Is it possible to objectively compare the attractiveness of women from different populations?

You might want to make the side bar link for this more noticeable. It should have bigger text and the same light blue-grey background as the other side bar links.

Right now it just looks like small text over a big amazon.com advertisment. It's easy to miss. I had no idea it was such a big site section untill i took a more careful look at this blog entry.

Thank you for your suggestion. I am not sure whether I want this section to be a prominent part of this site, but I will see what I can do to distinguish it from the advertisements.

I've greatly enjoyed reading this site, and found it very informative. Personally, I find this section the most interesting.

You've dug up some fascinating studies and images, and I agree with the commentator above, that the link here should be emphasised more, since I believe many others will also find this of interest.

Incidentally, on this page, Fig. 6d does not display properly:

http://www.femininebeauty.info/aesthetics.6.htm

Anyway, keep up the good work, and I look forward to seeing more in the future, John.

John: Sorry about Fig 6d; it was never uploaded, but it shows now. I put the link to this section within the main navigation column now that several people have requested that I do so.

where did u get the pics of black women from--most black women's bodies are not shaped liek that.. i can't believe you would post anthopological study pics(which only focus on these obscure women in teh 'bush'). get some pics of normal women in nigeria, living/working in lagos... what about womenin north africa, east africa, adn for that matter u knocked out much o f west. i am black.... quite frankly i am insulted you piclked a bunch of overweight women to show what black women look like vs. other ethnic groups, while getting glamorized photos of especially white women... i would love for you to compare the avergate body of a british women with other ethicities---if you wnat to get rugged. secondly many black women are not all afircan---where is the depiction of them... alek wek isn;t even the norm for africa. her features are very very drastic ompared to most. her body type is common to only small populations of people----her tribe si not the african norm. most african women are shaped sorta liek white women, jsut about ten pounds heavier at the same height(that is what i read in a legitimte study--if u want some info, jsut let me know)also , they tend to have larger breastsa nd hips for that same body size and slightly mroe muscle mass for the same weight. teh average british woman9which is where most caucasioan women in the US can consider their ancestors) have smaller breasts, thicker waists, and falt, wider hips. the "square" si the new term abuzz in the garment industry because it applies to teh majoriy tof white women in america---- less waist defnition, balanced hips/shoulders/chest. do ur research foirst on hwat real women look like. before posting opffensive comparisons please. i don't mena to be harsh... but i seriously think it must have a subconciosu effort on one person on the staff--who perjhaps thinks black women are unnatractive to post hideous pics of them---whiel glamorizing the other ethnic groups---as we are all human---races don't truly exist---scientifically it has been proven its in outr heads.... please email me back.. i would love to corrrespond with you on this issue. sorry fo rthe misspellings... i am in a rush.

here are some links to pics of black women tha tare comparable to ur pics of the otehr races(mostly models/actresses--etc.)

http://www.bastardly.com/archives/2006/08/03/miss-universe-2006-losers-t...

Solange Knowles

Miss Trinidad and Tobago

http://www.bastardly.com/archives/2006/08/31/the-bastardly-morning-by-ch...

i would suggest getting pics of all teh other black women that aren't as extreme as alek wekto show a BALANCED view of africa... ther eis no set in stone african features. its the most diverses continent in teh world. also euopeans and aisans have much mroe diversity thatn shown. east india is ridiculously diverse... i thn k ultimately--breaking peopel down by race may jsut be a futile effort as a whole....

Kristin: The great majority of the sub-Saharan African women shown are not overweight, and none of the comparisons are about percentage body fat. Most of the women featured in your links have part non-sub-Saharan African ancestry, which appears to be the majority component in Christina Milian. How are these women, except for Miss Trinidad and Tobago, representative of sub-Saharan Africans?

Alek Wek has a face that is an excellent example of a sub-Saharan African face except for a forehead that is rounder than average in side view and her jaws, which do not protrude as much as in her more feminine counterparts.

The sub-Saharan African element in North Africa is minor, and the sub-Saharan African stock in the Americas and especially in East Africa is admixed with non-sub-Saharan African elements. Therefore, since the purpose of the section is to examine whether women from different ethnic groups can be objectively compared aesthetically, rather than to depict pictures capturing the diversity around the world, this question is best answered by focusing on the outliers: Northern Europeans, Northeast Asians, Australian aborigines and sub-Saharan Africans. This is the reason why humans in between the outliers are not extensively addressed in the pictures.

