One of the predictions that evolutionary psychologists make regarding mate choice regards age preference. Due to the fact that women’s reproductive fitness is more influenced by age, men will be pickier about their partners’ ages, tending to go for younger – or younger-looking – women. In a 2002 study, de Sousa Campos et al. showed that the number of responses to women’s personal ads decreased with the advertiser’s age, while responses to men’s increased. D. Jones, in his 1995 study ‘Sexual Selection, Physical Attractiveness, and Facial Neoteny’, returned similar results, showing that men prefer women who possess youthful features, including large eyes, small noses, and full lips. More surprisingly, a collection of photographs of models’ faces were analysed for eye width, nose length, and lip height, and on the basis of these measurements were calculated to have similar facial dimensions to girls aged between 6.8 and 7.4 years. Jones states that “a by-product of the human male’s attraction to markers of youthful fecundity may be an attraction to adult females presenting markers of youth to an exaggerated or ‘supernormal’ degree.
Women with high reproductive value attract men. 19-year-old women are likely to produce the greatest number of children—twice as many as 30-year-old women.Adult women, for example, usually have higher voices like children. Men and women agree that attractive women have the large eyes and lips and small noses and chins of children. Attractive women's faces have the proportions of 11-to-14-year-old children.
Women further neoteny by using cosmetics, shaving their legs, and wearing children's clothing, e.g., Mary Jane shoes. However, attraction of men toward pre-pubescent girls has no reproductive value. Mature women have features that distinguish them from pre-pubescent girls, yet are different from men. These secondary sexual characteristics include prominent breasts, clearly defined waists, and full hips. They reflect sexual maturity and fertility, offsetting the pre-pubescence that neotenous characteristics could otherwise suggest.
Facial markers which indicate hormone levels often affect how attractive a face is perceived to be. Law Smith et al. (2006) found that women with greater oestrogen levels are generally considered to be more feminine, attractive, and healthy, with fuller lips and smaller lower jaws. As high levels of oestrogen correlate with high fertility in women, this might mean that – as with youth – these features are attractive because they are indications of a good mate in biological and evolutionary terms. An interesting note is that women who wear makeup are similarly seen to be more feminine, attractive, and healthy; perhaps this means that makeup mimics high levels of oestrogen. Law Smith et al. write that “The use of make-up may compensate for or mask cues indicating low hormone levels, making perceivers unable to form attributions based on natural hormonal cues”.
Just as a high level of oestrogen is correlated with attractiveness in women, high levels of testosterone, the male sex hormone, are linked to attractiveness in men–but not in the same way. Johnston et al. (2001) suggested that while women do prefer male faces which have markers of masculinity – a broader jaw, a pronounced brow, and jutting cheekbones – and that these characteristics are also associated with good health in males, too much masculinisation leads to increased perception of dominance, unfriendliness, and other negative traits.
Individuals from both sexes prefer neotenous features in the opposite sex. there are preference for facial symmetry and also preference for femininity in females is a by-product of preference for neotenous cues. Erik tells us that ehnicity could therefore play a role in beauty and he tends to ranking groups by degree of attractiveness, and his preference for noth european groups, specially for nordic types, using arguments based around ethnicity to support a surreptitious racism.
According to Ashley Montagu, "The Mongoloid skull has proceeded further than in any other people." "The Mongoloid skull, whether Chinese or Japanese, has been rather more neotenized than the Caucasoid or European." "The female skull, it will be noted, is more pedomorphic in all human populations than the male skull."
In Montagu's list of "[n]eotenous structural traits in which Mongoloids... differ from Caucasoids", Montagu lists "Larger brain, larger braincase, broader skull, broader face, flat roof of the nose, inner eye fold, more protuberant eyes, lack of brow ridges, greater delicacy of bones, shallow mandibular fossa, small mastoid processes, stocky build, persistence of thymus gland into adult life, persistence of juvenile form of zygomatic muscle, persistence of juvenile form of superior lip muscle, later eruption of full dentition (except second and third molars), less hairy, fewer sweat glands, fewer hairs per square centimeter [and] long torso".
An interpretation of a claim by zoologist Clive Bromhall is that "Mongoloid races are explained in terms of being the most extreme pedomorphic humans."
Richard Grossinger claimed, "The intuition that advanced human development was pedomorphic rather than recapitulationary and accelerated was disturbing to many Eurocentric nineteenth century anthropologists." "If juvenilization was the characteristic for advanced status, then it was clear that the Mongoloid races were more deeply fetalized in most respects and thus capable of the greatest development."
Stephen Oppenheimer claimed, "An interesting hypothesis put forward by paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould many years ago was that the package of the Mongoloid anatomical changes could be explained by the phenomenon of neoteny, whereby an infantile or childlike body form is preserved in adult life. Neoteny in hominids is still one of the simplest explanations of how we developed a disproportionately large brain so rapidly over the past few million years. The relatively large brain and the forward rotation of the skull on the spinal column, and body hair loss, both characteristic of humans, are found in foetal chimps. Gould suggested a mild intensification of neoteny in Mongoloids, in whom it has been given the name pedomorphy. Such a mechanism is likely to involve only a few controller genes and could therefore happen over a relatively short evolutionary period. It would also explain how the counterintuitive retrousse [turned up at the end] nose and relative loss of facial hair got into the package." "Decrease unnecessary muscle bulk, less tooth mass, thinner bones and smaller physical size; ...this follows the selective adaptive model of Mongoloid evolution."
Guess Reality is Treason and we all have to suck it up and see the imaginary for what we are told instead of a lardass for what he/she is.
Fat people are no longer obese but are becoming weight impaired, or extra normal. The expectation to have a discussion about someone being attractive not touching on their physical attributes seems to have gone overboard.
I don't think in homotypic preference (individuals prefer partners of similar attractiveness to their own or with the same ethnic heritage, race, etc). Scientists premised homotypic preference for a long time [Walster et al. 1966] until empirical research proved that people prefer individuals of high attractiveness rather than that similar to their own [Walster et al. 1966, Huston 1973]
Seeing at couples in public settings will likely lead to the observation that people tend to pair up with those who are similar in physical attractiveness. The handsome man and the gorgeous woman date and marry each other, while their more homely counterparts pair up with their plainer counterparts. Similarity in physical attractiveness occurs and this is referred to as dating in “one’s league;” a person assumed to be unattainable because of being so much more physically attractive than oneself is described as “out of one’s league.” However, it has also been repeatedly demonstrated that people are largely unaware attractiveness of their own,
Some questions for Erik,which raises the question about the mechanism responsible for the within-pair matching? How the within-pair matching in attractiveness can arise, given such poor awareness of own appeal?
Occasionally, however, one will see a couple who, a quick glance, seems mismatched. What attracted them to each other? why refer to the tendency for people to pair up with others who are equally physically attractive (unattractive)?
Complex matching, which occurs when people are able to attract partners far more physically attractive than themselves by offering compensatory assets—say, status, power, or financial standing. But why some people pair up with others without these offering compensatory assets?
Elaine Hatfield (Walster) and her colleagues proposed the original version of the Matching Hypothesis. Based on Kurt Lewin’s Level of Aspiration theory, they proposed that in making dating and mating choices, people will choose someone of their own level of social desirability and people prefer to match with partners of their own level of attractiveness Theoretically, they will be influenced by both the desirability of the potential match (What they want) and their perception of the probability of obtaining that date (What they think they can get). They referred to such mating choices as realistic choices, because they are influenced by the chances of having one’s affection reciprocated.
Self-esteem, intelligence, and personality did not affect liking for the dates or subsequent attempts to date them. This study, then, did not find any support for the matching hypothesis. Most people – regardless of how attractive they were – reacted more positively to profiles of attractive dates than of unattractive dates. Although learning one could be rejected by a potential date had a dampening effect on reactions to the other, overall the physical attractiveness effect (liking someone more, the more attractive he/she was) predominated over a matching effect or a concern about rejection.
Do you think the correct hypothesis would be the courtship rejections? all people prefer highly attractive individuals but only the attractive ones are accepted by them. In consequence, the attractive people will pair with each other leaving the non attractive ones to mate among themselves.
Further support for the mechanism of courtship rejections comes from blind dates [Asendorpf et al. 2011, Back et al. 2011] and internet dates [Hitsch et al. 2010, Shaw Taylor et al. 2011], where highly attractive participants are universally preferred.
Strategic behaviors were not found in participants of blind dates [Kurzban & Weeden 2005, Todd et al. 2007, Luo & Zhang 2009, Asendorpf et al. 2011, Back et al. 2011] and internet dates [Hitsch et al. 2010, Shaw Taylor et al. 2011, but see Lee et al. 2008]. Courtship thus may not be strategic when the number of prospective partners is large and costs o searching or being rejected are low [Hitsch et al. 2010].
But why observations of Actual Couples there was strong evidence found for the matching hypothesis. Similarity has been found between the partners’ levels of physical attractiveness in real couples?
most people prefer most appealing mate they can get. For those who are physically attractive, what they want and what they can get are identical. For those who are unattractive, however, desire conflicts with reality. In making their choices, they must balance the two.)
Realistic choices: What do people choose under more realistic social situations, where they must approach someone (or wait to be approached), and social rejection is a very real possibility? Under these conditions, Hatfield and her colleagues proposed that—although prefer an ideal partner—they would be likely to choose to approach someone of approximately their own level of attractiveness. This form of the hypothesis distinguishes between preferences and choices.
The Reality: The reality considers everything what a person desires, whether the other wants him/her in return, and market considerations (including whether other desirable alternatives come along for one or both of them). In real life, people settle for mating within “their league” whether they want to or not.
An individual can not to come to a relationship offering others many desirable characteristics if he/she is out of social net persons may not compensate for a lack of physical attractiveness with a charming personality, kindness, status, money, and so forth. I think that unknown person (club and bar dating, online dating) can not gain access to a potential mate if he/she does not have a good appeal. people usually consider only the physical attractiveness as a main feature to accept an unknown person as a mate. The situation may be different if that individual belongs to their social environment, such as a co-worker, classmate, etc.
Today there is compelling evidence that although men and women may yearn for the ideal mate, when the time comes to make a choice they generally settle for mating someone below their aesthetic requirements.
I suppose a person I can pair with someone who is in a rank, and even if your partner is in the lower limit of that range, they may be happy to share his life with that person. When less attractive people accept less attractive dates, do they persuade themselves that the people they choose to date are more physically attractive than others perceive them to be?
(Frederick & Loewenstein, 1999) people seem to adapt to the advantages and disadvantages they experience as a result of their
physical looks (much as they adapt to many other situations), achieving roughly similar levels of happiness throughout a wide range of attractiveness levels
What types of processes contribute to such hedonic adaptation?
How a person can be happy mating up someone below their minimum subjective threshold of desire and attraction? From an evolutionary perspective, such a motivated change in dating preferences can potentially increase an individual’s pool of potential mates, reducing the likelihood that a physically unattractive person will end up without a partner, and supporting assortative mating. But how can people find away to love the ones they do not like?
Anyway In a series of recent studies, researchers investigated the mating hypothesis with actual online daters
They found that people:
-choose the highly desirable profiles most often (out of their league behavior), but
- that one’s level of self-worth influenced the process to a degree (in their league behavior).
- tended to contact other members who were of higher attractiveness then themselves (out of their league behavior).
Further Readings
Berscheid, E., Dion, K., Walster, E., & Walster, G. W. (1971). Physical attractiveness and dating choice: A test of the matching hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 7, 173-189.
