nesids, but the feminine traits are overwhelming.
Rather strange are two comments of yours despite rejecting me nonchalantly as a serious discussion partner.You wrote above:"The libraries close to where I live do not have Knußmann’s book and it does not appear to be on sale by online book retailers, and hence I cannot check whether it really describes a concave nose as pedomorphic and ranks different populations on femininity, but if it is a recent anthropological treatise, I doubt that academics would be addressing such topics, i.e., either you are incorrectly representing the book or the authors have included absurdities in it." This could be labeled similar to the reasoning of an eight-year old who thinks that something stops existing after he stands behind a curtain and he himself cannot see anything any more.It illustrates well the Tolstoy syndrom in which you obviously are. A strange reaction of a scientist like you, but I gave you the ISBN so you can order the book easily.Secondly,
you admitted "If one were to consider the gracilization and size of the gonial region, one would classify Northern European women as the most feminine. If one were to positively relate backside protrusion to femininity, sub-Saharan African women would be ranked as the most feminine and East Asian women the least, but if we consider muscularity to be negatively related to femininity, then sub-Saharan African women would be ranked the most masculine and south Asian and southeast Asian women the most feminine. If stature is conceptualized to be negatively related to femininity, then pygmy women would be the most feminine". 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. So it would be difficult for you to present m o s t Nesid features as non-feminine(despite from citing Japanese authors who are obviously afraid to be seen as members of a paedomorphous race and so denying the Mongolid paedomorphosis incorrectly; numerous others example can be given , e.g. Franz Boas' Jewish scholars who controlled world anthropology after 1945 having a secret Jewish agenda; see. e.g. Kevin MacDOnald "The Culture of Critique",2002). Additionally, your classification can be seen as "idiosyncratic" , because you ackwoledge the buttocks and breasts and a certain waist-to-hip ratio as feminine ("hourglass figure") , but not e.g. a gracile body of about 158cm whichNordish women definitely have not compared to Nesid women on average.The consequence of your ideas are the völkische death of the Nordish race.Drawing the attention of men towards Nordish Europid women will help the extinction of the Nordish race until the end of the 21th century.This is of course not your intention , but given no political shift , this would be the inevitable consequence.Can women be feminine whose majority is so deeply infected with feminism and viragodom? Definitely not.But I can only emphasize again that I am a fan of yours and your website and I only want to help you as I have about 40 years of experience as a physical anthropologist in leading positions of the science establishment. Additionally you seem to be the author of a book on homosexuality and the homosexuals spreading AIDS predominantly , pointing out the biological nature of homosexuality, ideas which I support totally. Thank you very much , Mr. Holland.I am looking forward to your reply. d'Artagnan
To Eric Holland:
Hi,
I would like to know your opinion about Natalia Glebova(Miss Universe 2005) Do you find her beautiful? Thank you for any input.
Ross: It is easy for you to accuse me of using quasi-scientific arguments, but you have not shown that the arguments are quasi-scientific. See if you can show the latter. Belittle is an inappropriate words as far as the comparisons go. Pointing out the masculinization in masculinized women is stating a fact. If a woman looks like an eunuch or male-to-female transsexual, then there is no easy way of saying this nicely, and to say so is not to belittle. There is no criticism of the looks of women from an ethnicity standpoint within this site.
As far as the sourcing of the women in the attractive women section goes, as already explained, only some of them are taken from porn sites, several have been taken from sites depicting artistic nudity but no pornography, many women are nude models that do not involve themselves in pornography and some don’t post nude. The majority of the women are taken from adult-oriented sites because the male homosexual domination of the fashion business is so extensive that the vast majority of feminine and attractive women that refuse to pose nude or to deal with the casting couch remain out of the limelight. If this site is successful in the long run, you will see mainstream appreciation of feminine beauty and a correspondingly increased proportion of non-nude women in the attractive women section.
grrrrforgotten: You are clearly a retarded individual...bringing Hitler into the picture! The women shown in the attractive women section are 18-plus; they don’t look 16, and two are even in their thirties. Besides, pedophilia is defined as a preference for pre-pubescent children.