The section features pictures of unattractive white women and also glamour photography of women with predominant sub-Saharan African ancestry. Sub-Saharan African women tend to have thicker waists than European women, not the other way around as you have implied, and there are plenty of inter-group differences in physical appearance that make it impossible to objectively compare the attractiveness of Sub-Saharan African women with that of European women, which is the message that you need to get.

sub-saharan africans have all sorts of facial features.. nigeria alone contains so many differnet sorts fo faces.. i think the close minded view point that all africans look alike is really the problem.. many are not even dark-skinned(int he same way as WRk). most africans think alek is "extra african" not the norm.not to mention... much of the women in the world of african descent are not "pure-bloods" so i think that is also absurd. the white women y9u picked represented a more average look for a europena. alek wek in no form or fashion represents the average look for a black woman--- that is why the fashion industry loved her... cuz she is very very unique. she is froma teh dinka tribe--- a small genetic genepool.

adn the biggest issue i had is you used completely unglamorized pics of black women--- so the women you showed werr out of shape, with unnattractive figure proportions(untoned legs/waists, small/saggy breasts). atelast find pics of black women who are are are fixed up more---not wandering about hte savannah in native garb.

Kristin: Nobody is arguing that all sub-Saharan Africans look alike; all such women in this section look different. I don’t see what is the big deal with Alek Wek. She is shown in very few places and not one of the places where she has been shown is supposed to depict a typical sub-Saharan African, which would be difficult to come up with given the diversity in sub-Saharan Africa. If you go through the entire section, you will encounter several pictures of women with predominant sub-Saharan African ancestry that are sourced from glamour photography. In some cases it was necessary to obtain pictures of !kung, KhoiKhoi or Congolese women, but I did not encounter glamour photography involving them, and went along with pictures sourced from anthropological resources.

all i was saying...was that much of the black women u see in "glamour modeling" are what the average woman of african descent looks like---not hte women you picked out... they the exception. most peoel of african ancestry, as far as i know , even my afircan friends are not "pure". africa has a dynamic history ofnomadic tribes, frequent inasions,a dn the colonization(susequent taking of wives/rape by europeans) all casued the afircan continent to look as divetrse as it does---not to mention the carribbean, latin america--which has many women of african descent.... i jsut think u left out like 40-70 percent of what black women actually look like. considering u are tryign to make this scientific... u jsut take that into account... also, fyi---afircan peopel also really hate teh usage of anthropological pics adn the like to shwo how they reallya re---- htey are tired of being looked liek beares fo the stone age. i will digress.... on a side note---i htin ksome of teh points rasied ont eh site are interestig and noteworthy.

Congratulations to your fantastic and unique site, Mr. Holland !As a biologist doing a lot of research in this field I would just like to add that mankind can be divided into ca. 36 human races. E.g. in Africa, there are the Sudanid, Kafrid, Nilotid , Ethiopid ,Khoiid, Sanid and Bambutid races. Khoiids, Sanids ,Bambutids and Sudanids are rarely seen in the media, but many US mulattoes show Kafrid , Nilotid and Ethiopid resemblance. If we now compare the feminization of Mongolids , Europids and Negrids , we should compare only the most typical, extreme races concerning feminity-masculinity ,i.e. the Nesids (Malakka,Philippines, Indonesia), the Nordids (Northern Europe) and the Sudanids (Western Africa) ( cf. Prof. Rainer Knußmann's world's leading anthropological manual "Lehrbuch der vergleichenden Biologie und Humangenetik", Gustav-Fischer-Verlag, 2.rev.ed. 1996, being the only one of its kind at the moment and probably the last due to the science-destroying "political correctness"). Then ,in strong contrast (!)to Jean Philippe Rushton and his followers, we will see that Sudanid women are more feminine on average than Nordid ones. There are only some Sudanid women's traits that are more masculine (jaws, skull, statistically more athleticism), but in general they are more feminine (statistically smaller height, more cyclothymous character (gestures e.g.,cf. Prof. John Randal Baker, Race, Oxford University Press,1974) , rounder noses and faces and a tendency to much more bigger breasts and behinds than in Nordid women).So, Joseph Arthur Comte de Gobineau was right in this very point stating the higher feminity of Negrids compared with the Europids (taking into account the smaller sexual dimorphism of Negrids compared to Europids, more feminine races have a smaller sexual dimorphism in general, cf. Knußamnn).In the history of anthropology Gobineau was the first important scholar to see the Negrids as more feminine than the Europids. But if look at the Sanid bushwomen of the Kalahari which are not seen as part of the Negrid races by many authorities, then they would be much more feminine and paedomorphous (paedomorphosis being the basis of feminity, cf. Knußmann) than women from a n y Negrid or Europid race on average.Finally ,the Nesid women (Mallakka, Phillipines, Indonesia) have the highest degree of feminity of a l l 36 human races on average (cf. Knußmann).

