Eurasians more attractive than ugly Caucasians, not average Caucasians: a reply to Gillian Rhodes
Recently, John Jay Ray posted part of a media report on a study alleging greater attractiveness ratings of Eurasian faces compared to Caucasian and Asian faces. Surprisingly, John did not comment on the methodology used in the study, but its ridiculous absurdity needs to be exposed.
The study consisted of three experiments. The basic procedure involved blending pictures of some Caucasian faces together to form a Caucasian composite, similarly producing an Asian composite, blending pictures of Caucasians and Asians to form a hypothetical Eurasian composite, and then having Caucasians and Asians rate the attractiveness of the composites. The Caucasians in all three experiments were presumably white Australians, the Asians in the first two experiments were Japanese, and the Asians and Asian parents of the Eurasians in the third experiment were from diverse Mongoloid populations.
The authors wrote:
The disadvantage of computer-generated mixed-race composites is that they may not precisely capture the appearance of mixed-race individuals.
Damn right! However, the major problem is not one of precision but of accuracy. Caucasoid/Mongoloid hybrids generally look more Mongoloid than Caucasoid because: 1) Mongoloids have retained more ancestral traits such as robust cheekbones, robust mandibles, and various primitive (ancestral) indices of facial flatness [American Journal of Physical Anthropology 111:105-134; year 2000]; 2) some trait variation is due to dominant and epistatic genes; and 3) the genes associated with primitive features likely comprise of an excess of dominant genes with respect to the newer mutations behind the more-recently-originating facial features disproportionately found among Caucasoids.
Nevertheless, it is still instructive to compare the attractiveness of hypothetical Eurasian composite faces with that of Caucasians and Asians. The first experiment had two parts: in part one, both shape and color were allowed to vary; in part two, only shape was allowed to vary. The researchers also constructed super-Caucasian and super-Asian faces by exaggerating the race differences (in practice, they exaggerated only some race differences and stupidly made the Caucasoid redder and the Asian yellower when they should have been focusing on facial features).
In experiment one, “both sexes preferred own-race averages to other-race averages for male faces, and rated own-race and other-race averages equally attractive for female faces.” “The most salient result was that mixed-race composites were more attractive than own-race composites, particularly in the opposite sex.”
In experiment two, the participants could continuously vary facial composites--based upon experiment one--from super-Caucasian to super-Asian using a slider, and specified the face they found most attractive; this experiment, too, had the same two parts as in experiment one. Once again, the most attractive ratings were given to some type of mixed average, with both Caucasians and Asians preferring mixed averages for male faces that leaned more toward Caucasian.
The third experiment also recruited Eurasians and evaluated the attractiveness ratings of Caucasian composite vs. Asian composite vs. hypothetical Eurasian composite vs. actual Eurasian composite. In this experiment, the attractiveness ratings and also perceived health of actual Eurasians, on average, were greater than that of Caucasians and Asians. However, in contrast to the first two experiments, the hypothetical Eurasian composite was not rated as more attractive than the Caucasian composite, a result that has been previously reported in a different study.
The four figures from the two parts of the first experiment are reproduced below. The authors scaled the images so that the distance between the pupils of the eyes is constant in all cases; verify this and the following by placing a grid on the image in photoshop or equivalent. In reality, the distance between the eyes is notably greater among Asians than Caucasians, on average. In Figures 1-4 below, if the distance between the eyes appears greater among the Asians, then it is because of narrower eyes, which is true of actual Asians, but the bony portion of the skull in between the eyes is also notably wider in actual Asians, and this does not appear to be the case in the images used by Gillian Rhodes for the attractiveness ratings. Asian faces are also, on average, notably broader than Caucasian faces, but the width of the faces at the cheekbones is similar between the average Caucasian and the average Japanese in the pictures provided by Rhodes. Caucasians also have longer noses than Asians, on average, but in Figures 1-4 below, the average nose lengths are either similar between the groups or longer in Asians. The upper nasal region, which forms only a part of the bony portion in between the eyes, is notably narrower in Asians compared to Caucasians (see Figure 12 here), and if one observed Mongoloids whose upper nasal region is not so flat so as to obscure the difference between the nasal bones and the surrounding bone, then a narrow upper nasal region can often be observed. In Figures 1-4 below, where the upper nasal width is discernable among the Asian types or those with notable Asian admixture, the upper nasal width appears to be comparable between the Asians and the Caucasians.