grrrforgotten: How exactly is white supremacism being espoused here? And how have you inferred what parts of the world I have not been in? There are no white supremacists affiliated with this site. Based on your two other comments elsewhere, it is confirmed that you are mentally challenged. There is no pretence here that only white women can be beautiful. Attractive women exist in all populations, but this site is targeting the general Western public, not catering to your aesthetic preferences, and hence non-white women are generally not addressed. However, to illustrate the point that there is a large presence of masculinized women in high-profile beauty pageants, it is necessary to point out the masculinized non-white women, too.
xkrrss2: Are you some kind of mentally challenged person?
yeah, Ross, agreed, I just posted something similar myself. This is very similar to what Hitler said about blonde/blue eyed Nordic women being the only feminine women out there compared to the "dark" non-"Aryan" women.
Where is Erik from? Is he from Europe?
And the pedophile issue, I'm sorry Erik but you clearly are the type who likes 16yr old girls. If you're over 23, that's pretty gross (as a former 16 yr old girl, I can tell you teen girls find men like you really creepy)
Erik
I think all your site does is display your prejudices and preferences in terms of a woman's look.
Your use of a quasi scientific approach to belittle woman of a certain shape and look and for that matter race shows you up for what you really are.
It is interesting that all the women you pick as exemplifying your idea of good looks/beauty are young women from porn sites - what does this really say about you?
dude, you are clearly a white supremacist, veiling your beliefs with questionable photos of women from "ethnic" backgrounds. Be a white supremacist, just don't use such nonsensical propaganda. Some of your "attractive women" are very average and boring looking. Some of your points are reasonable, yes Gisele is very manly, in fact the high fashion models do kinda look like how you described them. However, when you try to pretend that white women are the only beautiful women out there, you completely ruin your credibility and come across as a foaming at the mouth KKK/neo-nazi freak. Seriously, you probably have never been to Africa, Asia or the Pacific. Until you have, and have seen a substantial number of women from these regions with your own eyes (there's a whole psychological implication in that), then you can start preaching about who is beautiful and who looks like a man.
Is this some kind of women's white supremacist website?
d'Artagnan: This discussion is not productive. The classification of human populations and attaching labels to them are not relevant to this section. Besides, you are supposed to email off-topic comments to me. Arguments are not made by authority in science but by evidence. What evidence is there that “Nesid” women are more feminine than others? This evidence has to be in the form of sex hormone/steroid receptor profiles and/or showing that the purported characteristics that you are labeling more feminine, such as the greater mid-facial flattening of the “Nesids” compared to Europeans, are caused by increased feminization.
Now you have said that humans are pedomorphous as a whole, and some populations are extremely pedomorphic and thereby least retain ancestral features. Humans weigh less than gorillas and could be considered pedomorphous on this count by your criteria, but humans are larger than a closer relative, chimpanzees. Therefore, what kind of pedomorphy characterizes humans? Flattened noses are pedomorphic according to you, but the nasal bones in the great apes are flatter than among humans. How is this possible if humans are more pedomorphous than apes? If you consider the lower jaw, who do you think has the most overall derived, i.e., least ancestral, lower jaw? Why do “Nesid” women have larger teeth than European women if they are more feminine and less likely to retain ancestral features? The citation for the teeth size find is:
Quote:
The Pleistocene samples that I have talked about are not from a particular region; they are from humans populations all over the globe and reveal more or less flat mid-faces. It seems that I have wasted my time posting the results from the canonical correlation analysis; why can’t you understand that the mid-facial flattening of East Asian populations is an ancestral feature, not something feminine or pedomorphic? Why have you repeatedly ignored evidence that mid-facial flattening is greater in Northeast Asia than in mainland Southeast Asia and thereby the mainland Southeast Asians are less feminine/pedomorphic by your criteria?
I do not have an Anglo-Christian background, and any background is irrelevant as far as the central tendency of erotic preferences in a population goes. This central tendency obviously is to prefer sexually mature young adults. I need to cite evidence for this? Why would it be otherwise? Fertility and fecundity drop as one moves away from young adults. Like I said, “more attractive features that appear to be paedomorphic are either somewhat more feminine than average features (e.g., less prominent noses and broader faces, controlling for other factors) and thereby more attractive in women or somewhat more gracile than average features and thereby more attractive in both men and women.”