Hatfield, E., & Sprecher, S. (1986). Mirror, Mirror: The importance of looks in everyday life. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Kalick, S. M., & Hamilton, T. E., III (1986). The matching hypothesis reexamined. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 673-682.
Walster, E., Aronson, V., Abrahams, D., & Rottman, L. (1966). Importance of physical attractiveness in
I'm actually the Kimberly who was insisting this in the comment section, and, believe it or not, I only just saw your response now, almost 5 years later. I have nothing really to add -- just thought it was funny!
why do you prefer a mature face on thi woman? Most men prefer young, nubile and nulliparous females. It has indeed been suggested that across cultures the female shape found to be most sexually attractive is that of the nubile female!!
More Asian-American Women Prefer White Mates
The results on race and mate preferences were very interesting. First, the numbers
show that close to 30% of the women indicated that they prefer whites compared
to only 12% of the men. Still, almost 40% of the women and 46.5% of the men indicated
that Asians were their first choice. Finally, 30.8 % of the women and 38.3% of
the men indicated “no racial preferences.”
This was not surprising since more women indicated having had experience dating whites compared to Asian American men. In fact, the disparity in interracial dating experience was quite significant--88.9% of the women indicated that they have dated White men compared to just 47.9% of men who say they have dated White women.
Why was there such a disparity in interracial dating experiences between the women and men? A lot of people assume that somehow Asian American men are more wedded to preserving Asian culture or that Asian parents frown more upon sons marrying out than daughters.
As a sociologist, my educated hypothesis is that this disparity between the sexes is due more to the attitude of whites since they are the dominant group. In other words, for better or worse, more White men find Asian women appealing as mates.
Asian-Americans Who Prefer Whites
Most interesting were the reasons given for racial preferences. The group that
indicated a preference for White mates explained their preference for Whites in
the following ways:
“Why do I like White women more? They’re more mature, more fun, vivacious, vibrant. More confident too. I like the granola girl types and you don’t find very many Asian girls like that.”
“White women are more in touch with their bodies, more outspoken, more confident, more physical. Asian women are too submissive…doesn’t make me feel alive. I want someone who’s exciting and that’s usually White women. ”
“It’s not a race thing. More a personality preference. I like the way White women look more but I think it goes deeper than that. It’s character and personality…”
“I had this Asian boyfriend once and boy was he insecure…White guys are more giving and much more confident.”
“Don’t get me wrong. It’s just individual preference. Some people like macho guys or feminine women; some like dark hair, some like light. I just happen to find White men more appealing, especially the blonde types.”
Most revealing of why some Asian Americans prefer white mates was the “White identification” exhibited by many of those who prefer Whites. Many took pains to describe themselves in ways that would clearly differentiate themselves from stereotypes of Asians. One 27 year old Chinese-American man who grew up in an almost completely White environment described himself in the following way:
“I’m really into sports…Not just casually like some Asians. An example is when I ski. I really ski hard. I go to Tahoe a lot. You see Asians there but they’re just kind of winding down the bunny slopes. Oh and I work out…”
Another, a 44 year old Chinese-American mother who prefers white men, describes her 18 year old daughter in the following words:
“She’s just completely different from all the other Orientals in her school. She’s well-rounded, not just a bookworm like the other Orientals. She’s a cheerleader, student body rep and mixes very well with the Caucasian students. She’s very athletic…into rollerblading, mountain climbing…Not many Orientals are active in the way she is…Her friends tell her they don’t even notice that she’s, you know, Oriental (smiles, with obvious pride).
Asian-Americans Who Prefer Fellow Asians
Overall, there were no significant differences between the socioeconomic characteristics
of those who prefer White mates and those who prefer Asians. Since almost all
of those interviewed came of age in the post-Civil Rights era, are middle class
and college educated, the only differences were profession, childhood and present
environments. What I found was that White-identified subjects were somewhat more
likely to have grown up in all-white environments while those who were more Asian
American identified were more likely to have grown up or gone to school in places
with more Asian Americans.
So what did those who prefer Asian American mates say about their preferences? Reasons varied but most can be classified into one of these categories: 1) comfort level 2) cultural preservation 3) acquiring “better quality people.”
Some sample quotes about why Asian Americans were preferred:
“For me, it’s the comfort level from sharing a common background. You tend to think alike and not have to try hard to overcome all kinds of barriers such as prejudice.”
A Chinese American man who was previously involved in a 15 year relationship with a White woman explained his Asian preference in these words:
“It’s hard to put your on it but in my previous relationship, _____(a White woman) was kind of, well she was very insecure but with me, oddly, she was was quite arrogant, as if I should be grateful that she ’s with me…we never talked about it. It’s one of those things that I just began to realize more and more, especially now as I’m in a long term relationship with_______(a Japanese American woman) and it’s very different. It’s more comfortable, it feels right…There’s mo re of a feeling of equality to it.”
Still others talked about how their preference for Asian American spouses resulted from their realization of racism against Asian Americans:
“I never questioned White supremacy and White culture until I went to UCLA. Then when I was in college and hung around Asians and took Asian American courses…I realized the marginal feeling I’d always felt was because of racism…I had to re-culture myself and reeducate myself about my own heritage.”
No Racial Preferences
About a third of the respondents stated that they did not have racial preferences
for spouses. Explanations ranged from being “realistic, ” belief in “color blindness”
to having had bad experiences in the past when their choices were based on race.
Some notable responses included those (mostly men) who simply felt that they faced limited opportunities:
“You have to be realistic. I may desire something but as to whether you’re going to get it, that’s another question altogether. As an Asian man in this country, your choices are limited so you have to be open.”
The explanations that touched me the most were expressed by people who felt that even though they believed in color blindness, it was hard to be color blind in America. This 49 year old Chinese American women recounted a defining experience in her youth:
“This was back in the 60s….I remember how I was really excited about a date with this cute White guy. We were in his room, and he was trying to kiss me, and then I couldn’t believe what he said. He said something like, “I’m so starved for sex because there’s this White girl in my class that I go out with but I can’t bring myself to sleep with her because she’s like a blonde goddess.” I thought, what does he think I am, some cheap Asian whore? It took me a long time to get over that one…before I dated a White guy again. I try not to let a person’s race influence me but sometimes it’s really hard because we live in a society where people are not treated as equals because of the color of their skin.”
What Do Asian Americans Think about Interracial Couples?
Beyond their own preferences, opinions about interracial relationships between
Asians and Whites were enlightening.The most important finding was that most,
regardless of their own preferences, thought that the reason why there were so
many White male/Asian female relationships was because some White men feel that
they can more easily dominate Asian women.
One Chinese-American woman put it this way:
“When I see Asian women with White men I automatically think that he wants somebody he can dominate and somebody with an exotic allure…”
Another, a young Japanese-American man, talked about what his White male friends thought about Asian women:
“When I was at Santa Barbara a few years back, my White guy friends, some, I mean, were interested in Asian women for the control…I mean they were sort of losers, socially anyway…I think they were just too insecure to date White women.”
We don’t know whether or not most white men with Asian American partners are insecure and seek to dominate. But the fact that most of those interviewed thought this to be the case is worth pondering. This was true even for subjects involved in interracial relationships themselves-they did not think it was true about their own relationships but felt that it was true in general.
Another interesting finding on general attitudes toward interracial coupling was how some of the interviewed men feel when they see Asian women-White men couples in public. The following are some sample comments:
“When I see an Asian female with a White man and particularly if she’s pretty, it sort of hits me in the gut. I feel like we’ve lost something valuable.”
“It ticks me off, and I know it’s wrong…she’s free to choose. But I can’t help thinking, what’s wrong with us. How come you’re not with one of us?”
What Should We Think About Interracial Relationships?
When I presented my findings to my students during my final year at Stanford,
what students really wanted to know was how they should use the information in
their personal lives. In the words of one of the students, “Professor Chow, this
is very interesting, but what are your recommendations…what should I do?”
I am not a psychologist nor a relationship expert. As a sociologist, I can only tell people about broad trends and patterns in human behavior. Nonetheless, I want to emphasize one point: I believe that individual level dynamics, or person to person interactional patterns are very important in relationships and much more important than race.
On a personal level, whether we are involved in interracial relationships or same-race relationships, our happiness really hinges upon how we deal with our relationship dynamics-whether we allow destructive or positive patterns to prevail.
“Tradeoffs” in Interracial Relationships
OK, that caution aside, let me say that because socioeconomic and status inequalities
have been organized around skin color for so long, when two people of different
races come together, there is the possibility that at least part of the attraction
was based on “tradeoffs” resulting from these unspoken inequalities.
What do I mean? The most extreme example of such structurally-based relationship inequalities are when white men go to Asia to look for poor women to marry. Some of these men say explicitly that they are tired of “feminist” white women over whom they have no control. Their search for impoverished Asian wives is a search for relationships in which they hold not only economic power but racial power.
One case told to me by a friend who lives on a military base in California involves a 50 something year old White man who went to Korea to find a wife. He brought his “wife” back several years ago and has kept her in his apartment as a virtual prisoner. He doesn’t let her learn English and she can’t go out without him. Meanwhile he brags to his friends that he has the “perfect” relationship since he “gets it” whenever he wants and she takes care of all his physical needs.
This is admittedly a very extreme case but available evidence suggests that “tradeoffs” may have occurred historically in marriages between Asian Americans and other races.
James Loewen, the author of Mississippi Chinese, talks about how the middle class Chinese grocers in the Mississippi who married White women before the 1970s almost always married poorer, working class women. In contrast, Chinese men who married Black women during the same era almost always married educated, middle class women. In Loewen’s own words:
When Chinese grocers married Delta whites, they selected lower-class white women, who could look “up” to their husbands as small businessmen while looking “down” upon them racially; the grocer who married a Negro usually selected a mate at least his equal in occupational class (many were teachers) and usually his superior in education.”
Recent statistics appear to indicate tradeoffs may still be at work today. For example, a recent study (Jacobs and Labov, 1995) based on 1990 Census data shows that White women married to Chinese and Japanese American men have lower educational levels as well as lower labor force participation rates than the Asian-American wives of Asian American men.
Final Remarks:
In closing, I would like to return to my students’ question about how to apply
such knowledge to one’s personal life.
I think Asian Americans should be aware that race may well influence other people’s attitude toward them but should not let race influence their own assessment of others, particularly not when it comes to choosing intimate partners.
Most importantly, we should all try hard to be conscious of our own motives and psychological dynamics. Some Asian Americans may not be aware that they have “bought into” the mindset of subconsciously valuing whites more than other races. When this occurs, you are subconsciously setting yourself up for a life that de-values who you are and you will never be at peace with yourself.
As long as relationships are founded upon individual characteristics and you are certain that race plays no part in how you and your partner value each other (as well as yourselves), then that will definitely contribute to a healthy relationship. That goes for both interracial relationships as well as same race relationships. I mean there are same race relationships founded upon racial considerations too!*
*For example some of my respondents talked about how they married fellow Asians
even though they preferred White spouses when they were young because they did
not feel that they could attract whites. These were certainly ”racially-motivated”
relationships!
I am well aware that nose length and facial width are not the only parameters; I thought I made this clear when I used "for instance." Perhaps I should have added "etc." However my point stands. Even in China, people from the North and South look very different and are easily distinguished. The same can be said about populations in Europe. Do you not find it easy to distinguish people of Italian descent from people of English descent? In fact, the differences are often quite dramatic. This is what I meant by disjoint "volumes" in facial parameter space.
