You are here

Recent comments

Datesort ascending Author Article link, comment
Tue, 10/31/2006 - 15:56 Kristin The transsexual parade otherwise known as the Victoria’s Secret lingerie show: part 2

grace's butt is alot flatter than gisele's. adn her hips are totally straight. besides having more body fat(but gisele actually works out regularly) what makes her body mroe femme?

Tue, 10/31/2006 - 14:45 simy The 2006 Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue

yamila is beautiful so you are saying yamila is overall feminine? can you do an annalysis on the following supermodels naomi campbell, helena christenson and singer mariah carey

Mon, 10/30/2006 - 11:57 simon Nonheterosexual vs. heterosexual male preference for petite women: Alessandra Ambrosio vs. Camille

Your site is informative it looks at the beauty issue from an interesting but objective perspective and i think it reaffirms the saying that "appearances can be deceptive". You analyse things as seperate parts and then look at the whole and make your judgement as to the overall femininity or masculinity of a woman based on what you have gathered from analysis of the seperate parts. Had fun reading it.... I think however people shouldnt take what they read on here too much to heart everyones entitled to there own opinion.

Sun, 10/29/2006 - 19:29 Sam 3 The influence of the thin ideal in fashion magazines on women at risk for anorexia

Skimmed through article. Sounds like it has a basis in reality.

Kristin, I saw a similar show recently. I dunno the name. I was thinking "wtf" when they told a women who had lost some weight (was previously overweight) that a dress fit her perfectly because it minimized her naturally wide hips. They said it like her hips were a flaw (despite now being at a healthy weight and having a small waist). Just seemed backwards to me. Should be showing her curves off.

Sun, 10/29/2006 - 18:55 Sam Are these girls high-fashion model material?

Some pretty women here (under "attractive women"). I must say it's ridiculous to be covering the nipples (while showing everything else). Reinforces the silly western taboo and the resulting fetish. I can understand covering the vulva in explicit shots, but for non-pornographic photos I don't see the necessity of covering anything.

Drawing a comparison (of "beautiful women") to not looking mid-teenish is a stretch. Although I do know what you meant (which is ok).

"Mid" teen would be around age 16 (15-17) and most females are physically mature by that age (with the brain taking a few more years in both sexes).

There's no way to reliably judge the age of young women between 16-21 (without social cues). Many of the attractive women (on this site) could just as easily ("if" we didn't know better) be 16 or a well taken care of 25 year old. What you describe (as "mid-teen") sounds more like an early adolescent (11-14). So basically I'm agreeing with you, but with different terminology.

Many high fashion models look like somewhately masulinized, anorexic, early adolescents. Far from being the ideal of attractiveness for a hetero-sexual male.

Sat, 10/28/2006 - 03:37 Erik Is it possible to objectively compare the attractiveness of women from different populations?

d'Artagnan: I am unable to acknowledge that you have addressed all my arguments; as anyone can see, in your three comments following my previous comment, you have once again ignored many things that I pointed out. The brunette white woman in question cannot be classified as Mediterranoid; look at her skin and facial features. There are plenty of brunette Nordics that are no less Nordic than blond Nordics. Indigenous brunettes in Britain are not autochthonous Mediterranoids, as genetic and craniofacial analyses will show that they do not cluster with southern Europeans.

You seem to have a problem with my using Southeast Asian instead of “Nesid” to refer to Malay women and also a problem with the term “ethnicity” or East Asian, believing them to be inappropriate or generic. Well, we are not discussing semantics/labels. Regardless of what terminology one uses, the nature and extent of population differences remain, and it is these differences that are relevant to the discussion, not labels. When it is clear what populations you and I are talking about, it doesn’t matter how one labels them.

It should be obvious from the context that when I referred to East Asians, I was not talking about the Aeta or Ainu; I was talking about stereotypical Chinese and similar people. There is a north-south cline in East Asia involving the East Asian and Australo-Melanesian groups. Therefore, in Southeast Asia, people tend to be a mix of the mainland East Asian-type (e.g., Chinese-type looks) and aboriginal people similar to the Australo-Melanesians, with some populations leaning toward either extreme. When I talked about Southeast Asian women, it should be obvious from the context that I am not talking about the Aeta or equivalent tribal groups. You need to consider the context of the discussion. Terms that you are using, such as Nesid, Palaungid or Negritid, are not in current usage in anthropology and their meanings not self-evident to most people. If you want to refer to a specific population, use the name of that population and link to photos instead of using obscure terminology.