This discussion is completely useless as far as the question that is the title is concerned. I may address additional comments by you if you email me, but please don’t post here anymore.
Let us start systematically with the about 36 human races http://209.85.129.104/search?q=cache:YOPN0F99550J:www.snpa.nordish.net/charts.htm+zentralid&hl=en&gl=uk&ct=clnk&cd=5
Do you acknowledge the about 36 distinct races of mankind (see especially the colour photos by Glowatzki from the 1970s confirmed by Knußmann,Germany's no.1 of anthropology, in 1996) ? Then we take Knußmann's 1996 confirmation of the Nesids as the most feminine race and the comparability of all races concerning femininity/masculinity (and therefore attractiveness to non-androgynous men, Max Hartmann, Knußmann).(s. e.g.www.dewa.com/big/2001/6.jpg representing the average racial femininity of the Nesid women being much more feminine than the viragos of e.g. Osteuropid type from e.g. Zarys Antropologii Polski on the first-mentioned site;Schwidetzkis "Racial history of mankind" confirms this,too).Do you agree ?
There are, as Knußmann writes , some exceptions of the Nesid femininity, but the overwhelming number of their features are feminine/paedomorphous.
Mankind is paedomorphous as a whole (John Randal Baker,Race,1974, Oxford University Press), but some races are extremely paedomorphous and therefore have retained the least ancestral traits. In contrast to your cited studies , we have to compare modern races with the old ancestral forms of e.g. homo habilis or homo erectus , not with pleistocene men which themselves could have been proto-Europids or proto-Mongolids (logical fallacy,petitio principii).It is even assumed that racial differentiation could have started with homo erectus about 500000 years ago (!).
Additionally , it seems that you rule out even the possibility of facial and body type paedomorphosis(= femininity) being attractive to men due to your obvious Christian Anglo-American cultural background ("It should also be noted that normal developmental processes are expected to orient a person toward sexually mature individuals rather than sexually immature individuals. Therefore, pedomorphy is not a correlate of beauty, and more attractive features that appear to be paedomorphic are either somewhat more feminine than average features (e.g., less prominent noses and broader faces, controlling for other factors) and thereby more attractive in women or somewhat more gracile than average features and thereby more attractive in both men and women."One could label this "scientific paedophobia" .This is counterintuitive,not substantiated by facts, in total contrast to Knußmann's unique manual (1996) and my reasoning.
Thank you very much, Mr. Holland. I am looking forward to your reply.d'Artagnan
wtf?: Read carefully; the statement about Victoria’s Secret models uses the term transsexual, not transvestite. Male-to-female transsexuals, on average, look more feminine than male transvestites.
Your objections have been previously addressed. Yes, there are female designers, but the top ranks of the fashion business are dominated by homosexual men, and designers that are not male homosexual have to comply with the status quo. There is no implication within this site that all gay fashion designers are attracted to young male transvestite looks. For the central tendency of high-fashion models to approximate the looks of adolescent boys, it is sufficient that the majority of the dominant fashion designers have a high aesthetic appreciation for the looks of adolescent boys; all of them do not need to have this preference.
The central tendency among high-fashion models is not to combine masculine and feminine features but all-around masculinization. It could be supposed that there is a need for exotic-looking models, but how come the central tendency of such exotic looks bears an uncanny resemblance to adolescent boys? Ever heard of Occam’s razor? What is the most parsimonious explanation given the gay domination of the top ranks of the fashion business? A rebuttal to a great deal of apologetics has been provided on the “skinny fashion models” page; read it.
Speaking of Victoria’s Secret models, they are currently being addressed in a multi-part series; see Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3. Go through these entries and notice the masculinization and fake breasts in the three top-ranked Victoria’s Secret models addressed so far. What possible justification could there be in using masculinized women with fake breasts for lingerie modeling other than the homosexuals responsible not willing to tolerate anything beyond the minimum femininity that it takes to get the job done? If this minimum femininity can be achieved via breast implants and posing tricks, then the homosexuals would be only too happy to avoid using feminine women. One could argue that the women in question are being used because they are famous, but whose aesthetic preferences have made these women famous in the first place?