I hereby declare my total support of your ideas, Mr. Holland.

Unfortunately , there is a lot of hostilities towards you and people like you in other forums where you try to discuss this topic seriously with feminist viragos and the leftist mob.

d’Artagnan: There are some problems with your comment, specifically related to the conceptualization of femininity. If one assumes that the more protruding backside of sub-Saharan African women is indicative of greater femininity, then how does one explain their thicker waists and narrower pelves compared to European women? Similarly, a shorter-height or smaller-nosed population cannot be designated as more feminine unless it is shown that the reduced height or smaller nose, respectively, is due to greater feminization. There are also masculinized women with large breasts, i.e., one has to take serum levels of both androgens and estrogens into account. The androgens-to-estrogens ratio is more feminine in European women compared to sub-Saharan African and East Asian women. Europeans also have, on average, more CAG repeats in the androgen receptor gene compared to sub-Saharan Africans, i.e., a given amount of testosterone or dihydrotestosterone exerts a more powerful effect in sub-Saharan Africans, on average.

Regarding the allegedly more pedomorphic face and thereby greater femininity of East Asians, the mid-facial flattening of East Asian faces, and also several sub-Saharan African populations such as the Khoi-San people, is similar to that of anatomically modern humans in the late Pleistocene, and if one assumes that this flattening reflects differential retention of an ancestral feature, then it cannot be called pedomorphic, especially since it has been shown that neoteny applies to human craniofacial size but not craniofacial shape. It is true that the faces of women are closer to those of children, but it has not been shown that the mid-facial flattening of East Asians is a consequence of greater feminization. You also have to consider that close approximations of an hourglass figure are most extensively found in Europe.

As Knußmann outlines in his manual, all 36 human are on a continuum between strongly masculine and strongly feminine on average. Consequently ,most of the races do not represent an extreme masculinity or femininity.In your reply you emphasized the masculine traits of sub-Saharan women correctly.If we take Serena Willimas e.g., being a Kafrid mulatto, we can see both those masculine and feminine traits, and your, mine and Knußmann's statements fit together well.Your website just deals implicitly with this spectrum and its manifold nuances.
Then you said that there is no immediate connection between a shorter height and feminization. Yet you you seem to have adopted the Hartmann-Bolk-Weiniger-Knußmann concept of feminity just as I do in general as paedomorphosis, stated by you e.g. concerning some cranial features on your website.In this concept smaller height can be classified as more feminine-paedomorphous.But maybe you just wanted to point at the undeniable fact that some traits cannot be clasified as msculine or feminine/paedomorphous traits exactly as they are not clearly attributed to men or women.Interestingly, the races containing the women with the biggest breasts and behinds are the relatively most masculine in general, except these very traits (Sudanids, Kafrids,Alpinids, Arabids e.g. in comparison to the small-breasted Asian Nesid women).And this is the only big exception to the rule where we have to distinguish feminity and paedomorphosis. -- Just as I wrote before , evolution created some masculine and feminine traits in both sexes of e.g.the Negrids because of social and environmental adaptions. Athleticism developped (or stayed)due to a specializing in physical fighting, whereas this was not so important for the Eurasian hunters in general.In contrast to that, big female breasts and behinds in Negrid women are due to their r-strategy in general .And you will find many Sudanid and Kafrid men with big behinds as that trait is not restricted to women and the hormonal masculinity is not restricted to men. Your remarks on the hormones are correct.And your mentioning the preponderance of the hour-glass figure in Europeans shows that the waist-to-hip ratio is one very feminine trait of the European women in general. But I would like to remark two differentiations at this point. First, as Knußmann
and there is a racial beauty scheme,an old ,but well-established concept in physical anthropology, i.e. an innate scheme making members of a special race especially attractive to members of the same race. This scheme has again one big exception:the feminine-masculine continuum . So , there is a study on the net , where it is shown that Europids rate Asians and especially Asian women more attractive than their racial fellows.
This is what Ashley Montagu named the "delicacy" of the Mongolid women's beauty which basically can appeal to members of all other 35 races and can become much stronger than the racial scheme.
You correctly point at snigle traits and exception from the rules. I acknowledge very much in you that you have a strong wish to differentiate , in contrast to Jean Philippe Rushton who over-simplifies these matters too much and finally gets it wrong.In the end , after the long path of differentiation, detailed anylsis and conceptualizing, we can come to general conclusions that may have many exception , but are strong tendencies. So, you are totally right to point at the exceptions from the paedomorphosis of the Sanids.I think we basically have a very similar views and intentions. I hope that we stay in contact on this blog and I look forward to your reply. Thank you very much, Mr. Holland. d'Artagnan