Skull analyses show the Australo-Melanesians clustering with sub-Saharan Africans but genetic analyses do not show any such clustering. The latter scenario is easily understood when one realizes that sub-Saharan Africans and Australo-Melanesians have been geographically separated for tens of thousands of years but have retained most of the generalized (ancestral) skull form among humans. Therefore, your calling the Aeta “Negroid” is mistaken as they do not genetically cluster with sub-Saharan Africans before clustering with other East Asians.

I have never said anything along the lines of the Eskimos being very masculine.

It is a matter of common observation that East Asians tend to have larger faces and larger jaws than Europeans if you control for body size, and in many cases even if you ignore body size (e.g., 1, 2; the 2nd picture shows southeast Asian children with faces approaching the size of a European adult).

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. If one had to compare the masculinity-femininity of the physical form of different populations, here is how one could go about it. Take 3-D photographs of men and women from different populations; the form will be seen to vary as a function of size, sex and ethnic background. Then, controlling for sex and the ethnicity factor would allow one to compare populations with respect to the sexual dimorphism factor, and the anthropometric data could be seen in light of sex hormone profiles and differences in the androgen and estrogen receptors. If Rainer Knußmann (1996) has indeed ranked populations on femininity, then it is highly unlikely that this methodology was used as it has caught on only recently. Not using this methodology will generally translate to people using idiosyncratic definitions of the femininity of physical form to rank populations.

For instance, if one goes by your comments, women in various East Asian populations would be ranked as the most feminine on the basis of their mid-facial flatness (which you call pedomorphic), but given that these women tend to have some of the least feminine curves, one would have to classify them as among the least feminine women with respect to the femininity of body curves. Similarly, if one were to take your conceptualization of nose projection being inversely related to femininity, sub-Saharan African women would be classified as the most feminine, followed by East Asian women, and European women would be the most masculine. 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. In short, idiosyncratic definitions do not help as they do not lead to consistent classifications. In order to classify “Nesid” women as the most feminine, you are ignoring the relative lack of feminine curves among them compared to European women.

I know that there are no East Asian women in the attractive women section of this site, but I have pointed out elsewhere that this site is targeting Western people and hence it is not necessary to focus on non-European women. On the other hand, the underrepresentation of southern European women has to do with the difficulty of finding feminine and attractive ones among them; I haven’t come across very many of them; I don’t have a problem finding southern European women with prominent breasts, but they also need to have good faces and feminine waist-hip-backside proportions for me to consider putting their pictures in the attractive women section. In case you haven't noticed, high-end European models are disproportionately Northern European types.

One does not have a fetish for humans like you think I have for some types of women; one has a fetish for non-living objects. Additionally, the women in the attractive women section are not being recommended to the viewers but being showcased as women that look strikingly different from high-fashion models, including "sexy" fashion models; the objective is of an educational nature.

You have said that “we are trying to help you.” We? All comments by d'Artagnan appear to be coming from a single individual. And how exactly have you tried to help me? None of your comments pertain to the question that prompted me to set up this section of the site. If you wanted to help me, then you could start by emailing off-topic comment to me rather than posting them here. I am looking for pictures of feminine and attractive southern European women. If according to you, they are more feminine than Northern European women, then it should be easy to come across a lot of them. Perhaps you would be kind enough to point out these women to me so that I can put them up in the attractive women section. I may expand my site in the future to more extensively address non-European women, and if you could point out examples of feminine and attractive East Asian (or “Nesid”) women, then their pictures will come in very handy.

You have accused me of making a major “Asian races” error, which is nothing but a semantics/labeling issue; when it is clear what populations are being talked about, labels don’t matter, and the problem is with your usage of obscure terminology, e.g., Nesid instead of Bali/Malay. If one uses current population names and links to pictures, then it is very clear what populations one is talking about. Additionally, you have accused me of listing numerous other falsehoods without describing any one of them. Anyway, email off-topic comments to me instead of posting them here.