Kristin: Weight gain or loss is not going to change the masculinized skeletal proportions of Ana Beatriz Barros. Your picture, which is not very clear, just shows Ana’s face, which doesn’t manifest a feminine chin length or feminine supraorbital region. There are plenty of pictures of Ana where her face doesn’t look that masculine. Seeing her face from multiple angles and her physique leave no doubt about her above average masculinization.
d'Artagnan: If you are an anthropologist and wish to educate the public, believing that you have a responsibility toward humankind to do so, then I recommend that you familiarize yourself with current anthropological literature, avoid the use of outdated/obscure terminology and set up a website since publishing in journals will only expose your work to a handful of academics.
There are no long-established facts about the femininity-pedomorphy equation like you have stated, the concept of neoteny as you have used and the mid-facial flattening of “Nesid” and other East Asian populations being an example of pedomorphy as my citations and comments amply illustrate. You have ignored evidence that mid-facial flattening is less among “Nesids” than among Northeast Asians, on average, making the “Nesids” less facially pedomorphic than Northeast Asians by your reasoning.
In my previous comment, I specified the mainland Southeast Asian populations being addressed, i.e., there is no need to use outdated and obscure labels such as “Nesid” or “Palaungid.”
You want me to acknowledge the “extreme facial and body type feminity of the Nesids”? Where is your documentation of such extreme femininity? I am not interested in “so and so said this.” Come up with pictures of their physiques which show greater femininity than that of the feminine European women documented in the attractive women section.
Let me make it clear that if you repeat your assertion about the mid-facial flattening of any adult human population being pedomorphic and thereby feminine then you will need to explain the results from the canonical correlation analysis presented above, as well as the facial flattening data provided by Hanihara, and show how the finds fit in with your statement or else you are not welcome to continue commenting here. And no, I haven’t labeled “Nesid” women more masculine than European women. I am interested in the question that is title of this entry, not attaching masculine-feminine labels to different populations.
Regarding the pictures of the African with a protruding backside and the Australian that you believe to not be attractive, these pictures are shown in the context of extreme contrasts, whereby it is not necessary to select pictures based on attractiveness or representativeness. Therefore, your stated concerns are not applicable.
What I meant by that line " I dont buy your argument that a hetrosexual man wouldnt find even the least masculine looking woman less desirable than the most feminine looking women" is bascially in relation to where do you draw the line as to what is masucline and what is feminine a question which you have already answered and the fact that femininity can be relative so what is masculine may be percieved as feminine on a different scale a point on which you raised the issue of average femininity. I do agree with you the women you have put forward as masculine looking are masculine looking from an objective point of view if one is to go by your argument of average femininity.
Can I just ask how many, or what sort of adolescent male transvestites the designer/editor of this site has seen? I can't say for certain that I have ever encountered one, but the male transvestites that I have seen in photographs or on television (bizarre programs like 'Maury' or 'Jerry Springer'- not trustworthy by most standards) are not at all comparable to the likes of the Victoria's Secret models. I am sure that if they did resemble one, they would be tremendously pleased with themselves for so accurately portraying such an acclaimed example of female beauty.
That said, I agree, or at least understand, most of what you've argued on this site. It is true that many (even most) high-fashion models have a tendency towards "masculine" features- high cheekbones, heavier brows (in general, more defined features- less of the softness, roundness associated with females), broader bodies, narrower torsos and hips; however, while your theory that this is related to the homosexual influence in the fashion world is interesting, there are certain variables and factors that contradict your theory, that you have to account- which (I'll admit I have not looked at the entire site), I don't believe you have.
First, although there are a great deal of homosexual fashion designers/photographers/clothiers/etc. involved in the world of fashion, there still exists a heterosexual influence (i.e., female designers- and no, they do not choose boyish females models because they are attracted to men-, straight male designers) and a need to appeal to a predominantly heterosexual society. As such, it cannot truly be assumed that the world of high-fashion chooses female models with masculine features because they resemble the young male transvestites that all gay fashion designers are attracted to- the idea is really pretty absurd. It can be said, though, that the perception or definition of female beauty in the world of high-fashion is a bit skewed- the extreme thinness, to start with, is a bit disgusting- if women, girls, who were merely slender, just a bit meatier, were used, their frames (?) would be equally as versatile, and they would likely be more attractive (it should be mentioned that the idea that all high-fashion models are naturally as skinny as they are is hard to believe- for that many women, already predispositioned to gain weight more easily than men, to have so very high metabolisms and to be so very thin, seems weird, but maybe I don't have a great enough understanding of human metabolism, or diet, or the prevalence of ectomorphs.