I am merely suggesting that maybe how we distinguish people of different races is not entirely by some sort of "average." Certainly, there is truth to this idea of norms. But another factor that may play a larger role than one might think is the factor of reinforced notions. When one sees somebody with dark skin, the most immediate notion is usually that they are black, or Indian. In fact, I have had people think they were looking at Africans when they were shown pictures of Australian Aboriginals. In actuality, the two races are very different when examining their features. Nevermind that even in Africa, as with China, people from East and West look distinct. Is it really fair to lump people into huge categories and call their features European, Asiatic, etc...
The reason I say all of this is from personal experience. For one, I have been to Asia. People from more southern regions do indeed have some of the features you mentioned. But in the north, such features are rare (caved in mid-facial region, protruding mouth, larger jaw). In fact, I am under the impression that their mouths protrude even less than most Europeans. And their faces are quite long, which may make their jaws larger by raw measurements, but I do not think by larger you meant it in this way. I have had similar experiences when I met Africans in college. I am from USA, and African Americans do for the most part have the distinguishing features that you oft mention on this site. However, most of the international students from Africa looked nothing like African Americans. I don't quite know how to describe it, but many of their features seemed pushed to the extreme of the Caucasoid spectrum. Their mouth regions had absolutely no protrusion, and their noses were very narrow and long.
I am always skeptical about studies that survey races. A "researcher" from the USA would most likely rely on a sample of African Americans to characterize African features. If I am not mistaken, you are from Europe. Is it not true that most Asians and Africans there come predominantly from a specific geographical area? I know that at least in England, most Chinese are of Cantonese descent. I think that unless one has traveled the vast majority of a continent, one is very likely to misrepresent the reality of the situation. If you do not believe me, I urge you to go visit Asia from North to South and East to West. I myself have only been to a few countries there myself, and already I have come to realize that Asians have extremely varied features that do not approximate the norm of which you speak. Or maybe you already have toured the entire continent, in which case I am simply stumped by our difference in experiences.
Speaking as an Asian guy, I agree, Asian women are ugly. Even their "youthful" looks are more infantile than objectively youthful. No race of women ages well, but when Asian women age they look like reptiles. Look at Amy Chua. Their "submissiveness" is also a facade, they are far more controlling behind closed doors, and not in a kinky way, just plain manipulative.
I think women of other races are more feminine in terms of raising children. Seriously, if there was a way I could "Tiger dad" my future sons into becoming Navy SEALs when they have no desire or aptitude for it without giving them psychological issues, I'd like to know about it.
As to what Erik has said previously, white men who choose Asian women have lower mate value, that is evident 99% of the time you encounter that kind of pairing. However, when an Asian guy has game, they almost always go for white women. Like Germany's Vice-Chancellor Phillip Roesler(full-blooded Viet, adopted by German parents) and his German wife, Brian Tee and Mirelly Taylor and Kevin Rudd's son-in-law Albert Tse.
Is it just me, or do the arms get shorter as the legs get longer in these diagrams? This makes no sense to me unless it's an optical illusion. The arm to height ratio should remain constant or increase with the leg to height ratio. I can definately see a man with disproportionately short arms being less attractive and less masculine due to the apparent lack of upper body strength! A woman with disproportionately long arms can also look more masculine and less attractive! Besides, how many western men are attracted to asian women who have shorter legs and longer torsos so I want to say the leg thing is a non factor!
"Do men really have an evolutionary hard-wired preference for well-endowed women, or is this just a baseless myth promulgated by the folks who produce beer commercials and Snap-On® calendars?"
(...)
"In the first experiment, 13 guys approached the girl when she was wearing an A cup and 19 approached when she sported a B cup. When she donned the C cup, the number of approaches jumped markedly; 44 blokes hoping for a little holiday action went over to talk to her.
In the second experiment, 5, 9 and 16 guys approached her in the A, B, and C cup conditions, respectively.
And yes, the results were statistically significant."
(...)
"When the results were tallied, 14.92% and 17.79% of passing motorists stopped to offer a lift when the girl was wearing the A and B cup bras, respectively. When she wore the C cup bra, 24% of passing motorists pulled over to offer a ride. The difference between the A and C bras was statistically significant. The extra ride offers all came from men; altering bra cup size made no difference in the number of female motorists who pulled over."
"These are hardly the first studies to indicate a male preference for larger breasts[.]"
"The researchers postulate that large breasts attract males at a subconscious level because they are considered a highly feminine trait and perceived as a sign of fertility."
Gueguen N. Women’s bust size and men’s courtship solicitation. Body Image. 2007 Dec; 4 (4): 386-390.
Guéguen N. Bust size and hitchhiking: a field study. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 2007 Dec; 105 (3 Pt 2): 1294-1298.
Shut up. Just shut up. Educate yourself and quit your childish whinning. You indeed need some dick, and 9 inches seems fitting for the amount of childish nonsense you've been spitting out. (YES, women obviously do find men with larger and thicker penises more attractive, Einstein. But better let an emotionally stable woman write an article about manhood. Let someone who likes men and has got meaningful experience with men do it.)
Why don't you just focus on your qualities and quit trying to force people to be artificial? Trying to force men to fake that which men are hardwired to prefer is ridiculous. RESPECT REALITY. YES, YOUR SMALLER TITS ARE A DISADVANTAGE. Your whining won't change shit. But you already know this except you're retarded. It seems to me that you are trying to fight the blatantly obvious because you don't know that having smaller than average breasts doesn't mean men can't feel attracted to you AS A WHOLE. AND that men can have fun with smaller tits. Why do you *NEED* to have the big breasts advantage to feel desired? Are you *that* barren of qualities that tits are a matter of life or death to you? Are you that unhappy and insecure about yourself? You CAN make a man happy with your smaller tits - believe me, it's probably just your insecurity and bittterness that make men run away from you.
To cover the possibility you come from another planet and don't know shit about us earthlings, let me fill you in on the very basics:
"Men [from planet Earth], on average, tend to be attracted to women who are shorter than they are, have a youthful appearance, and exhibit features such as a symmetrical face, full breasts, full lips, and a low waist-hip ratio."
"Women with larger breasts tend to have higher levels of the hormones oestradial and progesterone, which both promote fertility."
Plenty of researches proving the point (not to mention blatantly obvious common knowledge).
BTW, if you find out that you are hardwired to feel more attracted to a guy after you find out that he works mopping floors at McDonalds you can complain that men are shallow.
All in all *I'd say* that, though large breasted women will have many advantages, there is no terribly significant correlation of brest size to happiness on women. AND women with smaller tits will probably be approached by males who are more interested in their personality instead of testosterone-driven males interested only on their bodies (both opinions are not based on research but on personal observation).
FOCUS ON YOUR STRONG POINTS and you won't need to humiliate yourself by going on the net on a laughable and blatant crusade for self-acceptance. Your small boobs are fine. Just change your focus.
Small breasts are awesome. They don't sag like bigs ones. Big breasts may look nice when a girl is a teen and twenties, but when she gets older/pregnant they sag and just..ew. Small breasts = perky for life. Just saying.
Amazing. I can't believe this garbage on here still exists on the Internet. This website is but just a personal, subjective opinion of a misogynist who only sees women as sex objects and watches way too much porn, and cheap at that. He talks like every woman should look perfect, but he never mentions himself (bet he is far from being perfect himself). He is extremely inflexible and judgemental of women. Small breasts aren't unfeminine or unattractive. This is the biggest bullshit I ever had to hear. And what amazes me even MORE is that all these ''big tits'' fan boys who are prolly no older than 17 and also watch too much porn, jump up to diss women who obviously are hurt by the remarks made in this garbage article. Seriously, where is the common-sense??? Why would you dis someone for being insulted? Common sense? Logic anyone? This is ridiculous. The author clearly has never touched a real woman, because let me tell you something: Women, naturally, aren't born with big boobs. The less fat one has, the smaller the breasts. Slim women with big natural breasts are very very rare. So, if you want one with big tits, go chase an overweight one. But, I guess you don't like flabby, big women either, don't you? Because you're mister Perfection. Seriously? I would not be surprised if you're still virgin. Because you seem to have no grasp on what a natural, real woman is supposed to look like. You got your opinions off of porn, that's all. And all these boy minions on here dissing women for having small breasts are laughable. Maybe they will grow up one day when they actually get into the world and meet real, flesh and bones, women. You have no idea how to appreciate a woman, because to you, a woman s nothing more than two buttcheeks and plastic big tits. I feel sorry for all of you jerks on here. I guess this is the website where all the superficial losers meet. Damn.lol And I can't believe you even judge how a woman's calves are build. ROFL Are you serious?! Seriously, get out in the world and interract with women! Real ones! Not sex shop dolls! Maybe then you will start to change your perception, if you are able to get your head out of the sand. By the way, if we are gonna get into this shit, let me tell you something. If your dick isn't at least 9 inches, sorry honey, you aren't man enough. Guys should have at least 9 inches to be manly, but it is well known that the majority of them have it down to 5. Eww! So, let's make an article on how manly a man should be, no? Shall we? I will be the first one to comment, promise!
I guess when I see Kate Upton, I see a young woman who doesn't really believe she is truly beautiful. I see a young woman who is giving herself up to be lusted over by men and she will be ultimately used up, chewed up and spit out when her "worth" is consumed. I see a little girl who is looking for attention.
Her face is absolutely masculine, amd that tramp is rotten. Wide torso, chicken legs and do nothing for me.
she has an ackward body frame which is not so atractive. Without boobs she would be irrelevant. Kate Upton has large D-cup breasts and maybe her breasts may seem natural to her size, but she actually has got breast implants. While Kate's breasts fit her voluptuous figure, the way they sit on her chest seems to indicate that her modeling career took off after breast augmentation.
(Miami plastic surgeon Dr. Michael Salzhauer states "Kate Upton does appear to have breast implants as revealed by the very distinct and sharp transition from her full cleavage to her chest. Her breast augmentation fits her frame well and balances out her proportions.")
Kate Upton is changing the runway with her buxom body. But do Kate's curves are the result of breast implants!! 19-year old Kate Upton certainly has not natural curves in the right places and I figure out she traips down the runway.
Her too-blond hair, her generic eyes, and masculine, facial features. and her too long legs floppy" boobs, huge thighs and overall "squishy brick" figure. She’s nothing, she’s got a decent but not feminine face at most thats it. Her arms and legs are slim but her torso is so wide, she doesn’t have that hour glass shape. It’s all so wide and unproportionate and her rib cage is abnormally wide.
Dan: You referred to the research of Michael Lewis as a counter argument. His work is poor. Ellis and He have made an attempt to account for a large body of evidence, and I have added to their argument. Conclusions drawn from a wide body of literature are more likely to be reliable. Lewis would have a difficult time fitting his research within the wider body of observations, whereas it is an easy matter to fit his data within the picture that emerges from most observations and publications on the topic.
This is the study you referred to.
Background
In the US and UK, more Black men are married to White women than vice versa and there are more White men married to Asian women than vice versa. Models of interracial marriage, based on the exchange of racial status for other capital, cannot explain these asymmetries. A new explanation is offered based on the relative perceived facial attractiveness of the different race-by-gender groups.