Thu, 10/26/2006 - 07:15 d'Artagnan Is it possible to objectively compare the attractiveness of women from different populations?

If one studies your gallery of attractive women which you recommend to the viewers (i.e. as sexual partners etc.), one notes that northern and eastern European types are predominant, not the more feminine southern European ones or Asians (if one believes 150 years of research,thousands of monographs and the intuitive stereotype ). One could conclude that your site is about the idolization of the so-called Nordish races. One could conclude that attributing great femininity to their women was a a posteriori rationale to justify their idolization.To make it more credulous , the racial average hardness had to be dimmed down significantly (cf. Rassengeschichte der Menschheit, where the real types are presented).So our virago media culture is
stunningly presenting Nordish women in positive
light d u e to real characteristics, not fictitious ones. As a a consequnece , there are only two possibilities: either you, Mr. Holland , have a kind of racial fetish and cannot reflect it due to the "magic" power it has over its followers("all science starts with a guts feeling", Kevin MacDonald), or you are not able to get the essence of it all confused by the overwhelming amount of details you studied.All the four anthropology professors I showed this thread have aggreed with me on this.Despite the formal sophistication and uniqueness of your site it contains not only the major "Asian races" error , but numerous other falsehoods."Eastern Asians" is a "gum" definition , which can mean virtually anything, Japanese Europid Ainuids, Thai Negroid Negritids or Mongolid Palaungid Laotioans).We hope that you will not become a victim of the Tolstoy syndrome making you unable for all times to change your mind as we have no animosities against you and only wanted to help you.We wish you all the best for the future. Good bye d'Artagnan

Wed, 10/25/2006 - 06:23 d'Artagnan Is it possible to objectively compare the attractiveness of women from different populations?

The core of the problem is here,too:
"then how come East Asian women have larger faces and larger jaws "--
Your statement shows two problems, the Nesid women have n o t larger faces and larger jaws than the Nordid women on average.And what do you mean by "East Asian" as the Negritid Aeta from East Asia are a Negroid race e.g. ? You are absolutely right that Eskimids are one of the most masculine races , but the Nesids are t h e most feminine in spite of being Mongolid according to thousands of anthropological monographs.Thank you very much, Mr. Holland.You avoided so much to use the crucial word "Nesid", but unless we use it we cannot come to terms.

Wed, 10/25/2006 - 06:08 d'Artagnan Is it possible to objectively compare the attractiveness of women from different populations?

Hello Mr. Holland. Please could you acknowledge that I referred to all your arguments. Your Europid woman can be classified as Mediterranoid , she is no Mediterranid. As there are autothonous Mediterranoids from Northern Europe (Wales . Ireland) , I wonder why you still resist the racial classification and you use a geographical.If you see the Knußmann chart on paedomorphosis in his manual you will see as it that a small concave nose is paedomorphic independently from race. And here we are at the core of the problem. Nearly all features of the skeleton, the face and the skull can be classified as feminine or masculine. If I would list 20 further feminine features as listed in Eickstedt and Knußamnn and applying to her , too, one could always say it is an "ethnic " difference.But as Knußmann and the others state, a l l 36 race can be classified concerning femininity and masculinity irrespective of race. The term "ethnic"seems not appropriate as we are dealing with "race" .All of the mentioned leading capacities in physical anthropology would deny your argumentation. Thank you very much, Mr. Holland. I am looking forward to your reply. d'Artagnan

Tue, 10/24/2006 - 22:15 Erik Miss Universe 2006: beauty pageant par excellence!

Vee: The ethnicity of the women is not an issue; their masculinization is. Most contestants in the Miss Universe contest are from “ethnic backgrounds.” There were plenty of masculinized white women in this contest; see the list of names. White women just happened to be underrepresented among women looking like male transvestites, male-to-female transsexuals or eunuchs.

Alexa: Most adults that have seen enough people from around the world would know that more feminine women will be found among the respective ethnic groups of the flagged women. Therefore, there is clearly a problem with this pageant and others like it. Setting up a beauty pageant focusing on feminine beauty is one of the goals of this site, but it will take time. Give me your blessings.

Tue, 10/24/2006 - 21:52 Alexa Miss Universe 2006: beauty pageant par excellence!