Second (and probably last, because I've already forgotten why exactly responding to this site is so important to me), perhaps it should be considered that the appearance of more masculine features on a feminine face or person is unusual, exotic, and therefore desired. Especially given all the mention of "exotic" beauties like Adrianna Lima and Jessica Alba (the latter of whom seems frankly more commonplace to me, aside from her coloring) this idea seems to be something that could factor in to the preference for high-fashion females models with seemingly incongruous features- the contrast of high cheekbones with fuller lips, of heavier brows with large eyes and long eyelashes is interesting and unusual, thus exotic and attractive. Of course, not all women with such combinations are incredibly attractive, and sometimes, the presence of overtly male features can be incredibly ugly- as well though, as the presence of overtly female features. I don't know if anyone has said this, but I don't think that women should be assumed to be ugly or unattractive just because they have masculine features or boyish bodies- in some cases, such women are attractive due to the overall impression of their features, but in other cases they may be less attractive for the same reason.
Might I also mention that the VS models are considerably more attractive than the typical runway model- there is a big difference between the type and features of models used strictly for fashion shows and runways, and those photographed for fashion magazines/ads/etc.
take a look at ana beatriz in one of her first covers as a teenmodel--- its all the weight loss that has made her look masculine(low body fat to be specific). her face looks lotally different.
http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/7370/05050108todateendecembegz4.jpg
I agree with the founder of this site somewhat: Alexandra's face DOES look like a man's, she has enlarged jaw bones and thin lips, small teeth and also very "bony" body. KArolina Kurkova has gorgeous face despite her long nose, but she has very wide rib cage and it's not proportional to her body. Adriana Lima has the most GORGEOUS face of all of them, BUT...take a look at her legs(knees in particular), her knees are zig-zag bended the other way(very-very-very ugly legs). I agree that those Victorias Secret girls have their defects(we all do), but they look flashy because they are tall and in shape, they have no cellulite. I have respect for women who take care of them selves.
Regarding Jessica Alba --- she is my favorite actress, in my opinion, she is perfect: great body, big eyes, full lips, nice teeth. She looks amazing in "Into the Blue".
By the way, I don't think that Jessica Simpson or Paris Hilton are beautiful, in fact they are the most ugly girls on TV + neither of them has manners. Sorry for my poor English.
Sandy: The 0.71 WHR is from a study by Tovee et al., and the authors actually used the statistic to describe fashion models as hourglass figured! However, as you have correctly described, fashion models hardly approach feminine waist-hip proportions, even if you consider fashion models that are not stereotypical runaway models and are used more for lingerie modeling. The authors took the statistics from a modeling agency and stated the measurements as reliable because the models need to be accurately reported in order for them to get work, which sounds reasonable unless there happens to be an unwritten industry rule to lie in a specific manner. Consider the following.
If you translate the measurements in the table to bust-waist-hip measurements for a constant hip size of 35 inches, you get fashion models (35-25-35), glamour model (36-24-35) and normal young women (32-26-35). The glamour models chosen were Playboy centerfolds, a bad choice given their increasing masculinization from the 1960s to 2000 and also that too many of them have breast implants. A better choice of glamour models would measure as a natural 34C/D-23-35 (WHR = 0.657) if the hips are maintained at 35 inches. The fashion models would have a bust that is 35AA or 35A, i.e., a much larger ribcage than glamour models. In front view, the broader ribcage of fashion models would stretch out the waist region, notably decreasing the odds of an hourglass shape, but if you look at the fashion models from the side, then waist thickness will not be much given their skinniness. In other words, you need to consider the distribution of mass, not just the circumference; the increase in waist circumference above is small, but the distribution of mass in the waist region is changing by a greater degree, with a notable spreading out of the waist region in front view. Of course, if there is an unwritten industry rule to lie in a predetermined manner, then the actual WHR is greater than the reported one. The contents of this paragraph should have been added on the page where the WHR table is presented a long time ago, but better late than never.