d’Artagnan: When I talk about masculinity-femininity, I am primarily talking about sexual dimorphism as shaped by sex hormones. As you have pointed out, it is not just sub-Saharan African women that have more protruding backsides, but their male counterparts do, too, compared to Europeans. As a first approximation, this greater protrusion is related to genetic differences unrelated to sex hormones rather than differences in sex hormone profiles, and this would be easily confirmed by an evaluation of sex hormone profiles, though this would not be necessary since a combination of narrower pelves and posteriorly more protrusive buttocks will not be resulting from greater feminization. It is for this reason that this anatomical difference between Europeans and sub-Saharan Africans cannot be assigned to the greater or lesser femininity of one group.

Your reference to the development of athleticism in sub-Saharan Africans, presumably in response to the need for physical fighting, as opposed to Eurasians, is curious. The majority of Olympic medals are won by people of European ancestry. White men also dominate weight lifting, martial arts and various fighting championships. In heavyweight boxing, all four titles are currently held by white men. The minority of sporting events dominated by people of predominantly sub-Saharan African ancestry do not justify assigning an “athletic character” to them.

I am interested in the study showing white men rating Asian women as more attractive than white women. This is highly unlikely.

Hello, Mr. Holland.
http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/beauty.pdf shows that European men rate Eurasian women (Mongolid-Europid)as more attractive than Europid ones on average.http://goldsea.com/Features/Beauty/beauty.html
presents pure Mongolid women as more feminine and attractive.The r-strategist-athleticism connection is from Jean Philippe Rushton (see wikipedia article on him). And the German biologist Max Hartmann proved that strong feminine attracts strong masculine and weak masculine (androgynous) attracts weak feminine (virago).Prof. Rainer Knußmann, former president of the German Scientific Society (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, t h e first-class scientific institution in Germany) and JFK murder investigator in his "Lehrbuch der vergleichenden Biologie und Humangenetik"confirmed Hartmann (1921) and the racial feminity of the Nesids and the racial masculinity of the Nordids in his world-famous manual in 1996(!).http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:Sch9yXxfm5gJ:www.soilandhealth.org/01aglibrary/010112Krasil/010112krasil.pt1.sect3.html+"relative+sexuality"+plants&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5
These universal laws (with some exceptions as usual)first occurred in algae 1 billion years ago (!)You and I are even even today kind of pioneers in the tradition of Stratz's "Die Rassenschönheit des Weibes" of around 1900. Could you please have a look at it, it's wonderful.http://www.rodnoverije.com/album/stratz.html
Stratz had a faible for Charlize Theron-like women,too.I am looking forward to your reply, Mr. Holland and hope for a further entente cordiale. d'Artagnan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello Mr. Holland,
please check again women of the Nesid race as they are the most Mongolid concerning paedomorphosis.http://www.note-music.co.uk/02.Voyager/06.Bali/BaliGirl.jpg
Pictures like that sbear clear evidence that these women are much more facially feminine than any Nordid woman. Of course we shall not compare Nordids to women from the Tungid and Eskimid race who have some masculine facial features as the mid-facial masculinity you mentioned. So can you show me one Europid woman (so age not less than ca. 18 years)from your site or elsewhere which you rated as attractive which is more feminine than my Nesid example ? The previous photo shows the racial features and the racial "softness" of the Nesids quite exactly according to statements and pictures by the highest authorities of anthropology (Prof. Dr. Freiherr v. Eickstedt, Prof. Dr. Rainer Knußmann).
The final question concerning is why enlightenment did not take place in Asia. It is due to the more feminine races living there.And if we compare e.g. the Nesid (women) to the Nordid (women) concerning intelligence, it seems that according to Lynn et al. the Nesid countries score significantly lower than Northern Europe making an enlightenment less probable (see also John Randal Baker and Jean Philippe Rushton).-There seems no evidence for stronger sexual selection in Europeans, the only sure sexual selection in humans is found in the Sanid bushmen whose sexual selection created the steatopygy and extreme labia in the Sanid women.In contrast to that the Europid races (from India to Germania) had, as the most extreme K-strategists, less children , but a higher culture than the Negrid and Mongolid races (the autochthonous Egyptian civilization was created by Europid Aethiopids quite differing from typical Sudanid Negrids from Western Africa,see John Randal Baker).As a consequence of the K-strategy, Europeans lost some Negrid masculine features as the high occurence of athleticism.You point at the high variation in Europids. This is right concerning many anthropmetrical traits like the colour of the hair , skin, body length etc. and a bigger gap between
the most feminine and the most masculine Nordid women. But please note if you compare the Nesid women with the Nordid women, you will not find a Nordid woman who is more feminine than in my picture above as the racial average is much more feminine in the Nesids and even the Nordid feminine extremes are even beyond that average (!) .It is technically impossible , because e.g. the small round Nesid "baby" nose and the extreme (!) skull and skeleton gracility (maybe the woman is about 145 cm tall)can not be found in Nordids because if yes they would not be Nordids any more. So I would suggest you show me one more feminine Nordid woman and we go on disccussing this very interesting matter. I am looking forward to your reply.Thank you very much , Mr. Holland. d'Artagnan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The libraries close to where I live do not have Knußmann’s book and it does not appear to be on sale by online book retailers, and hence I cannot check whether it really describes a concave nose as pedomorphic and ranks different populations on femininity, but if it is a recent anthropological treatise, I doubt that academics would be addressing such topics, i.e., either you are incorrectly representing the book or the authors have included absurdities in it. If one had to compare the masculinity-femininity of the physical form of different populations, here is how one could go about it. Take 3-D photographs of men and women from different populations; the form will be seen to vary as a function of size, sex and ethnic background. Then, controlling for sex and the ethnicity factor would allow one to compare populations with respect to the sexual dimorphism factor, and the anthropometric data could be seen in light of sex hormone profiles and differences in the androgen and estrogen receptors. If Rainer Knußmann (1996) has indeed ranked populations on femininity, then it is highly unlikely that this methodology was used as it has caught on only recently. Not using this methodology will generally translate to people using idiosyncratic definitions of the femininity of physical form to rank populations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Holland. Please add the Nesid woman dancer "www.note-music.co.uk/02.Voyager/06.Bali/BaliGirl.jpg" to your website as an example of the feminine Nesid women.I am looking forward to your reply.
d'Artagnan