If you have a problem, which it seems you do, with the way the top winners of these pageants look like, then why don't you start a pageant of your own and quit hiding behind a computer cowardly criticizing people you don't know? Do you even know how many people these women had to "beat" in order to get to the universe level? Do you know who the other contestants who didn't win look like? Do you know the area or "pool" of women where these contestants come from look like? Do you know each judge at local, state, national level? Have you judged a pageant? Have you been the executive of a pageant? Well, then, you're just blowing hot air. Bark up another tree that is short enough for you.

Tue, 10/24/2006 - 21:51 Erik Is it possible to objectively compare the attractiveness of women from different populations?

d'Artagnan: It is time to end this discussion for a number of reasons, especially the fact that it is irrelevant to the issue being considered, which is whether it is possible to objectively compare the attractiveness of women from different geographic populations.

I showed a white woman and asked you what is masculine about her face. The only masculine feature that you have identified is her more prominent nose compared to the Bali woman, whereas this greater prominence has nothing to do with masculinization; it is an ethnic difference. The flattest nasal bones are found among sub-Saharan African women. Should this not make them the most pedomorphic by your reasoning? And no, the brunette is not a Mediterranean type; she is a Northern European type. The majority of Northern European adults are not blond.

Masculine and feminine women are found in all ethnic groups. I have featured plenty of feminine Northern European women within this site, 18 or older. A few examples: 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, 2, 3a, 3b, 4a, 4b, 5, 6a, 6b, 7a, 7b. What is masculine about these women compared to East Asian women? Haven’t you gone through this site properly enough? Why do I have to point out what you should have already observed?

You have described the flatter noses of East Asian women as more pedomorphic compared to European women, but if pedomorphy is responsible for their flatter noses, then how come East Asian women have larger faces and larger jaws? What is more child-like/pedomorphic about larger faces and larger jaws? Why do you keep ignoring the latter? You have yet to cite evidence that the mid-facial flatness of East Asians has anything to do with selection for pedomorphy.

You have described femininity as pedomorphosis except for the buttocks and breasts. This is supposed to be a mainstream concept? Femininity should be considered in the context of sexual selection. One expects the central tendency among heterosexual men to most strongly prefer women with an optimal combination of fertility and fecundity, i.e., young adult [sexually mature] women (women in their 20s), not women with child-like/pedomorphic characteristics. It is true that the skeletons of men deviate more from the skeletons of children by virtue of being larger, more masculine and more robust than those of women, but it clear that the process of sexual maturity makes both men and women deviate from the physique of children, i.e., make both men and women less pedomorphic; the deviation is just greater for men. The latter does not mean that femininity means pedomorphosis.

What kind of feminization process would make a woman more child-like on some counts and less child-like on others such as breast size, backside prominence or hip widening? Why have you repeatedly ignored the less feminine appearance of the physiques of East Asian women, on average?

I have clearly pointed out within this site that sex hormones are only partly responsible for trait variation, and placing women on the masculine-feminine scale requires an evaluation of overall appearance. Why do you not take the overall appearance into account?

To back up your argument that the larger labia and buttocks of Khoi-San women is predominantly a result of sexual selection, you need to cite evidence, not the statement of authorities like Darwin and Baker. What evidence is there? Why have you not addressed my concern about the low likelihood of men selecting female partners based on labial size? Why have you not argued against the alternative hypothesis of the protruding buttocks being a response to selection pressures favoring fat storage in a place that does not undermine health or interfere with walking?

When I cited evidence for stronger sexual selection among Northern Europeans, I did not mention skin color; I mentioned hair and eye color diversity; I cited a paper full of evidence; I cited the rapidly accumulated diversity at the MC1R locus among Northern Europeans. Why have you ignored this?

Do you see why it is not possible to continue this discussion? This space is for comments pertaining to the beauty question mentioned at the very beginning of this section of the site. If you are not going to address this, then it is pointless for you to comment here.

Tue, 10/24/2006 - 03:20 vee Miss Universe 2006: beauty pageant par excellence!

It is truly disturbing to note that the vast majority of these women are from ethnic backgrounds.