Method and Findings
This explanation was tested using a survey of perceived facial attractiveness. This found that Black males are perceived as more attractive than White or East Asian males whereas among females, it is the East Asians that are perceived as most attractive on average.
Conclusions
Incorporating these attractiveness patterns into the model of marriage decisions produces asymmetries in interracial marriage similar to those in the observed data in terms of direction and relative size. This model does not require differences in status between races nor different strategies based on gender. Predictions are also generated regarding the relative attractiveness of those engaging in interracial marriage.
The results come from predominantly European college students rating on a 1-10 attractiveness scale facebook pictures of young adult Europeans, sub-Saharan Africans and East Asians. These ratings are not properly interpretable in terms of a comparison of the attractiveness of ethnic groups as people in the 80th percentile of attractiveness in their ethnic group may be found less attractive than people in the 60th percentile of attractiveness in a different ethnic group, and raters may be ranking faces based on their impression of the average in the ethnic group to which the person belongs.
The ratings of facebook pictures selected by an assistant of his is what Lewis relies on. Lewis never addresses the ethnic backgrounds of fashion models, mannequins showing idealized features, whether black men and East Asian women are disproportionately perceived as the hottest looking on college campuses in the U.S. and U.K., whether men prefer to see East Asian women among pinup models and pinup artwork, what the literature shows about ratings of more ancestral-looking facial features and which groups have more ancestral facial features, trends in cosmetic surgery as they pertain to altering ethnic features and sundry. You will find much on these within this site, but Lewis has made no attempt to fit his data and interpretation within the wider body of evidence that spans multiple specialties.
The marriage or sexual partner disparities are easily explained within the wider body of observations. Men place a high premium on women’s attractiveness, and will end up with the most attractive women they can obtain. A corollary is that white men married to non-white women will on average have lower mate value.
The lower mate value of white women sexually involved with non-white men, especially blacks, is also evident in lower intelligence and worse mental health (see this and this). The partner choices of those with lower mate value have more to do with compromise and less with preference compared to those having higher mate value.
Points a-d about the sexuality of heterosexuals should be noted.
a) Both men and women desire attractive sexual partners, the more attractive the better.
b) Compromising on attractiveness criteria is the norm, and men are less restrictive about who they have sex with.
c) The extent to which men can compromise is limited by arousal because erection is not under voluntary control. In contrast, arousal is not a limiting factor in women. A woman who is not aroused by the looks of a man is still capable of voluntary intercourse with him, from which she will derive pleasure and likely orgasm. In contrast, men being more visual, if the physical appearance of a woman does not arouse them, then a non-trivial number of them will not be able to have natural intercourse with the woman even in the dark when they are trying to imagine she is another woman, forget about the light.
d) The nature of many pleasurable sensations, related to mechanical stimulation, will not change with the ethnicity of the partner.
If whites sexually involved with non-whites tend to have lower mate value, then the most likely explanation of why more white men than white women are sexually involved with non-whites is #b, which is men being less restrictive about who they have sex with. It should be possible to show that this applies to even sex with blacks when one considers whites capable of having sex with blacks.
Sex between whites and blacks is highly unusual, and in some regions, such as the U.S. and the U.K., more white women than white men are sexually involved with blacks. Noting #c, since women are not limited by arousal, almost all women are capable of sexual intercourse with black men but not all men can do it with black women.
In an interview by Playboy magazine, John Mayer had the following to say:
PLAYBOY: Do black women throw themselves at you?
MAYER: I don’t think I open myself to it. My dick is sort of like a white supremacist. I’ve got a Benetton heart and a fuckin’ David Duke cock. I’m going to start dating separately from my dick.
Mayer’s description is a characteristic of many men. Criminal justice statistics in the U.S. show the rarity of white men raping black women. The stark disparity in HIV infection rates among white and black populations in South Africa suggest a high level of sexual isolation between the populations; even with so many black women around, white men seeking some variety on the side or prostitutes for what their wives or girlfriends will not do are largely avoiding black women. This avoidance cannot be assigned to knowledge and fear of HIV infection as white men who have sex with men in the U.S. have this knowledge but still have HIV prevalence rates in the neighborhood of sub-Saharan Africans. If one considers #d, which is that the mechanical aspects of pleasurable sensations will not differ much as a function of the ethnicity of the partner, and #b, which is men being less restrictive about who they have sex with, it should be clear that there is a substantial proportion of white men incapable of natural sexual intercourse with the majority of black women they come across, because of lack of arousal.
Limiting oneself to whites capable of having sex with blacks, I am positive that more white men than white women are having sex with blacks. It is meaningless to compare all white men to all white women.
The simplest and most likely explanation of the interethnic marriage disparities addressed by Lewis is that whites marrying non-whites disproportionately have lower mate value, which makes their partner choices not just matters of preference but one of compromise, where men, as usual, are less restrictive about who they partner with but do not partner with blacks more often than the women because, unlike women, they need a working Johnson, which by design refuses to obey will power and which visual stimuli coming from a large proportion of black women fail to awaken from its slumber.
This is another part of the reply to the person who left comment #2.
You talk about a face space where the nose is one dimension and facial width another. This assumes that these dimensions are independent, i.e., there are no common underlying factors affecting the two. But is this the case?
Something has to ensure that the nose develops in between the eyes and not in the middle of the forehead. There are many other constraints like this, placing limits on configurations and dimensions. Take these constraints, common underlying factors, and add in natural selection, random genetic drift, sexual selection, and you have the basis for correlation structures or norms that distinguish populations.
Well; I had doubts this would be a good blog, but now I can see it is.
I'm interested ONLY in people who aren't shy when going for the truth. I also thought the "well past her beauty prime" to be an exageration but he's not all fingers, which I appreciate. AND he took it back after a second analisis, which I doubly appreciate. So far dude resonated with me on his views.
Truth's awesome. People hurt THEMSELVES with it just when they avoid accepting it. Why all this fuss?
Do you think we guys go "oooh, look at her tits... they are so small... hmmm!" Sorry, doesn't happen. Ever. Just take the idea out of your mind. And finding laughable exceptions is just a way of lying to oneself. We might go "ooooh, look at that girl... she may have small tits, but look at (whatever) and how she moves as if she's fun and loves herself. Damn, she's so feminine!". Sexual beauty IS holistic.
BTW, I wll not fight against anyone's stupidity: wanna keep the wool over your face, your choice. I rather deal with reality.
(Healthy) men are attracted to femininity, (healthy) women are attracted to masculinity. That's all there is to it. Tits are VERY feminine, though they're not femininity itself. There are other ways small breasted women can be very attractive (=feminine).
BTW, I'm one of those guys who think that small breasted women should keep themselves natural (i.e. far away from implants). OVERALL, any (or the majority of) small breasted women can make themselves look extremely attractive and juicy, especially if they've got a hot ass, mouth, eyes, whatever - ANYTHING FEMININE. We men crave femininity and will just focus and compliment women on what they've got, not on what they don't.
The reality ain't so bad. Actually, it's awesome. Accept it.
"You, sir, are a pig." No, he's not. Can't find a single instance of him being a pig here.
"Breast size is determined by nature. To quoted yourself: 'and one has to learn to make the most of what one has and improve oneself rather than sulk about the hand dealt by nature.'"
Who cares? So is femininity in women and masculinity in men to a very big portion. He didn't say that it wasn't.
"Are you not sulking about that very hand?"
Seems you are, "Micke". And it's very clear. If you didn't intend it to be so, too late. Everyone can see you've got baggage about small sized tits. Too bad. Inside yourself you know that what he said is true.
Comment #2 was left by someone who did not leave a name. This is a reply to her.
You have disputed the existence of ethnic face shape norms by stating that:
If you view the space of facial features -- for instance, nose length would be one dimension, facial width another -- ethnic groups will not fall into well-defined regions. Rather, each group will fall into a number of volumes that may not even be well-connected.
Nose length alone or face width alone or both these measurements taken together will do a poor job of distinguishing ethnic groups, but when you look at people’s faces, you see much more that just two variables. How many more? A lot. You could list two measurements in a text file that only occupies a few bytes, whereas a picture that reliably shows details of face shape will take many kilobytes.
There is a correlation structure underlying different face measurements. It is these correlation structures, that may be described as norms, that distinguish ethnic groups. Take enough measurements, sample populations from farther away and the overlap between population norms approaches zero.
In Frida Aasen, the person is easily identifiable as European but at the same time it is unmistakable in profile view that the caved in mid-facial region, the protruding mouth and the larger jaw are shifts toward Asiatic shapes as these three shifts tend to go together with shifts toward ancestral faces, including Asiatic faces.
You said that even in medicine, researchers show more discretion when presenting their findings. I have presented a nuanced argument that integrates a wide body of literature. And I am sure you will find some publications in medical journals very interesting: the high-profile academics listed as the investigators neither did the study nor wrote the paper; the actual authors are professional writers that remain incognito, and the study was carried out by an unrelated private group. You don’t think they would be tempted to massage the findings a bit?
nicegirl: I have not shown enough pictures of Frida Aasen and Britt Ekland for a proper comparison, but you can find many more pictures of them. You just have to keep in mind that most of the pictures of Ekland show her as a mature adult, whereas most pictures of Aasen show her as a girl in her mid-teens. Plenty of pictures of Aasen : http://forums.thefashionspot.com/f52/frida-aasen-135217.html
Compared to Ekland, in side view, the lower third of the face and the philtrum are longer in Aasen, and in front view, Aasen has a squarer chin, less expansion of the cheekbones in the cheek area, and the border of the orbits is less sharp and more rounded. Individually, these changes occur with greater masculinization or lesser feminization, but you have to look for a pattern to see whether the differences involve masculinity-femininity or other factors. The pattern is there, and Aasen is not as feminine as Ekland.
Do not equate large chins and square jaws with the extent of femininity. Size [large vs. small] is separate from shape. Focus on shape. A square jaw only applies to a front-view description, and masculinization causes squaring of the chin, not squaring of the jaw. Rose Byrne and Minka Kelly do not have square jaws. If you look at how increasing feminization alters shape (on the left), jaws appear wider and the chin narrower in front view. Squaring of the jaws would require a wider jaw, not the direction masculinization would send it in. A square jaw may look feminine or masculine, depending on the rest of the face, and this also goes for a square chin. You can see a square chin in Elena Teplova, who looks feminine. Irena Gesvindrová (another picture) has a square chin and a square jaw and clearly looks feminine. You have to see how it comes together.
An illustration of the size and shape issue is this comparison of the chin of Heidi Montag through her various surgeries. Before surgery it was longer but more rounded. Now, masculinization would cause a longer chin but also a wider or squared chin. The most convenient route for the surgeon was to shave off part of the chin to reduce height, but this came at the cost of the chin appearing squarer, resulting in something that did not enhance femininity in spite of a reduction in chin length. The improvement of the chin needed more surgery.
I find Jaclyn smith attractive, which is why I indicated an interest in posting her pictures.
We are talking about today beauty standards.
Beauty was always genetically recognized as healthy representative of certain race,and the key to beauty was to stay within genetically predefined racial attributes.
It was always defined by cultural standards that tend to change with time.
Today the world is a global place,cultural differences disappear in many aspects and there is a large pressure for standardization of beauty.
Submitted by Emily on Sun, 11/01/2009 - 17:02 | link
How do you make a Romanian/Indian/Semitic nose fit into that mask? That's what I would like to know. I can't make it fit no matter how much I try.