d'Artagnan: It is high time for you to start emailing me off-topic comments rather than posting them here. How is your comment relevant to the reason why this section was set up? It is also time for you to advance beyond mid-twentieth century anthropology.

You have cited Ashley Montagu on the neotenous face form of the Japanese, completely oblivious to my citing current research(1) that neoteny doesn’t apply to human face shape; see page 6. Growth retardation among human skulls compared to ape skulls implies that the extent of jaw regression among humans is at most partly neotenous, but the jaws are most regressed among Northern Europeans, notably more protruding among Northeast/East Asians (Chinese, Chukchis, Mongolians, Koreans, Buryats and other Siberians) and, on average, even more protruding among mainland Southeast Asians (Vietnamese, Cambodian, Thai, Malay, Myanmar)(2).

Compared to the mainland Southeast Asian populations mentioned above, the Northeast/East Asian populations mentioned above also have flatter fronto-orbital regions, flatter zygomaxillary regions and the flattest nasal bones in East Asia are found in some Northeast Asian populations, i.e., mid-faces are less flat among the mainland southeast Asian populations, on average(2); see page 2. How then by your reasoning are the Southeast Asian populations such as the Malay/Thai more pedomorphic than the Northeast Asians?

More importantly, canonical correlation analysis of indices of facial flatness in the sagittal and transverse planes assessed by measuring skull samples from around the world revealed a statistically significant first factor, the standardized coefficients of which, shown below, reveal a tendency for deeper infraglabellar notches to correlate with sagittally flatter foreheads, more protruding jaws, a flatter fronto-orbital region and flatter nasal bones(2).

Whereas children do have flattened mid-faces, they do not have deep infraglabellar notches and protruding jaws. So how is the mid-facial flattening of the East Asian populations pedomorphic? Don’t you understand that the canonical correlation analysis and fossils of human ancestors point to the generalized skull form among humans, i.e., the mid-facial flattening of the East Asian populations considered appears to be differential retention of the ancestral form rather than pedomorphy? I have addressed all the data above within this site, but you either haven’t read it, don’t care or don’t understand it.

Your citations are outdated. Of the current references that you have cited, Knußmann’s book at most discusses published literature current in the early 1990s, and Chen’s paper (2003) is irrelevant since it is obvious that in a sexually dimorphic sexually reproducing species, the central tendency in the population will be for the masculine to prefer the feminine; there is no need to cite the behavior of algae. Early anthropologists did not have access to sophisticated statistical tools used by Hanihara and Penin et al. (the authors whose research is cited) and the three dimensional measurements made by Penin et al. Learn; read current anthropological literature.