I believe you hide behind your 'smoke and mirrors' scientific reasoning, but for the most part are clearly biased and utterly prejudiced.

Mon, 10/23/2006 - 06:42 d'Artagnan Is it possible to objectively compare the attractiveness of women from different populations?

My concept of paedomorphosis/femininity is that of the mainstream concept of the wolrd-famous Martin-Saller manual ,Max Hartmann, Freiherr v. Eickstedt and Rainer Knußmann and John Randal Baker. Femininity means paedomorphosis (with the exception of the buttocks and breasts). They have been the highest capacities in anthropology despite leftist attacks, my experiences and work confirm their view and this view has been intuitive as it was even included long before 1910 in a number of non-anthropological works as the Meyers Konversationslexikon.Your choosing a Mediterranoid Europid woman (meaning having strong resemblance with the Mediterranids) which is more masculine than a Nesid , but softer than a Nordid, shows that you took implicitly a woman from a more feminine race than the Nordids.But the Nordids are the most typical Europids (see e.g.Knußmann)and should only be included here. Knußmann and the others state numerously that the Mediterranid race is significantly more feminine than the Nordid, but as Europid still harder than the Nesid. So could you please show me a Nordid as I suggested before with the Nordid-typical hardness as shown in the world-famous and unique Rassengeschichte der Menschheit (Racial history of mankind,Ilse Schwidetzky), where only viragos are depicted concerning Nordids and Osteuropids as the racial average (!). So your woman on the photo is more masculine than the Nesid (e.g. less childlike nose ). The morphognostic overall impression is of greater masculinity. Her seductive and passionate look cannot mask this.Her facial expression is more feminine, but we are dealing with the "hardware" here only. -- As Charles Darwin and Baker wrote, the labia and the buttocks of the Sanid women are certainly only a product of sexual selection and not of natural selection, where as depigmentation in Nordids and polar-near populations has a strong basis in natural selection (melanin).Thank you very much, Mr. Holland. I am looking forward to your reply. d'Artagnan

Sun, 10/22/2006 - 21:54 Erik Nonheterosexual vs. heterosexual male preference for petite women: Alessandra Ambrosio vs. Camille

Hans: Somewhat bigger than average eyes are a correlate of beauty in women but not men.

Sun, 10/22/2006 - 21:24 Erik Is it possible to objectively compare the attractiveness of women from different populations?

Erik: Large eyes - Large eye to head size ratio is a major part of both attractiveness and feminity. Do you agree?

Sat, 10/21/2006 - 18:37 Hans Nonheterosexual vs. heterosexual male preference for petite women: Alessandra Ambrosio vs. Camille

Erik: Large eyes - Large eye to head size ratio is a major part of both attractiveness and feminity. Do you agree?

Fri, 10/20/2006 - 12:37 Kristin Are these girls high-fashion model material?

i think seska could model---except her bone structure is off. actually that is the issue with most these women. the most successfulmodels have diamond shaped faces---promioniet cheekbones, with a slim , defined jaw and small chin. they also tend to have large, wide-spaced eyes. i htin widening their ckeebones and narorwing some of their jawlines and forehead wouldn't necessarily make them look boyish--- aren't high cheekbones(think typical chinese girl) feminine? scarlett johannsen has that bone structure and her face is very feminine.

Fri, 10/20/2006 - 11:42 Kristin The transsexual parade otherwise known as the Victoria’s Secret lingerie show: part 1

zuzana has an amazing body--i am wicked jealous right now. i looked her up-- and you know they lie about her meaasurements on line--all over-claiming she is a 34dd-25-34. yeah sure---more leik 32ddd-23-26. that is my guess. i think they try to masculinze ehr measuremets even. supposedly the average playboy model in the fifties was 37-23-36. so shouldn't this girl be about the same? i think she is short, maybe 5.3/5.2, but i think her body should still be comparable.