Yes, leg proportions are relevant to female beauty. Long legs, absence of flab and cellulite, and fuller muscles (longer muscle bellies) are some correlates of beautiful legs in women; some correlates of aesthetically pleasing leg proportions in European women have been addressed on this page. The problem is that increasing feminization relatively shortens the legs, as you have alluded to. Since sex hormones only partly influence leg length, a population could select for both leg-long and feminine women over a long period of sexual selection. An example of this is found among Scandinavian-type Northern Europeans, where one comes across plenty of leg-long feminine women that do not correspondingly have long arms, i.e., the longer legs are not explicable in terms of general lengthening of the limbs; see this example.
I am not employing a mathematical description of an hourglass figure; just focusing on looks. The actual look of a woman easily beats a description of her in terms of bust-waist-hip measurements. You are right that some women in the attractive women section do not have large breasts, but this section is focused on overall looks, and several women without large breasts are sufficiently feminine and attractive on other counts to be showcased. Similarly, there are several women with large breasts that are not otherwise feminine and/or attractive enough to be showcased. The quality of the attractive women section will improve with time. Eight women added to this section, mostly initially, have been removed so far, and some of them had small breasts. Some more women will be removed later. This section should acquire a greater proportion of hourglass-shaped women given enough time and some luck.
Men and women do not see the beauty of women very differently; the influence of fashion media has driven some women toward an appreciation of skinny looks, and if such women are disproportionately among your circle of friends and acquaintances, then you may infer a large discrepancy between the preferences of men and women. Skin, hair, flabbiness and cellulite are all relevant to beauty a far as both men and women are concerned, but since this site addresses young adult women who happen to be models and beauty pageant contestants, comparisons on these measures are hardly relevant. On the other hand, the bottom of this page links to various articles on skin and hair-related issues of interest to women with problems on these counts.
Once again, I asserted that Nesid women have a much more feminine face and body type Nordid women (for breasts and buttocks my comments above). v. Rudolf Martin, Karl Saller,Eickstedt Knußmann (1996) and me think so. I took your comments very , very serious , but now you call long-established facts "ridiculous".And again , you avoided the term "Nesid". Of course, it is ridiculous to call the "East Asians" (to use your term) feminine, as e.g. the Tungids and Eskimids are extremely masculine in many respects.Being a professor of anthropology myself and you seemingly a scholar of biology/anthropology , too,
I ask myself why you as an obviously brilliant scientist with a definitely unique website avoid
so much to acknowledge the extreme facial and body type feminity of the Nesids. As seems as your photos of other races a steatypygious Negritid girl, an Austarlid man etc. are meant to be kind of a "gothic " show as e.g. Stratz's "Women's Racial beauty " show much more appealing women from e.g. the Australid race despite your correct
assertions of their greater facial masculinity. A very critical thinker could assume that this is something like the ironic website "March of the Giants" were with the "ugly face trick" e.g. the Nordic race is presented as aesthetically inferior. I don't assume this, but someone could suspect so.If this would be the case what I don't think and hope, there could arise the accusation of Nazi-like methods, e.g. presenting the Jews in the propaganda film "The eternal Jew" having a "aesthetically" "inferior", "disgusting" and "offending" physical appearance.I consider these reasoning as basically belonging to this discussion, because everything starts with a guts feeling, I would like to know what your guts feeling about Nesid
women are despite your labeling them as more "masculine" than Europid women. As we anthropologists have an especially high responsibility towards mankind,could you please excuse my digging to the core of the issue which not only for historians of science is of great interest.Thank you very much , Mr. Holland. I am looking forward to your reply.
d'Artagnan
Hi Erik:
I'm not sure how I ended up here but you have an interesting site. A few questions though:
1. You say a high-fashion model normally has an average whr of 7.1 but from some of the photos I see and what I note of fashion models, this seems too low. Many of them are completely straight waisted with no deliniation whatsoever. A 7.1 waist to hip ratio, while not what you deem the most aesthetically pleasing, is nonetheless considered quite attractive, especially compared to the norm. I myself am in that category and am noted amongst my friends as having a "waist": something many women in my age category have sadly lost. Where does the 7.1 figure derive from and do you think these models are accurately reporting their measurements?