Many white men do not find East Asian women appealing, and of the few who do, they prefer white women to East Asian women. Your assertions about the greater femininity of East Asian women are ridiculous. The Bali woman you cite does not appear to be feminine; she has small breasts and appears to have a tubular torso.

Stop commenting here unless it is relevant to the topic. Once again, email off-topic comments to me.

References

1. Penin, X., Berge, C., and Baylac, M., Ontogenetic study of the skull in modern humans and the common chimpanzees: neotenic hypothesis reconsidered with a tridimensional Procrustes analysis, Am J Phys Anthropol, 118, 50 (2002).

2. Hanihara, T., Frontal and facial flatness of major human populations, Am J Phys Anthropol, 111, 105 (2000).

Once again, I asserted that Nesid women have a much more feminine face and body type Nordid women (for breasts and buttocks my comments above). v. Rudolf Martin, Karl Saller,Eickstedt Knußmann (1996) and me think so. I took your comments very , very serious , but now you call long-established facts "ridiculous".And again , you avoided the term "Nesid". Of course, it is ridiculous to call the "East Asians" (to use your term) feminine, as e.g. the Tungids and Eskimids are extremely masculine in many respects.Being a professor of anthropology myself and you seemingly a scholar of biology/anthropology , too,
I ask myself why you as an obviously brilliant scientist with a definitely unique website avoid
so much to acknowledge the extreme facial and body type feminity of the Nesids. As seems as your photos of other races a steatypygious Negritid girl, an Austarlid man etc. are meant to be kind of a "gothic " show as e.g. Stratz's "Women's Racial beauty " show much more appealing women from e.g. the Australid race despite your correct
assertions of their greater facial masculinity. A very critical thinker could assume that this is something like the ironic website "March of the Giants" were with the "ugly face trick" e.g. the Nordic race is presented as aesthetically inferior. I don't assume this, but someone could suspect so.If this would be the case what I don't think and hope, there could arise the accusation of Nazi-like methods, e.g. presenting the Jews in the propaganda film "The eternal Jew" having a "aesthetically" "inferior", "disgusting" and "offending" physical appearance.I consider these reasoning as basically belonging to this discussion, because everything starts with a guts feeling, I would like to know what your guts feeling about Nesid
women are despite your labeling them as more "masculine" than Europid women. As we anthropologists have an especially high responsibility towards mankind,could you please excuse my digging to the core of the issue which not only for historians of science is of great interest.Thank you very much , Mr. Holland. I am looking forward to your reply.
d'Artagnan

d'Artagnan: If you are an anthropologist and wish to educate the public, believing that you have a responsibility toward humankind to do so, then I recommend that you familiarize yourself with current anthropological literature, avoid the use of outdated/obscure terminology and set up a website since publishing in journals will only expose your work to a handful of academics.

There are no long-established facts about the femininity-pedomorphy equation like you have stated, the concept of neoteny as you have used and the mid-facial flattening of “Nesid” and other East Asian populations being an example of pedomorphy as my citations and comments amply illustrate. You have ignored evidence that mid-facial flattening is less among “Nesids” than among Northeast Asians, on average, making the “Nesids” less facially pedomorphic than Northeast Asians by your reasoning.

In my previous comment, I specified the mainland Southeast Asian populations being addressed, i.e., there is no need to use outdated and obscure labels such as “Nesid” or “Palaungid.”

You want me to acknowledge the “extreme facial and body type feminity of the Nesids”? Where is your documentation of such extreme femininity? I am not interested in “so and so said this.” Come up with pictures of their physiques which show greater femininity than that of the feminine European women documented in the attractive women section.

Let me make it clear that if you repeat your assertion about the mid-facial flattening of any adult human population being pedomorphic and thereby feminine then you will need to explain the results from the canonical correlation analysis presented above, as well as the facial flattening data provided by Hanihara, and show how the finds fit in with your statement or else you are not welcome to continue commenting here. And no, I haven’t labeled “Nesid” women more masculine than European women. I am interested in the question that is title of this entry, not attaching masculine-feminine labels to different populations.

Regarding the pictures of the African with a protruding backside and the Australian that you believe to not be attractive, these pictures are shown in the context of extreme contrasts, whereby it is not necessary to select pictures based on attractiveness or representativeness. Therefore, your stated concerns are not applicable.