Fri, 10/20/2006 - 11:35 Kristin The influence of the thin ideal in fashion magazines on women at risk for anorexia

there is def. a connection. i am on daily--and some of these girls have almos tno appreciation for hte female body--their own body.i told one girl you look sensational in those jean, since it showed off of curvy she is.. and she was upset, others consoled her by saying--don't worry your not curvya tall. sick huh? one thing i have noticed is these girls don't seem to take into account how much shorter they are than the models--- bodies look totaly differnt when u addon 10 inches. and they still futily try to achieve the same look.
my boyfriend pointed out to me--when i started getting slef-concciosu of my chest, i was about to start wearing these minimizers... he was like---these peopel are crazy--stop watching these shows(check out what not to wear). they tell every girl on the show-- she has problem areas---her hips and breasta are too prominent.. adn then try to make them look thinner/taller and lesds curvy. so after ingesting that day by day. i thought, "I need to de-emphasize my curves as well" thannk God i looked at from the consumer leve vs. actually phyically molding my body.

Thu, 10/19/2006 - 06:53 d'Artagnan Is it possible to objectively compare the attractiveness of women from different populations?

Hello Mr. Holland,
please check again women of the Nesid race as they are the most Mongolid concerning paedomorphosis.
Pictures like that sbear clear evidence that these women are much more facially feminine than any Nordid woman. Of course we shall not compare Nordids to women from the Tungid and Eskimid race who have some masculine facial features as the mid-facial masculinity you mentioned. So can you show me one Europid woman (so age not less than ca. 18 years)from your site or elsewhere which you rated as attractive which is more feminine than my Nesid example ? The previous photo shows the racial features and the racial "softness" of the Nesids quite exactly according to statements and pictures by the highest authorities of anthropology (Prof. Dr. Freiherr v. Eickstedt, Prof. Dr. Rainer Knußmann).
The final question concerning is why enlightenment did not take place in Asia. It is due to the more feminine races living there.And if we compare e.g. the Nesid (women) to the Nordid (women) concerning intelligence, it seems that according to Lynn et al. the Nesid countries score significantly lower than Northern Europe making an enlightenment less probable (see also John Randal Baker and Jean Philippe Rushton).-There seems no evidence for stronger sexual selection in Europeans, the only sure sexual selection in humans is found in the Sanid bushmen whose sexual selection created the steatopygy and extreme labia in the Sanid women.In contrast to that the Europid races (from India to Germania) had, as the most extreme K-strategists, less children , but a higher culture than the Negrid and Mongolid races (the autochthonous Egyptian civilization was created by Europid Aethiopids quite differing from typical Sudanid Negrids from Western Africa,see John Randal Baker).As a consequence of the K-strategy, Europeans lost some Negrid masculine features as the high occurence of athleticism.You point at the high variation in Europids. This is right concerning many anthropmetrical traits like the colour of the hair , skin, body length etc. and a bigger gap between
the most feminine and the most masculine Nordid women. But please note if you compare the Nesid women with the Nordid women, you will not find a Nordid woman who is more feminine than in my picture above as the racial average is much more feminine in the Nesids and even the Nordid feminine extremes are even beyond that average (!) .It is technically impossible , because e.g. the small round Nesid "baby" nose and the extreme (!) skull and skeleton gracility (maybe the woman is about 145 cm tall)can not be found in Nordids because if yes they would not be Nordids any more. So I would suggest you show me one more feminine Nordid woman and we go on disccussing this very interesting matter. I am looking forward to your reply.Thank you very much , Mr. Holland. d'Artagnan

Wed, 10/18/2006 - 19:27 Erik Is it possible to objectively compare the attractiveness of women from different populations?

d'Artagnan: I do not know why you say that East Asian women have the most feminine-looking faces. Compared to European women, East Asian women have less prominent noses, but also lager jaws; thicker lips, but also larger faces; flatter mid-faces but also smaller eyes; and wider faces but also more powerfully built cheekbones. East Asian women also have less feminine physiques compared to European women. So what makes East Asian women the synonym of femininity, on average?

You bring feminism into the picture, but philosophical beliefs and behavior are not relevant to this site. East Asian cultures are generally male dominated and also do not come close to the literary output of Western cultures. These are some reasons why radical feminism hasn’t taken root in East Asia like it has in the West. During the Middle Ages, when the Church was very powerful, radical feminist-types weren’t in the limelight, though they undoubtedly existed. Radical feminist-types surely exist in East Asia, though they probably constitute a smaller proportion of the population than in the West.