The average female Caucasian in Figure 1 looks like an average of obese white women; notice the large cheekbones and facial breadth. Past research has shown that composites are more attractive than the individual faces comprising the composite. Therefore, the individuals that went into the average female Caucasian likely disproportionately included ugly, obese white women (possibly of mostly Irish ancestry). In this case, the blending appears to have improved the attractiveness rating from ugly to unattractive. When the skin-color factor is removed, both the average male and female Caucasians in Figures 3 and 4 actually look like they have part Mongoloid ancestry! Observe the extent of the differences between the average Caucasian and the mixed average in Figure 4.
Few people find flat-faced Mongoloids more unattractive than me, yet even I agree that the mixed average female in Figures 1 and 3 is better looking than the average Caucasian female, and this is because the average Caucasian female face in Gillian Rhodes’ study is the face of an unattractive, obese white woman. The only composite in Figures 1-4 that approaches the classic Caucasoid is the super-Caucasoid-50 composite in Figure 2, which, to me, is far better looking than any other male composite in Figures 1-6. On the other hand, the average Japanese male and female faces look better than most Japanese that I have observed, and whereas it is understandable that the typical Caucasian will prefer a Eurasian face to an Asian face, it does not seem likely that the higher attractiveness ratings of Eurasians than Asians by the Asians is because the Asian average is ugly or unattractive; it seems likely that the Japanese have a bias toward less primitive facial features, and European admixture is bound to make their faces less primitive looking.
Figure 1: Composite female faces used to obtain attractiveness ratings by Gillian Rhodes.
Figure 2: Composite male faces used to obtain attractiveness ratings by Gillian Rhodes.
Figure 3: Composite female faces used to obtain attractiveness ratings by Gillian Rhodes; skin color held constant.
Figure 4: Composite male faces used to obtain attractiveness ratings by Gillian Rhodes; skin color held constant.
Figures 5 and 6 below show the pictures used in the third experiment. One reason behind the attractiveness of the actual Eurasian composites (EurasianAV) in Figures 5 and 6 is the narrower face due to less prominent cheekbones, narrower than even the Caucasian! The Eurasian facial breadth should be in between the European (narrow) and the Asian (broad).
Figure 5: Composite female faces used to obtain attractiveness ratings by Gillian Rhodes; actual Eurasians included (EurasianAv).
Figure 6: Composite male faces used to obtain attractiveness ratings by Gillian Rhodes; actual Eurasians included (EurasianAv).
Figures 7 and 8 illustrate some of the sampling problems in Gillian Rhodes’ study.
Figure7: Caucasians, on average, have narrower faces, longer noses and less distance between the eyes compared to Mongoloids. The pictures shown do not focus on attractiveness; just race differences, instead.
Figure 8: Compare facial breadth, thickness of lips and distance between the eyes. The white male does not have a classic Caucasoid nose.
Notice that Gillian Rhodes has not addressed the attractiveness of facial profile (side view). I’d be damned if Caucasians consider facial flattening resulting from Mongoloid admixture as more attractive than the attractive Caucasoid norm. Additionally, how can the following traits resulting from Mongoloid admixture among Caucasians be considered more attractive than the norm among Caucasians: reduced height, less muscularity in males, slanted eyes, flatter buttocks, smaller breasts in females, relatively shorter limbs, relatively longer trunk, and a smaller penis?
Figure 9 shows the remarkable extent of facial flatness found among some Mongoloids that no mentally sound white should find remotely attractive.
Figure 9: The facial flattening of Margaret Cho.
Figure 10 compares a Caucasoid and a Mongoloid skull. Note that in spite of the overall facial flatness of the Mongoloid skull, the Mongoloid has a more protruding jaw than the Caucasian (also see here), although not as protruding as in the Negro. An example of a Mongoloid female is shown with teeth similar to the Mongoloid skull in Figure 10; note her nose length.
Figure 10: Caucasoid (left) vs. Mongoloid (right) skull.
Further, if the hair of the Caucasoid children shown below were blackened due to Mongoloid admixture, would it improve their looks?
![Would black hair look better on these blond children? Incidentally, the [Swedish] children are entertaining Asians via singing in both Swedish and Chinese.](http://majorityrights.com/images/uploads/children.jpg)
Figure 11: Would black hair look better on these children? Incidentally, the children are entertaining Asians via singing in both Swedish and Chinese.