Let us start systematically with the about 36 human races http://209.85.129.104/search?q=cache:YOPN0F99550J:www.snpa.nordish.net/c...
Do you acknowledge the about 36 distinct races of mankind (see especially the colour photos by Glowatzki from the 1970s confirmed by Knußmann,Germany's no.1 of anthropology, in 1996) ? Then we take Knußmann's 1996 confirmation of the Nesids as the most feminine race and the comparability of all races concerning femininity/masculinity (and therefore attractiveness to non-androgynous men, Max Hartmann, Knußmann).(s. e.g.www.dewa.com/big/2001/6.jpg representing the average racial femininity of the Nesid women being much more feminine than the viragos of e.g. Osteuropid type from e.g. Zarys Antropologii Polski on the first-mentioned site;Schwidetzkis "Racial history of mankind" confirms this,too).Do you agree ?
There are, as Knußmann writes , some exceptions of the Nesid femininity, but the overwhelming number of their features are feminine/paedomorphous.
Mankind is paedomorphous as a whole (John Randal Baker,Race,1974, Oxford University Press), but some races are extremely paedomorphous and therefore have retained the least ancestral traits. In contrast to your cited studies , we have to compare modern races with the old ancestral forms of e.g. homo habilis or homo erectus , not with pleistocene men which themselves could have been proto-Europids or proto-Mongolids (logical fallacy,petitio principii).It is even assumed that racial differentiation could have started with homo erectus about 500000 years ago (!).
Additionally , it seems that you rule out even the possibility of facial and body type paedomorphosis(= femininity) being attractive to men due to your obvious Christian Anglo-American cultural background ("It should also be noted that normal developmental processes are expected to orient a person toward sexually mature individuals rather than sexually immature individuals. Therefore, pedomorphy is not a correlate of beauty, and more attractive features that appear to be paedomorphic are either somewhat more feminine than average features (e.g., less prominent noses and broader faces, controlling for other factors) and thereby more attractive in women or somewhat more gracile than average features and thereby more attractive in both men and women."One could label this "scientific paedophobia" .This is counterintuitive,not substantiated by facts, in total contrast to Knußmann's unique manual (1996) and my reasoning.
Thank you very much, Mr. Holland. I am looking forward to your reply.d'Artagnan

d'Artagnan: This discussion is not productive. The classification of human populations and attaching labels to them are not relevant to this section. Besides, you are supposed to email off-topic comments to me. Arguments are not made by authority in science but by evidence. What evidence is there that “Nesid” women are more feminine than others? This evidence has to be in the form of sex hormone/steroid receptor profiles and/or showing that the purported characteristics that you are labeling more feminine, such as the greater mid-facial flattening of the “Nesids” compared to Europeans, are caused by increased feminization.

Now you have said that humans are pedomorphous as a whole, and some populations are extremely pedomorphic and thereby least retain ancestral features. Humans weigh less than gorillas and could be considered pedomorphous on this count by your criteria, but humans are larger than a closer relative, chimpanzees. Therefore, what kind of pedomorphy characterizes humans? Flattened noses are pedomorphic according to you, but the nasal bones in the great apes are flatter than among humans. How is this possible if humans are more pedomorphous than apes? If you consider the lower jaw, who do you think has the most overall derived, i.e., least ancestral, lower jaw? Why do “Nesid” women have larger teeth than European women if they are more feminine and less likely to retain ancestral features? The citation for the teeth size find is:

The Pleistocene samples that I have talked about are not from a particular region; they are from humans populations all over the globe and reveal more or less flat mid-faces. It seems that I have wasted my time posting the results from the canonical correlation analysis; why can’t you understand that the mid-facial flattening of East Asian populations is an ancestral feature, not something feminine or pedomorphic? Why have you repeatedly ignored evidence that mid-facial flattening is greater in Northeast Asia than in mainland Southeast Asia and thereby the mainland Southeast Asians are less feminine/pedomorphic by your criteria?

I do not have an Anglo-Christian background, and any background is irrelevant as far as the central tendency of erotic preferences in a population goes. This central tendency obviously is to prefer sexually mature young adults. I need to cite evidence for this? Why would it be otherwise? Fertility and fecundity drop as one moves away from young adults. Like I said, “more attractive features that appear to be paedomorphic are either somewhat more feminine than average features (e.g., less prominent noses and broader faces, controlling for other factors) and thereby more attractive in women or somewhat more gracile than average features and thereby more attractive in both men and women.”

This discussion is completely useless as far as the question that is the title is concerned. I may address additional comments by you if you email me, but please don’t post here anymore.