Could they make a special model with an enlarged nose area just for them so their noses can be accomodated somehow? Or is the Semitic/Indian/gypsy nose type incompatible with the ideal feminine beauty?
I don't find this offensive just because it is related to some ethnic group-it is a fact that specific characteristics exists between groups,those specific differences developed for important reasones,butt i don't think that that makes a specific group universally less or more attractive.
If i could make a photo robot of these specific attributes there would be many tips of noses,eyes or mouths i like,butt the whole
impression would always depend on what tip of person caries them.
I would not devide a beauty of perfection from the beauty of imperfection, beauty is not only the perception of perfect proportions.
I assume we evoluated enough from a point where beauty ment just a healty genetic background.
One of the predictions that evolutionary psychologists make regarding mate choice regards age preference. Due to the fact that women’s reproductive fitness is more influenced by age, men will be pickier about their partners’ ages, tending to go for younger – or younger-looking – women. In a 2002 study, de Sousa Campos et al. showed that the number of responses to women’s personal ads decreased with the advertiser’s age, while responses to men’s increased. D. Jones, in his 1995 study ‘Sexual Selection, Physical Attractiveness, and Facial Neoteny’, returned similar results, showing that men prefer women who possess youthful features, including large eyes, small noses, and full lips. More surprisingly, a collection of photographs of models’ faces were analysed for eye width, nose length, and lip height, and on the basis of these measurements were calculated to have similar facial dimensions to girls aged between 6.8 and 7.4 years. Jones states that “a by-product of the human male’s attraction to markers of youthful fecundity may be an attraction to adult females presenting markers of youth to an exaggerated or ‘supernormal’ degree.
Women with high reproductive value attract men. 19-year-old women are likely to produce the greatest number of children—twice as many as 30-year-old women.Adult women, for example, usually have higher voices like children. Men and women agree that attractive women have the large eyes and lips and small noses and chins of children. Attractive women's faces have the proportions of 11-to-14-year-old children.
Women further neoteny by using cosmetics, shaving their legs, and wearing children's clothing, e.g., Mary Jane shoes. However, attraction of men toward pre-pubescent girls has no reproductive value. Mature women have features that distinguish them from pre-pubescent girls, yet are different from men. These secondary sexual characteristics include prominent breasts, clearly defined waists, and full hips. They reflect sexual maturity and fertility, offsetting the pre-pubescence that neotenous characteristics could otherwise suggest.
Facial markers which indicate hormone levels often affect how attractive a face is perceived to be. Law Smith et al. (2006) found that women with greater oestrogen levels are generally considered to be more feminine, attractive, and healthy, with fuller lips and smaller lower jaws. As high levels of oestrogen correlate with high fertility in women, this might mean that – as with youth – these features are attractive because they are indications of a good mate in biological and evolutionary terms. An interesting note is that women who wear makeup are similarly seen to be more feminine, attractive, and healthy; perhaps this means that makeup mimics high levels of oestrogen. Law Smith et al. write that “The use of make-up may compensate for or mask cues indicating low hormone levels, making perceivers unable to form attributions based on natural hormonal cues”.
Just as a high level of oestrogen is correlated with attractiveness in women, high levels of testosterone, the male sex hormone, are linked to attractiveness in men–but not in the same way. Johnston et al. (2001) suggested that while women do prefer male faces which have markers of masculinity – a broader jaw, a pronounced brow, and jutting cheekbones – and that these characteristics are also associated with good health in males, too much masculinisation leads to increased perception of dominance, unfriendliness, and other negative traits.
Individuals from both sexes prefer neotenous features in the opposite sex. there are preference for facial symmetry and also preference for femininity in females is a by-product of preference for neotenous cues. Erik tells us that ehnicity could therefore play a role in beauty and he tends to ranking groups by degree of attractiveness, and his preference for noth european groups, specially for nordic types, using arguments based around ethnicity to support a surreptitious racism.
According to Ashley Montagu, "The Mongoloid skull has proceeded further than in any other people." "The Mongoloid skull, whether Chinese or Japanese, has been rather more neotenized than the Caucasoid or European." "The female skull, it will be noted, is more pedomorphic in all human populations than the male skull."
In Montagu's list of "[n]eotenous structural traits in which Mongoloids... differ from Caucasoids", Montagu lists "Larger brain, larger braincase, broader skull, broader face, flat roof of the nose, inner eye fold, more protuberant eyes, lack of brow ridges, greater delicacy of bones, shallow mandibular fossa, small mastoid processes, stocky build, persistence of thymus gland into adult life, persistence of juvenile form of zygomatic muscle, persistence of juvenile form of superior lip muscle, later eruption of full dentition (except second and third molars), less hairy, fewer sweat glands, fewer hairs per square centimeter [and] long torso".
An interpretation of a claim by zoologist Clive Bromhall is that "Mongoloid races are explained in terms of being the most extreme pedomorphic humans."
Richard Grossinger claimed, "The intuition that advanced human development was pedomorphic rather than recapitulationary and accelerated was disturbing to many Eurocentric nineteenth century anthropologists." "If juvenilization was the characteristic for advanced status, then it was clear that the Mongoloid races were more deeply fetalized in most respects and thus capable of the greatest development."
Stephen Oppenheimer claimed, "An interesting hypothesis put forward by paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould many years ago was that the package of the Mongoloid anatomical changes could be explained by the phenomenon of neoteny, whereby an infantile or childlike body form is preserved in adult life. Neoteny in hominids is still one of the simplest explanations of how we developed a disproportionately large brain so rapidly over the past few million years. The relatively large brain and the forward rotation of the skull on the spinal column, and body hair loss, both characteristic of humans, are found in foetal chimps. Gould suggested a mild intensification of neoteny in Mongoloids, in whom it has been given the name pedomorphy. Such a mechanism is likely to involve only a few controller genes and could therefore happen over a relatively short evolutionary period. It would also explain how the counterintuitive retrousse [turned up at the end] nose and relative loss of facial hair got into the package." "Decrease unnecessary muscle bulk, less tooth mass, thinner bones and smaller physical size; ...this follows the selective adaptive model of Mongoloid evolution."
Guess Reality is Treason and we all have to suck it up and see the imaginary for what we are told instead of a lardass for what he/she is.
Fat people are no longer obese but are becoming weight impaired, or extra normal. The expectation to have a discussion about someone being attractive not touching on their physical attributes seems to have gone overboard.
I don't think in homotypic preference (individuals prefer partners of similar attractiveness to their own or with the same ethnic heritage, race, etc). Scientists premised homotypic preference for a long time [Walster et al. 1966] until empirical research proved that people prefer individuals of high attractiveness rather than that similar to their own [Walster et al. 1966, Huston 1973]
Seeing at couples in public settings will likely lead to the observation that people tend to pair up with those who are similar in physical attractiveness. The handsome man and the gorgeous woman date and marry each other, while their more homely counterparts pair up with their plainer counterparts. Similarity in physical attractiveness occurs and this is referred to as dating in “one’s league;” a person assumed to be unattainable because of being so much more physically attractive than oneself is described as “out of one’s league.” However, it has also been repeatedly demonstrated that people are largely unaware attractiveness of their own,
Some questions for Erik,which raises the question about the mechanism responsible for the within-pair matching? How the within-pair matching in attractiveness can arise, given such poor awareness of own appeal?
Occasionally, however, one will see a couple who, a quick glance, seems mismatched. What attracted them to each other? why refer to the tendency for people to pair up with others who are equally physically attractive (unattractive)?
Complex matching, which occurs when people are able to attract partners far more physically attractive than themselves by offering compensatory assets—say, status, power, or financial standing. But why some people pair up with others without these offering compensatory assets?
Elaine Hatfield (Walster) and her colleagues proposed the original version of the Matching Hypothesis. Based on Kurt Lewin’s Level of Aspiration theory, they proposed that in making dating and mating choices, people will choose someone of their own level of social desirability and people prefer to match with partners of their own level of attractiveness Theoretically, they will be influenced by both the desirability of the potential match (What they want) and their perception of the probability of obtaining that date (What they think they can get). They referred to such mating choices as realistic choices, because they are influenced by the chances of having one’s affection reciprocated.
Self-esteem, intelligence, and personality did not affect liking for the dates or subsequent attempts to date them. This study, then, did not find any support for the matching hypothesis. Most people – regardless of how attractive they were – reacted more positively to profiles of attractive dates than of unattractive dates. Although learning one could be rejected by a potential date had a dampening effect on reactions to the other, overall the physical attractiveness effect (liking someone more, the more attractive he/she was) predominated over a matching effect or a concern about rejection.
Do you think the correct hypothesis would be the courtship rejections? all people prefer highly attractive individuals but only the attractive ones are accepted by them. In consequence, the attractive people will pair with each other leaving the non attractive ones to mate among themselves.
Further support for the mechanism of courtship rejections comes from blind dates [Asendorpf et al. 2011, Back et al. 2011] and internet dates [Hitsch et al. 2010, Shaw Taylor et al. 2011], where highly attractive participants are universally preferred.
Strategic behaviors were not found in participants of blind dates [Kurzban & Weeden 2005, Todd et al. 2007, Luo & Zhang 2009, Asendorpf et al. 2011, Back et al. 2011] and internet dates [Hitsch et al. 2010, Shaw Taylor et al. 2011, but see Lee et al. 2008]. Courtship thus may not be strategic when the number of prospective partners is large and costs o searching or being rejected are low [Hitsch et al. 2010].
But why observations of Actual Couples there was strong evidence found for the matching hypothesis. Similarity has been found between the partners’ levels of physical attractiveness in real couples?
most people prefer most appealing mate they can get. For those who are physically attractive, what they want and what they can get are identical. For those who are unattractive, however, desire conflicts with reality. In making their choices, they must balance the two.)
Realistic choices: What do people choose under more realistic social situations, where they must approach someone (or wait to be approached), and social rejection is a very real possibility? Under these conditions, Hatfield and her colleagues proposed that—although prefer an ideal partner—they would be likely to choose to approach someone of approximately their own level of attractiveness. This form of the hypothesis distinguishes between preferences and choices.
The Reality: The reality considers everything what a person desires, whether the other wants him/her in return, and market considerations (including whether other desirable alternatives come along for one or both of them). In real life, people settle for mating within “their league” whether they want to or not.
An individual can not to come to a relationship offering others many desirable characteristics if he/she is out of social net persons may not compensate for a lack of physical attractiveness with a charming personality, kindness, status, money, and so forth. I think that unknown person (club and bar dating, online dating) can not gain access to a potential mate if he/she does not have a good appeal. people usually consider only the physical attractiveness as a main feature to accept an unknown person as a mate. The situation may be different if that individual belongs to their social environment, such as a co-worker, classmate, etc.
Today there is compelling evidence that although men and women may yearn for the ideal mate, when the time comes to make a choice they generally settle for mating someone below their aesthetic requirements.
I suppose a person I can pair with someone who is in a rank, and even if your partner is in the lower limit of that range, they may be happy to share his life with that person. When less attractive people accept less attractive dates, do they persuade themselves that the people they choose to date are more physically attractive than others perceive them to be?
(Frederick & Loewenstein, 1999) people seem to adapt to the advantages and disadvantages they experience as a result of their
physical looks (much as they adapt to many other situations), achieving roughly similar levels of happiness throughout a wide range of attractiveness levels
What types of processes contribute to such hedonic adaptation?