There is evidence for stronger sexual selection among Northern Europeans compared to other populations. One pays a price for sexual selection, namely sexually antagonistic selection, whereby genes that benefit males harm females and vice versa. Therefore, between Northern European and East Asian women, if one had to look for the most masculine-looking or most feminine-looking women, in both cases one would seek them among Northern Europeans. In other words, you are looking at greater variability among Northern Europeans with respect to masculinity-femininity.

Sun, 10/15/2006 - 16:03 d'Artagnan Is it possible to objectively compare the attractiveness of women from different populations?

I just wanted to point out that Nesid women's facial femininity makes them generally the most feminine on average compared to women from the other 35 human races.
This view has been commonplace since the 19th century for thousands of authors (e.g. v.Eickstedt(the doyen of anthropology), Knußmann, Ashley Montagu, Rushton) until the Boasian subversion where "certain " people played a crucial part in?Are these cute girlish Filipina women with their "delicate" neotenous Nesid beauty not the most feminine ? Are they not t h e synonym for femininity on average ?
Does not the feminist terror in the West requires racial viragos essentially like Abzug, Schwarzer and Sontag with a higher occurence among Europids ? Can Nesid women ever be polluted by this in spite of their exceptional femininity?

Sat, 10/14/2006 - 22:01 Erik Eva Herzigova

Gia: The pictures of Eva Herzigova used to evaluate the relative size of her hands and feet do not show her as very skinny and most of those used to evaluate the relative size of her rib cage show Eva at her most feminine self. Eva’s ribcage is not very big, but it is relatively larger than that of Nikky’s. It is highly unlikely that Eva’s waist measured 22-23 inches in young adulthood.

Sat, 10/14/2006 - 21:49 Erik Is it possible to objectively compare the attractiveness of women from different populations?

d'Artagnan: You were going to site a study where Asian women were rated as more attractive than white women by white men, but the study that you cited reported that Eurasians, not Asians, were rated as more attractive by white men. Anyway, this study by Rhodes et al. (2005) is deeply flawed.

It only addresses the front of the face. Take a look at what these authors consider to be an attractive white woman.

attractive white woman?

Should it be surprising if a Eurasian woman is rated better looking than the “attractive” white woman shown above? If the authors had selected attractive white women (e.g., the women featured in the attractive women section of this site) and compared them to attractive Asian and Eurasian women, there is no way white men would be rating the Asian or Eurasian women as better looking.

The Eurasian composites made by the authors should have averaged both size and shape, but this has not been done. In addition, mixing of populations with skull shapes as strikingly different as Europeans vs. East Asians does not average facial features; see page 6 of this section. Therefore, the averaging assumption of the authors is flawed.

If physical anthropology journals accepted attractiveness research, this study would have been unanimously rejected, but the study was carried out by psychologists and approved for publication in a psychology journal by equally clueless reviewers.

The other link you cite is to an Asian site that purports to portray Asian women as being more likely to have features considered to be attractive. This site offers the beauty mask by Stephen Marquardt, which is not valid, as a valid example of attractive facial proportions, but does not appear to realize that European women better fit this mask. It talks about neoteny/pedomorphy as a correlate of beauty, and mentions the allegedly more pedomorphic faces of Asian women, but it has been shown that neoteny does not apply to human face shape, as discussed at length within this section, and as I have already commented, the mid-facial flatness of East Asians has the appearance of anatomically modern humans in the late Pleistocene and is not pedomorphic.

The Asian site mostly ignores features that several East Asians do not like among themselves: the extent of facial flatness, the large cheekbones and epicanthal folds.

The Asian site also compares Asian women to the masculine Jennifer Aniston, whose nose doesn’t look good even after a nose job, the less masculine but still not feminine Gwyneth Paltrow and Kate Hudson, and the unimpressive Reese Witherspoon.

I could say more, but if you have really bought into the paper by Rhodes et al. (2005) and the Asian site, then I am surprised.

Rushton is a psychologist, and is not the best source for information on anatomy and physiological capacities. Once again, individuals of predominant sub-Saharan African ancestry dominate too few sports for one to justify assigning an athletic character to them.

I do not know what you are trying to convey by mentioning Stratz and Charlize Theron. It is only the face of Charlize Theron in her twenties, not her body, that looked really good.