The question was if we can compare the attractiveness of women from different populations. The answer is yes, and I was the first to introduce the two relevant anthropological arguments: femininity is attractive to non-androgynous Nordish men (Rainer Knußmann,Max Hartmann;the "European consensus" as you called it in cultural terms); the about 36 races exist , have great relevance to aesthetic reasoning, and can be classified on a continuum of masculine-feminine with the Nesids on the feminine end. In your showing Europeanization as feminization and therefore more attractive to non-androgynous men, it is obvious that you compare the European woman to a
Nilotoid mulatta. Compared to a Nesid , it would have been impossible to conclude a greater femininity. Of course there may be single traits
that are more masculine in the Nesids, but the feminine traits are overwhelming.
Rather strange are two comments of yours despite rejecting me nonchalantly as a serious discussion partner.You wrote above:"The libraries close to where I live do not have Knußmann’s book and it does not appear to be on sale by online book retailers, and hence I cannot check whether it really describes a concave nose as pedomorphic and ranks different populations on femininity, but if it is a recent anthropological treatise, I doubt that academics would be addressing such topics, i.e., either you are incorrectly representing the book or the authors have included absurdities in it." This could be labeled similar to the reasoning of an eight-year old who thinks that something stops existing after he stands behind a curtain and he himself cannot see anything any more.It illustrates well the Tolstoy syndrom in which you obviously are. A strange reaction of a scientist like you, but I gave you the ISBN so you can order the book easily.Secondly,
you admitted "If one were to consider the gracilization and size of the gonial region, one would classify Northern European women as the most feminine. If one were to positively relate backside protrusion to femininity, sub-Saharan African women would be ranked as the most feminine and East Asian women the least, but if we consider muscularity to be negatively related to femininity, then sub-Saharan African women would be ranked the most masculine and south Asian and southeast Asian women the most feminine. If stature is conceptualized to be negatively related to femininity, then pygmy women would be the most feminine". So you are very well aware of the classical concept of femininity, but you label it "idiosyncratic". But you also use on your page the classical dichotymy of masculine-feminine, there is nothing else. So it would be difficult for you to present m o s t Nesid features as non-feminine(despite from citing Japanese authors who are obviously afraid to be seen as members of a paedomorphous race and so denying the Mongolid paedomorphosis incorrectly; numerous others example can be given , e.g. Franz Boas' Jewish scholars who controlled world anthropology after 1945 having a secret Jewish agenda; see. e.g. Kevin MacDOnald "The Culture of Critique",2002). Additionally, your classification can be seen as "idiosyncratic" , because you ackwoledge the buttocks and breasts and a certain waist-to-hip ratio as feminine ("hourglass figure") , but not e.g. a gracile body of about 158cm whichNordish women definitely have not compared to Nesid women on average.The consequence of your ideas are the völkische death of the Nordish race.Drawing the attention of men towards Nordish Europid women will help the extinction of the Nordish race until the end of the 21th century.This is of course not your intention , but given no political shift , this would be the inevitable consequence.Can women be feminine whose majority is so deeply infected with feminism and viragodom? Definitely not.But I can only emphasize again that I am a fan of yours and your website and I only want to help you as I have about 40 years of experience as a physical anthropologist in leading positions of the science establishment. Additionally you seem to be the author of a book on homosexuality and the homosexuals spreading AIDS predominantly , pointing out the biological nature of homosexuality, ideas which I support totally. Thank you very much , Mr. Holland.I am looking forward to your reply. d'Artagnan

For less male hormons of Mongolids see Jean Philippe Rushton and his extensice charts(wikipedia article).Primitivity and paedomorphosis are antagonistic basically , so a flat nose can mean both, we have to differentiate. The Nesid nose resembles the human child form differing from the very robust nose of the homo erectus.The single trait of the long teeth of the Mongolids (not the Nesids as you stated) are explained by Ashley Montagu (alias Israel Ehrenberg)in "Growing young" devoted to Mongolid neoteny/paedomorphosis : the neotenization
of the Mongolids left out some features, the jaws got more gracile but some upper teeth were left out.I am astonished that you do not know this literature. Thank you very much Mr. Holland, I am looking to your reply. d'Artagnan

You cannot deny the Nesids femininity by only the mid-facial flattening . Even if it were the case as you wrote (but see my homo-erectus-argument) ,the Nesids are more feminine (due to a overwhelming number of paedomorphous traits) than the Palaungid , Tungid and Sinid Asians. There is a racial continuum of feminine to masculine among the Mongolids as follows: Nesid-Palaungid-Tungid-Sinid-(Turanid).Thank you very much. I am looking forward to your reply, Mr. Holland. d'Artagnan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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