How a person can be happy mating up someone below their minimum subjective threshold of desire and attraction? From an evolutionary perspective, such a motivated change in dating preferences can potentially increase an individual’s pool of potential mates, reducing the likelihood that a physically unattractive person will end up without a partner, and supporting assortative mating. But how can people find away to love the ones they do not like?
Anyway In a series of recent studies, researchers investigated the mating hypothesis with actual online daters
They found that people:
-choose the highly desirable profiles most often (out of their league behavior), but
- that one’s level of self-worth influenced the process to a degree (in their league behavior).
- tended to contact other members who were of higher attractiveness then themselves (out of their league behavior).
Further Readings
Berscheid, E., Dion, K., Walster, E., & Walster, G. W. (1971). Physical attractiveness and dating choice: A test of the matching hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 7, 173-189.
Hatfield, E., & Sprecher, S. (1986). Mirror, Mirror: The importance of looks in everyday life. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Kalick, S. M., & Hamilton, T. E., III (1986). The matching hypothesis reexamined. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 673-682.
Walster, E., Aronson, V., Abrahams, D., & Rottman, L. (1966). Importance of physical attractiveness in
I'm actually the Kimberly who was insisting this in the comment section, and, believe it or not, I only just saw your response now, almost 5 years later. I have nothing really to add -- just thought it was funny!
Also, Gillian has a very defined frontal bone jutting in the forehead much like Brooke Shields.
why do you prefer a mature face on thi woman? Most men prefer young, nubile and nulliparous females. It has indeed been suggested that across cultures the female shape found to be most sexually attractive is that of the nubile female!!
More Asian-American Women Prefer White Mates
The results on race and mate preferences were very interesting. First, the numbers
show that close to 30% of the women indicated that they prefer whites compared
to only 12% of the men. Still, almost 40% of the women and 46.5% of the men indicated
that Asians were their first choice. Finally, 30.8 % of the women and 38.3% of
the men indicated “no racial preferences.”
This was not surprising since more women indicated having had experience dating whites compared to Asian American men. In fact, the disparity in interracial dating experience was quite significant--88.9% of the women indicated that they have dated White men compared to just 47.9% of men who say they have dated White women.
Why was there such a disparity in interracial dating experiences between the women and men? A lot of people assume that somehow Asian American men are more wedded to preserving Asian culture or that Asian parents frown more upon sons marrying out than daughters.
As a sociologist, my educated hypothesis is that this disparity between the sexes is due more to the attitude of whites since they are the dominant group. In other words, for better or worse, more White men find Asian women appealing as mates.
Asian-Americans Who Prefer Whites
Most interesting were the reasons given for racial preferences. The group that
indicated a preference for White mates explained their preference for Whites in
the following ways:
“Why do I like White women more? They’re more mature, more fun, vivacious, vibrant. More confident too. I like the granola girl types and you don’t find very many Asian girls like that.”
“White women are more in touch with their bodies, more outspoken, more confident, more physical. Asian women are too submissive…doesn’t make me feel alive. I want someone who’s exciting and that’s usually White women. ”
“It’s not a race thing. More a personality preference. I like the way White women look more but I think it goes deeper than that. It’s character and personality…”
“I had this Asian boyfriend once and boy was he insecure…White guys are more giving and much more confident.”
“Don’t get me wrong. It’s just individual preference. Some people like macho guys or feminine women; some like dark hair, some like light. I just happen to find White men more appealing, especially the blonde types.”
Most revealing of why some Asian Americans prefer white mates was the “White identification” exhibited by many of those who prefer Whites. Many took pains to describe themselves in ways that would clearly differentiate themselves from stereotypes of Asians. One 27 year old Chinese-American man who grew up in an almost completely White environment described himself in the following way:
“I’m really into sports…Not just casually like some Asians. An example is when I ski. I really ski hard. I go to Tahoe a lot. You see Asians there but they’re just kind of winding down the bunny slopes. Oh and I work out…”
Another, a 44 year old Chinese-American mother who prefers white men, describes her 18 year old daughter in the following words:
“She’s just completely different from all the other Orientals in her school. She’s well-rounded, not just a bookworm like the other Orientals. She’s a cheerleader, student body rep and mixes very well with the Caucasian students. She’s very athletic…into rollerblading, mountain climbing…Not many Orientals are active in the way she is…Her friends tell her they don’t even notice that she’s, you know, Oriental (smiles, with obvious pride).
Asian-Americans Who Prefer Fellow Asians
Overall, there were no significant differences between the socioeconomic characteristics
of those who prefer White mates and those who prefer Asians. Since almost all
of those interviewed came of age in the post-Civil Rights era, are middle class
and college educated, the only differences were profession, childhood and present
environments. What I found was that White-identified subjects were somewhat more
likely to have grown up in all-white environments while those who were more Asian
American identified were more likely to have grown up or gone to school in places
with more Asian Americans.
So what did those who prefer Asian American mates say about their preferences? Reasons varied but most can be classified into one of these categories: 1) comfort level 2) cultural preservation 3) acquiring “better quality people.”
Some sample quotes about why Asian Americans were preferred:
“For me, it’s the comfort level from sharing a common background. You tend to think alike and not have to try hard to overcome all kinds of barriers such as prejudice.”
A Chinese American man who was previously involved in a 15 year relationship with a White woman explained his Asian preference in these words:
“It’s hard to put your on it but in my previous relationship, _____(a White woman) was kind of, well she was very insecure but with me, oddly, she was was quite arrogant, as if I should be grateful that she ’s with me…we never talked about it. It’s one of those things that I just began to realize more and more, especially now as I’m in a long term relationship with_______(a Japanese American woman) and it’s very different. It’s more comfortable, it feels right…There’s mo re of a feeling of equality to it.”
Still others talked about how their preference for Asian American spouses resulted from their realization of racism against Asian Americans:
“I never questioned White supremacy and White culture until I went to UCLA. Then when I was in college and hung around Asians and took Asian American courses…I realized the marginal feeling I’d always felt was because of racism…I had to re-culture myself and reeducate myself about my own heritage.”
No Racial Preferences
About a third of the respondents stated that they did not have racial preferences
for spouses. Explanations ranged from being “realistic, ” belief in “color blindness”
to having had bad experiences in the past when their choices were based on race.
Some notable responses included those (mostly men) who simply felt that they faced limited opportunities:
“You have to be realistic. I may desire something but as to whether you’re going to get it, that’s another question altogether. As an Asian man in this country, your choices are limited so you have to be open.”
The explanations that touched me the most were expressed by people who felt that even though they believed in color blindness, it was hard to be color blind in America. This 49 year old Chinese American women recounted a defining experience in her youth:
“This was back in the 60s….I remember how I was really excited about a date with this cute White guy. We were in his room, and he was trying to kiss me, and then I couldn’t believe what he said. He said something like, “I’m so starved for sex because there’s this White girl in my class that I go out with but I can’t bring myself to sleep with her because she’s like a blonde goddess.” I thought, what does he think I am, some cheap Asian whore? It took me a long time to get over that one…before I dated a White guy again. I try not to let a person’s race influence me but sometimes it’s really hard because we live in a society where people are not treated as equals because of the color of their skin.”
What Do Asian Americans Think about Interracial Couples?
Beyond their own preferences, opinions about interracial relationships between
Asians and Whites were enlightening.The most important finding was that most,
regardless of their own preferences, thought that the reason why there were so
many White male/Asian female relationships was because some White men feel that
they can more easily dominate Asian women.
One Chinese-American woman put it this way:
“When I see Asian women with White men I automatically think that he wants somebody he can dominate and somebody with an exotic allure…”
Another, a young Japanese-American man, talked about what his White male friends thought about Asian women:
“When I was at Santa Barbara a few years back, my White guy friends, some, I mean, were interested in Asian women for the control…I mean they were sort of losers, socially anyway…I think they were just too insecure to date White women.”
We don’t know whether or not most white men with Asian American partners are insecure and seek to dominate. But the fact that most of those interviewed thought this to be the case is worth pondering. This was true even for subjects involved in interracial relationships themselves-they did not think it was true about their own relationships but felt that it was true in general.
Another interesting finding on general attitudes toward interracial coupling was how some of the interviewed men feel when they see Asian women-White men couples in public. The following are some sample comments:
“When I see an Asian female with a White man and particularly if she’s pretty, it sort of hits me in the gut. I feel like we’ve lost something valuable.”
“It ticks me off, and I know it’s wrong…she’s free to choose. But I can’t help thinking, what’s wrong with us. How come you’re not with one of us?”
What Should We Think About Interracial Relationships?
When I presented my findings to my students during my final year at Stanford,
what students really wanted to know was how they should use the information in
their personal lives. In the words of one of the students, “Professor Chow, this
is very interesting, but what are your recommendations…what should I do?”
I am not a psychologist nor a relationship expert. As a sociologist, I can only tell people about broad trends and patterns in human behavior. Nonetheless, I want to emphasize one point: I believe that individual level dynamics, or person to person interactional patterns are very important in relationships and much more important than race.
On a personal level, whether we are involved in interracial relationships or same-race relationships, our happiness really hinges upon how we deal with our relationship dynamics-whether we allow destructive or positive patterns to prevail.
“Tradeoffs” in Interracial Relationships
OK, that caution aside, let me say that because socioeconomic and status inequalities
have been organized around skin color for so long, when two people of different
races come together, there is the possibility that at least part of the attraction
was based on “tradeoffs” resulting from these unspoken inequalities.
What do I mean? The most extreme example of such structurally-based relationship inequalities are when white men go to Asia to look for poor women to marry. Some of these men say explicitly that they are tired of “feminist” white women over whom they have no control. Their search for impoverished Asian wives is a search for relationships in which they hold not only economic power but racial power.
One case told to me by a friend who lives on a military base in California involves a 50 something year old White man who went to Korea to find a wife. He brought his “wife” back several years ago and has kept her in his apartment as a virtual prisoner. He doesn’t let her learn English and she can’t go out without him. Meanwhile he brags to his friends that he has the “perfect” relationship since he “gets it” whenever he wants and she takes care of all his physical needs.
This is admittedly a very extreme case but available evidence suggests that “tradeoffs” may have occurred historically in marriages between Asian Americans and other races.
James Loewen, the author of Mississippi Chinese, talks about how the middle class Chinese grocers in the Mississippi who married White women before the 1970s almost always married poorer, working class women. In contrast, Chinese men who married Black women during the same era almost always married educated, middle class women. In Loewen’s own words:
When Chinese grocers married Delta whites, they selected lower-class white women, who could look “up” to their husbands as small businessmen while looking “down” upon them racially; the grocer who married a Negro usually selected a mate at least his equal in occupational class (many were teachers) and usually his superior in education.”
Recent statistics appear to indicate tradeoffs may still be at work today. For example, a recent study (Jacobs and Labov, 1995) based on 1990 Census data shows that White women married to Chinese and Japanese American men have lower educational levels as well as lower labor force participation rates than the Asian-American wives of Asian American men.
Final Remarks:
In closing, I would like to return to my students’ question about how to apply
such knowledge to one’s personal life.
I think Asian Americans should be aware that race may well influence other people’s attitude toward them but should not let race influence their own assessment of others, particularly not when it comes to choosing intimate partners.
Most importantly, we should all try hard to be conscious of our own motives and psychological dynamics. Some Asian Americans may not be aware that they have “bought into” the mindset of subconsciously valuing whites more than other races. When this occurs, you are subconsciously setting yourself up for a life that de-values who you are and you will never be at peace with yourself.