2. Many men and women consider long sleek legs an important component in defining female beauty, but often thinner more "rectangular" shaped women are the fortunate ones in this category. Does leg shape factor into your aesthetic definition of female beauty? If so, what is the ideal here?
3. I had always heard "hourglass" defined as having at least a 10 inch differential between hips and waist but I would not classify most fashion models as having an hourlgass shape, in spite of their measurements. Many of your models have what you state as very feminine whrs...with a very exaggerated hourglass shape. Do you have a definition of the hourglass shape? I note many of your models are not hourglass but pearshaped, based on the fact that they do not have substantial breasts.
4. Finally, what I found interesting about this site was how women and men view female beauty so differently...(Although I would love to have more of a more pronounced waist)...I do know that most of my female friends are more apt to comment on these things: Thinness, flat stomach, slim legs, no body fat or cellulite, hair and skin. It has been interesting to see another perspective.
d'Artagnan: It is high time for you to start emailing me off-topic comments rather than posting them here. How is your comment relevant to the reason why this section was set up? It is also time for you to advance beyond mid-twentieth century anthropology.
You have cited Ashley Montagu on the neotenous face form of the Japanese, completely oblivious to my citing current research(1) that neoteny doesn’t apply to human face shape; see page 6. Growth retardation among human skulls compared to ape skulls implies that the extent of jaw regression among humans is at most partly neotenous, but the jaws are most regressed among Northern Europeans, notably more protruding among Northeast/East Asians (Chinese, Chukchis, Mongolians, Koreans, Buryats and other Siberians) and, on average, even more protruding among mainland Southeast Asians (Vietnamese, Cambodian, Thai, Malay, Myanmar)(2).
Compared to the mainland Southeast Asian populations mentioned above, the Northeast/East Asian populations mentioned above also have flatter fronto-orbital regions, flatter zygomaxillary regions and the flattest nasal bones in East Asia are found in some Northeast Asian populations, i.e., mid-faces are less flat among the mainland southeast Asian populations, on average(2); see page 2. How then by your reasoning are the Southeast Asian populations such as the Malay/Thai more pedomorphic than the Northeast Asians?
More importantly, canonical correlation analysis of indices of facial flatness in the sagittal and transverse planes assessed by measuring skull samples from around the world revealed a statistically significant first factor, the standardized coefficients of which, shown below, reveal a tendency for deeper infraglabellar notches to correlate with sagittally flatter foreheads, more protruding jaws, a flatter fronto-orbital region and flatter nasal bones(2).
Whereas children do have flattened mid-faces, they do not have deep infraglabellar notches and protruding jaws. So how is the mid-facial flattening of the East Asian populations pedomorphic? Don’t you understand that the canonical correlation analysis and fossils of human ancestors point to the generalized skull form among humans, i.e., the mid-facial flattening of the East Asian populations considered appears to be differential retention of the ancestral form rather than pedomorphy? I have addressed all the data above within this site, but you either haven’t read it, don’t care or don’t understand it.
Your citations are outdated. Of the current references that you have cited, Knußmann’s book at most discusses published literature current in the early 1990s, and Chen’s paper (2003) is irrelevant since it is obvious that in a sexually dimorphic sexually reproducing species, the central tendency in the population will be for the masculine to prefer the feminine; there is no need to cite the behavior of algae. Early anthropologists did not have access to sophisticated statistical tools used by Hanihara and Penin et al. (the authors whose research is cited) and the three dimensional measurements made by Penin et al. Learn; read current anthropological literature.
Many white men do not find East Asian women appealing, and of the few who do, they prefer white women to East Asian women. Your assertions about the greater femininity of East Asian women are ridiculous. The Bali woman you cite does not appear to be feminine; she has small breasts and appears to have a tubular torso.
Stop commenting here unless it is relevant to the topic. Once again, email off-topic comments to me.
References
1. Penin, X., Berge, C., and Baylac, M., Ontogenetic study of the skull in modern humans and the common chimpanzees: neotenic hypothesis reconsidered with a tridimensional Procrustes analysis, Am J Phys Anthropol, 118, 50 (2002).
2. Hanihara, T., Frontal and facial flatness of major human populations, Am J Phys Anthropol, 111, 105 (2000).
Pages