As long as relationships are founded upon individual characteristics and you are certain that race plays no part in how you and your partner value each other (as well as yourselves), then that will definitely contribute to a healthy relationship. That goes for both interracial relationships as well as same race relationships. I mean there are same race relationships founded upon racial considerations too!*
*For example some of my respondents talked about how they married fellow Asians
even though they preferred White spouses when they were young because they did
not feel that they could attract whites. These were certainly ”racially-motivated”
relationships!
I am well aware that nose length and facial width are not the only parameters; I thought I made this clear when I used "for instance." Perhaps I should have added "etc." However my point stands. Even in China, people from the North and South look very different and are easily distinguished. The same can be said about populations in Europe. Do you not find it easy to distinguish people of Italian descent from people of English descent? In fact, the differences are often quite dramatic. This is what I meant by disjoint "volumes" in facial parameter space.
I am merely suggesting that maybe how we distinguish people of different races is not entirely by some sort of "average." Certainly, there is truth to this idea of norms. But another factor that may play a larger role than one might think is the factor of reinforced notions. When one sees somebody with dark skin, the most immediate notion is usually that they are black, or Indian. In fact, I have had people think they were looking at Africans when they were shown pictures of Australian Aboriginals. In actuality, the two races are very different when examining their features. Nevermind that even in Africa, as with China, people from East and West look distinct. Is it really fair to lump people into huge categories and call their features European, Asiatic, etc...
The reason I say all of this is from personal experience. For one, I have been to Asia. People from more southern regions do indeed have some of the features you mentioned. But in the north, such features are rare (caved in mid-facial region, protruding mouth, larger jaw). In fact, I am under the impression that their mouths protrude even less than most Europeans. And their faces are quite long, which may make their jaws larger by raw measurements, but I do not think by larger you meant it in this way. I have had similar experiences when I met Africans in college. I am from USA, and African Americans do for the most part have the distinguishing features that you oft mention on this site. However, most of the international students from Africa looked nothing like African Americans. I don't quite know how to describe it, but many of their features seemed pushed to the extreme of the Caucasoid spectrum. Their mouth regions had absolutely no protrusion, and their noses were very narrow and long.
I am always skeptical about studies that survey races. A "researcher" from the USA would most likely rely on a sample of African Americans to characterize African features. If I am not mistaken, you are from Europe. Is it not true that most Asians and Africans there come predominantly from a specific geographical area? I know that at least in England, most Chinese are of Cantonese descent. I think that unless one has traveled the vast majority of a continent, one is very likely to misrepresent the reality of the situation. If you do not believe me, I urge you to go visit Asia from North to South and East to West. I myself have only been to a few countries there myself, and already I have come to realize that Asians have extremely varied features that do not approximate the norm of which you speak. Or maybe you already have toured the entire continent, in which case I am simply stumped by our difference in experiences.
Speaking as an Asian guy, I agree, Asian women are ugly. Even their "youthful" looks are more infantile than objectively youthful. No race of women ages well, but when Asian women age they look like reptiles. Look at Amy Chua. Their "submissiveness" is also a facade, they are far more controlling behind closed doors, and not in a kinky way, just plain manipulative.
I think women of other races are more feminine in terms of raising children. Seriously, if there was a way I could "Tiger dad" my future sons into becoming Navy SEALs when they have no desire or aptitude for it without giving them psychological issues, I'd like to know about it.
As to what Erik has said previously, white men who choose Asian women have lower mate value, that is evident 99% of the time you encounter that kind of pairing. However, when an Asian guy has game, they almost always go for white women. Like Germany's Vice-Chancellor Phillip Roesler(full-blooded Viet, adopted by German parents) and his German wife, Brian Tee and Mirelly Taylor and Kevin Rudd's son-in-law Albert Tse.
Is it just me, or do the arms get shorter as the legs get longer in these diagrams? This makes no sense to me unless it's an optical illusion. The arm to height ratio should remain constant or increase with the leg to height ratio. I can definately see a man with disproportionately short arms being less attractive and less masculine due to the apparent lack of upper body strength! A woman with disproportionately long arms can also look more masculine and less attractive! Besides, how many western men are attracted to asian women who have shorter legs and longer torsos so I want to say the leg thing is a non factor!
"Do men really have an evolutionary hard-wired preference for well-endowed women, or is this just a baseless myth promulgated by the folks who produce beer commercials and Snap-On® calendars?"
(...)
"In the first experiment, 13 guys approached the girl when she was wearing an A cup and 19 approached when she sported a B cup. When she donned the C cup, the number of approaches jumped markedly; 44 blokes hoping for a little holiday action went over to talk to her.
In the second experiment, 5, 9 and 16 guys approached her in the A, B, and C cup conditions, respectively.
And yes, the results were statistically significant."
(...)
"When the results were tallied, 14.92% and 17.79% of passing motorists stopped to offer a lift when the girl was wearing the A and B cup bras, respectively. When she wore the C cup bra, 24% of passing motorists pulled over to offer a ride. The difference between the A and C bras was statistically significant. The extra ride offers all came from men; altering bra cup size made no difference in the number of female motorists who pulled over."
"These are hardly the first studies to indicate a male preference for larger breasts[.]"
"The researchers postulate that large breasts attract males at a subconscious level because they are considered a highly feminine trait and perceived as a sign of fertility."
http://anthonycolpo.com/?p=380
http://nicolas.gueguen.free.fr/Articles/PMS2007b.pdf
Gueguen N. Women’s bust size and men’s courtship solicitation. Body Image. 2007 Dec; 4 (4): 386-390.
Guéguen N. Bust size and hitchhiking: a field study. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 2007 Dec; 105 (3 Pt 2): 1294-1298.
Shut up. Just shut up. Educate yourself and quit your childish whinning. You indeed need some dick, and 9 inches seems fitting for the amount of childish nonsense you've been spitting out. (YES, women obviously do find men with larger and thicker penises more attractive, Einstein. But better let an emotionally stable woman write an article about manhood. Let someone who likes men and has got meaningful experience with men do it.)
Why don't you just focus on your qualities and quit trying to force people to be artificial? Trying to force men to fake that which men are hardwired to prefer is ridiculous. RESPECT REALITY. YES, YOUR SMALLER TITS ARE A DISADVANTAGE. Your whining won't change shit. But you already know this except you're retarded. It seems to me that you are trying to fight the blatantly obvious because you don't know that having smaller than average breasts doesn't mean men can't feel attracted to you AS A WHOLE. AND that men can have fun with smaller tits. Why do you *NEED* to have the big breasts advantage to feel desired? Are you *that* barren of qualities that tits are a matter of life or death to you? Are you that unhappy and insecure about yourself? You CAN make a man happy with your smaller tits - believe me, it's probably just your insecurity and bittterness that make men run away from you.
To cover the possibility you come from another planet and don't know shit about us earthlings, let me fill you in on the very basics:
"Men [from planet Earth], on average, tend to be attracted to women who are shorter than they are, have a youthful appearance, and exhibit features such as a symmetrical face, full breasts, full lips, and a low waist-hip ratio."
"Women with larger breasts tend to have higher levels of the hormones oestradial and progesterone, which both promote fertility."
Plenty of researches proving the point (not to mention blatantly obvious common knowledge).
BTW, if you find out that you are hardwired to feel more attracted to a guy after you find out that he works mopping floors at McDonalds you can complain that men are shallow.
All in all *I'd say* that, though large breasted women will have many advantages, there is no terribly significant correlation of brest size to happiness on women. AND women with smaller tits will probably be approached by males who are more interested in their personality instead of testosterone-driven males interested only on their bodies (both opinions are not based on research but on personal observation).
FOCUS ON YOUR STRONG POINTS and you won't need to humiliate yourself by going on the net on a laughable and blatant crusade for self-acceptance. Your small boobs are fine. Just change your focus.
Small breasts are awesome. They don't sag like bigs ones. Big breasts may look nice when a girl is a teen and twenties, but when she gets older/pregnant they sag and just..ew. Small breasts = perky for life. Just saying.
Amazing. I can't believe this garbage on here still exists on the Internet. This website is but just a personal, subjective opinion of a misogynist who only sees women as sex objects and watches way too much porn, and cheap at that. He talks like every woman should look perfect, but he never mentions himself (bet he is far from being perfect himself). He is extremely inflexible and judgemental of women. Small breasts aren't unfeminine or unattractive. This is the biggest bullshit I ever had to hear. And what amazes me even MORE is that all these ''big tits'' fan boys who are prolly no older than 17 and also watch too much porn, jump up to diss women who obviously are hurt by the remarks made in this garbage article. Seriously, where is the common-sense??? Why would you dis someone for being insulted? Common sense? Logic anyone? This is ridiculous. The author clearly has never touched a real woman, because let me tell you something: Women, naturally, aren't born with big boobs. The less fat one has, the smaller the breasts. Slim women with big natural breasts are very very rare. So, if you want one with big tits, go chase an overweight one. But, I guess you don't like flabby, big women either, don't you? Because you're mister Perfection. Seriously? I would not be surprised if you're still virgin. Because you seem to have no grasp on what a natural, real woman is supposed to look like. You got your opinions off of porn, that's all. And all these boy minions on here dissing women for having small breasts are laughable. Maybe they will grow up one day when they actually get into the world and meet real, flesh and bones, women. You have no idea how to appreciate a woman, because to you, a woman s nothing more than two buttcheeks and plastic big tits. I feel sorry for all of you jerks on here. I guess this is the website where all the superficial losers meet. Damn.lol And I can't believe you even judge how a woman's calves are build. ROFL Are you serious?! Seriously, get out in the world and interract with women! Real ones! Not sex shop dolls! Maybe then you will start to change your perception, if you are able to get your head out of the sand. By the way, if we are gonna get into this shit, let me tell you something. If your dick isn't at least 9 inches, sorry honey, you aren't man enough. Guys should have at least 9 inches to be manly, but it is well known that the majority of them have it down to 5. Eww! So, let's make an article on how manly a man should be, no? Shall we? I will be the first one to comment, promise!
I guess when I see Kate Upton, I see a young woman who doesn't really believe she is truly beautiful. I see a young woman who is giving herself up to be lusted over by men and she will be ultimately used up, chewed up and spit out when her "worth" is consumed. I see a little girl who is looking for attention.
Her face is absolutely masculine, amd that tramp is rotten. Wide torso, chicken legs and do nothing for me.
she has an ackward body frame which is not so atractive. Without boobs she would be irrelevant. Kate Upton has large D-cup breasts and maybe her breasts may seem natural to her size, but she actually has got breast implants. While Kate's breasts fit her voluptuous figure, the way they sit on her chest seems to indicate that her modeling career took off after breast augmentation.
(Miami plastic surgeon Dr. Michael Salzhauer states "Kate Upton does appear to have breast implants as revealed by the very distinct and sharp transition from her full cleavage to her chest. Her breast augmentation fits her frame well and balances out her proportions.")
Kate Upton is changing the runway with her buxom body. But do Kate's curves are the result of breast implants!! 19-year old Kate Upton certainly has not natural curves in the right places and I figure out she traips down the runway.
Her too-blond hair, her generic eyes, and masculine, facial features. and her too long legs floppy" boobs, huge thighs and overall "squishy brick" figure. She’s nothing, she’s got a decent but not feminine face at most thats it. Her arms and legs are slim but her torso is so wide, she doesn’t have that hour glass shape. It’s all so wide and unproportionate and her rib cage is abnormally wide.
Dan: You referred to the research of Michael Lewis as a counter argument. His work is poor. Ellis and He have made an attempt to account for a large body of evidence, and I have added to their argument. Conclusions drawn from a wide body of literature are more likely to be reliable. Lewis would have a difficult time fitting his research within the wider body of observations, whereas it is an easy matter to fit his data within the picture that emerges from most observations and publications on the topic.
This is the study you referred to.
The results come from predominantly European college students rating on a 1-10 attractiveness scale facebook pictures of young adult Europeans, sub-Saharan Africans and East Asians. These ratings are not properly interpretable in terms of a comparison of the attractiveness of ethnic groups as people in the 80th percentile of attractiveness in their ethnic group may be found less attractive than people in the 60th percentile of attractiveness in a different ethnic group, and raters may be ranking faces based on their impression of the average in the ethnic group to which the person belongs.
The ratings of facebook pictures selected by an assistant of his is what Lewis relies on. Lewis never addresses the ethnic backgrounds of fashion models, mannequins showing idealized features, whether black men and East Asian women are disproportionately perceived as the hottest looking on college campuses in the U.S. and U.K., whether men prefer to see East Asian women among pinup models and pinup artwork, what the literature shows about ratings of more ancestral-looking facial features and which groups have more ancestral facial features, trends in cosmetic surgery as they pertain to altering ethnic features and sundry. You will find much on these within this site, but Lewis has made no attempt to fit his data and interpretation within the wider body of evidence that spans multiple specialties.
The marriage or sexual partner disparities are easily explained within the wider body of observations. Men place a high premium on women’s attractiveness, and will end up with the most attractive women they can obtain. A corollary is that white men married to non-white women will on average have lower mate value.
White women who marry non-white men also on average have lower mate value. In an analysis of dating profiles, slender or normal-weight white women were nearly seven times more likely to exclude black men as dates compared to overweight white women. Contrast this with the prediction of Lewis’ model that white women married to black men are expected to have above average attractiveness. Lewis appears unaware of the real world.
The lower mate value of white women sexually involved with non-white men, especially blacks, is also evident in lower intelligence and worse mental health (see this and this). The partner choices of those with lower mate value have more to do with compromise and less with preference compared to those having higher mate value.
Points a-d about the sexuality of heterosexuals should be noted.
If whites sexually involved with non-whites tend to have lower mate value, then the most likely explanation of why more white men than white women are sexually involved with non-whites is #b, which is men being less restrictive about who they have sex with. It should be possible to show that this applies to even sex with blacks when one considers whites capable of having sex with blacks.
Sex between whites and blacks is highly unusual, and in some regions, such as the U.S. and the U.K., more white women than white men are sexually involved with blacks. Noting #c, since women are not limited by arousal, almost all women are capable of sexual intercourse with black men but not all men can do it with black women.
In an interview by Playboy magazine, John Mayer had the following to say:
Mayer’s description is a characteristic of many men. Criminal justice statistics in the U.S. show the rarity of white men raping black women. The stark disparity in HIV infection rates among white and black populations in South Africa suggest a high level of sexual isolation between the populations; even with so many black women around, white men seeking some variety on the side or prostitutes for what their wives or girlfriends will not do are largely avoiding black women. This avoidance cannot be assigned to knowledge and fear of HIV infection as white men who have sex with men in the U.S. have this knowledge but still have HIV prevalence rates in the neighborhood of sub-Saharan Africans. If one considers #d, which is that the mechanical aspects of pleasurable sensations will not differ much as a function of the ethnicity of the partner, and #b, which is men being less restrictive about who they have sex with, it should be clear that there is a substantial proportion of white men incapable of natural sexual intercourse with the majority of black women they come across, because of lack of arousal.
Limiting oneself to whites capable of having sex with blacks, I am positive that more white men than white women are having sex with blacks. It is meaningless to compare all white men to all white women.
The simplest and most likely explanation of the interethnic marriage disparities addressed by Lewis is that whites marrying non-whites disproportionately have lower mate value, which makes their partner choices not just matters of preference but one of compromise, where men, as usual, are less restrictive about who they partner with but do not partner with blacks more often than the women because, unlike women, they need a working Johnson, which by design refuses to obey will power and which visual stimuli coming from a large proportion of black women fail to awaken from its slumber.
This is another part of the reply to the person who left comment #2.
You talk about a face space where the nose is one dimension and facial width another. This assumes that these dimensions are independent, i.e., there are no common underlying factors affecting the two. But is this the case?
Something has to ensure that the nose develops in between the eyes and not in the middle of the forehead. There are many other constraints like this, placing limits on configurations and dimensions. Take these constraints, common underlying factors, and add in natural selection, random genetic drift, sexual selection, and you have the basis for correlation structures or norms that distinguish populations.
Well; I had doubts this would be a good blog, but now I can see it is.
I'm interested ONLY in people who aren't shy when going for the truth. I also thought the "well past her beauty prime" to be an exageration but he's not all fingers, which I appreciate. AND he took it back after a second analisis, which I doubly appreciate. So far dude resonated with me on his views.
Putting this site on my bookmark list.
Truth's awesome. People hurt THEMSELVES with it just when they avoid accepting it. Why all this fuss?
Do you think we guys go "oooh, look at her tits... they are so small... hmmm!" Sorry, doesn't happen. Ever. Just take the idea out of your mind. And finding laughable exceptions is just a way of lying to oneself. We might go "ooooh, look at that girl... she may have small tits, but look at (whatever) and how she moves as if she's fun and loves herself. Damn, she's so feminine!". Sexual beauty IS holistic.
BTW, I wll not fight against anyone's stupidity: wanna keep the wool over your face, your choice. I rather deal with reality.
(Healthy) men are attracted to femininity, (healthy) women are attracted to masculinity. That's all there is to it. Tits are VERY feminine, though they're not femininity itself. There are other ways small breasted women can be very attractive (=feminine).
BTW, I'm one of those guys who think that small breasted women should keep themselves natural (i.e. far away from implants). OVERALL, any (or the majority of) small breasted women can make themselves look extremely attractive and juicy, especially if they've got a hot ass, mouth, eyes, whatever - ANYTHING FEMININE. We men crave femininity and will just focus and compliment women on what they've got, not on what they don't.
The reality ain't so bad. Actually, it's awesome. Accept it.
"You, sir, are a pig." No, he's not. Can't find a single instance of him being a pig here.
"Breast size is determined by nature. To quoted yourself: 'and one has to learn to make the most of what one has and improve oneself rather than sulk about the hand dealt by nature.'"
Who cares? So is femininity in women and masculinity in men to a very big portion. He didn't say that it wasn't.
"Are you not sulking about that very hand?"
Seems you are, "Micke". And it's very clear. If you didn't intend it to be so, too late. Everyone can see you've got baggage about small sized tits. Too bad. Inside yourself you know that what he said is true.
Comment #2 was left by someone who did not leave a name. This is a reply to her.
You have disputed the existence of ethnic face shape norms by stating that:
Nose length alone or face width alone or both these measurements taken together will do a poor job of distinguishing ethnic groups, but when you look at people’s faces, you see much more that just two variables. How many more? A lot. You could list two measurements in a text file that only occupies a few bytes, whereas a picture that reliably shows details of face shape will take many kilobytes.
There is a correlation structure underlying different face measurements. It is these correlation structures, that may be described as norms, that distinguish ethnic groups. Take enough measurements, sample populations from farther away and the overlap between population norms approaches zero.
In Frida Aasen, the person is easily identifiable as European but at the same time it is unmistakable in profile view that the caved in mid-facial region, the protruding mouth and the larger jaw are shifts toward Asiatic shapes as these three shifts tend to go together with shifts toward ancestral faces, including Asiatic faces.
You said that even in medicine, researchers show more discretion when presenting their findings. I have presented a nuanced argument that integrates a wide body of literature. And I am sure you will find some publications in medical journals very interesting: the high-profile academics listed as the investigators neither did the study nor wrote the paper; the actual authors are professional writers that remain incognito, and the study was carried out by an unrelated private group. You don’t think they would be tempted to massage the findings a bit?
nicegirl: I have not shown enough pictures of Frida Aasen and Britt Ekland for a proper comparison, but you can find many more pictures of them. You just have to keep in mind that most of the pictures of Ekland show her as a mature adult, whereas most pictures of Aasen show her as a girl in her mid-teens. Plenty of pictures of Aasen : http://forums.thefashionspot.com/f52/frida-aasen-135217.html
Compared to Ekland, in side view, the lower third of the face and the philtrum are longer in Aasen, and in front view, Aasen has a squarer chin, less expansion of the cheekbones in the cheek area, and the border of the orbits is less sharp and more rounded. Individually, these changes occur with greater masculinization or lesser feminization, but you have to look for a pattern to see whether the differences involve masculinity-femininity or other factors. The pattern is there, and Aasen is not as feminine as Ekland.
Do not equate large chins and square jaws with the extent of femininity. Size [large vs. small] is separate from shape. Focus on shape. A square jaw only applies to a front-view description, and masculinization causes squaring of the chin, not squaring of the jaw. Rose Byrne and Minka Kelly do not have square jaws. If you look at how increasing feminization alters shape (on the left), jaws appear wider and the chin narrower in front view. Squaring of the jaws would require a wider jaw, not the direction masculinization would send it in. A square jaw may look feminine or masculine, depending on the rest of the face, and this also goes for a square chin. You can see a square chin in Elena Teplova, who looks feminine. Irena Gesvindrová (another picture) has a square chin and a square jaw and clearly looks feminine. You have to see how it comes together.
An illustration of the size and shape issue is this comparison of the chin of Heidi Montag through her various surgeries. Before surgery it was longer but more rounded. Now, masculinization would cause a longer chin but also a wider or squared chin. The most convenient route for the surgeon was to shave off part of the chin to reduce height, but this came at the cost of the chin appearing squarer, resulting in something that did not enhance femininity in spite of a reduction in chin length. The improvement of the chin needed more surgery.
I find Jaclyn smith attractive, which is why I indicated an interest in posting her pictures.
Kate upton isn't very pretty. She's 5 10 and 150 pounds she could probably beat the shit out of most the guys that read sports illustrated. Yikes!!
We are talking about today beauty standards.
Beauty was always genetically recognized as healthy representative of certain race,and the key to beauty was to stay within genetically predefined racial attributes.
It was always defined by cultural standards that tend to change with time.
Today the world is a global place,cultural differences disappear in many aspects and there is a large pressure for standardization of beauty.
Submitted by Emily on Sun, 11/01/2009 - 17:02 | link
How do you make a Romanian/Indian/Semitic nose fit into that mask? That's what I would like to know. I can't make it fit no matter how much I try.
Could they make a special model with an enlarged nose area just for them so their noses can be accomodated somehow? Or is the Semitic/Indian/gypsy nose type incompatible with the ideal feminine beauty?
I don't find this offensive just because it is related to some ethnic group-it is a fact that specific characteristics exists between groups,those specific differences developed for important reasones,butt i don't think that that makes a specific group universally less or more attractive.
If i could make a photo robot of these specific attributes there would be many tips of noses,eyes or mouths i like,butt the whole
impression would always depend on what tip of person caries them.
I would not devide a beauty of perfection from the beauty of imperfection, beauty is not only the perception of perfect proportions.
I assume we evoluated enough from a point where beauty ment just a healty genetic background.
Pages