Gillian Rhodes goes on to postulate that the greater perceived health and attractiveness of actual Eurasians in her study could possibly be explained by the positive effects of increased genetic diversity, and she specifically focuses on a single DNA locus where a high level of diversity is required for health reasons: the major histocompatability complex (MHC; part of the genetics of the immune system). Well, there are multiple DNA loci to consider; about 25,000 genes to be more precise. And, in regard to the health consequences of racial mixing, this is a must read for Gillian Rhodes.
This should be enough for now, but I will post more on this topic later.
Trackbacks (0) | Comments (209) | Tell-a-Friend
The trackback URL for this entry is: http://majorityrights.com/index.php/trackback/1084/jUwAFk3c/
Trackbacks:
Comments:
By the way, here are two statements in the paper by Gillian Rhodes and colleagues that reflect on the position taken by them on race:
We use the term race to refer to visually distinct social groups.
If parents from different races are less similar genetically (on average) than ones from the same race (Penn 2002), then their (mixed-race) offspring would be more likely to inherit different alleles from each parent and have higher levels of heterozygosity. Note that the assumption here is not that races form genetically distinct groups, only that geographically distinct populations have different locally adapted gene complexes (Endler 1977).
That needed saying, JR. Not that I couldn’t have said it faster: Never expect the truth from a race-denier.
But maybe your way was more entertaining. Thanks.
Posted by Guessedworker on Wednesday, June 29, 2005 at 05:33 PM | #
JR, thanks for deconstructing that moronic “Eurasians are more attractive” study. The averaged Caucasian female faces were indeed quite unattractive. In fact, it seems like the authors (intentionally?) used Caucasians of less attractivness than average, and East Asians of greater attractiveness than is their average.
One question to JR - do you believe that Irish females are particularly unattractive? You specifically mention the possibility that the white females used, which you term as obese an unattractive, may have been Irish. My personal observations are that Irish-derived females are usually more, not less, attractive than the white American average - although I do find that Irish tend to be a bit less “gracile” than other Northwest Europeans (a “Brunn” component perhaps?).
As regards this comment by the authors:-
Note that the assumption here is not that races form genetically distinct groups, only that geographically
distinct populations have different locally adapted gene complexes (Endler 1977).
... that is an outright distortion, since population genetics studies that are capable of distinguishing racial groups (eg, Tang et al, Ray et al) are based upon neutral gene loci, not “locally adapted gene complexes.” Now, as Bamshad has shown, racial groups can be distinguished using either neutral loci or functional (possibly “locally adapted") genes. Thus, genetic differences between groups are both kinship-based and adaptive. To put it simply and bluntly - they seem to me to be untrustworthy race deniers. Don’t they know the current state of genetic science? Their Caucasian and Asian subjects could be distinguished easily by DNAP - do they deny that as well?
Furthermore, I agree with JR, that the “health” implications concentrating solely on MHC are misleading. I can also note that in the absence of alien immigration and the introduction of novel pathogens, “locally adapted” MHC would be quite sufficient for adaptiveness, as it has been for millenia.
Posted by JW Holliday on Wednesday, June 29, 2005 at 06:51 PM | #
Hmm...how fascinating. From what I’ve garnered from your post, many of the problems of this study stem from the fact that the computer models it uses just aren’t accurate portrayals of human beings, and thus, not very useful as barometers of “beauty.” That being the case, are there any studies out there which have used actual Caucasoid/Mongoloid hybrids rather than computer simulations? You repeatedly state that the average facial features of Asians should render them unattractive to whites, but this assertion would be buttressed if you found a study (or perhaps conducted one yourself? :)) which proved that on average, Asian’s aren’t very attractive. This could probably be done by taking a random sample of whites, random sample of Mongoloids, and random sample of Caucasian/Mongoloid crossbreeds, and have Caucasians and Asians rate each face individually--this way, they’d be judging actual people rather than computer composites.
Posted by Amman on Wednesday, June 29, 2005 at 06:55 PM | #
JW Holliday,
Certainly, there are many attractive Irish women out there, but as you have noted, on average, their facial features tend to be less gracile compared to Northern Europeans as in southern Sweden, and they are also disproportionately obese. This is why I am guessing that several Irish women went into the Caucasian average. Besides, you may want to look at this picture of Gillian Rhodes (a redhead) with others in her lab, several of whom are also redheads and either obese/overweight or on their way to excess body fat. Download the picture to a specified folder and then view it; it will be larger than at the webpage linked to above.
The extent to which Gillian Rhodes is aware of current genetics is not known to me; she is a psychologist, and given her study, I am fairly confident that she at least doesn’t know much about physical anthropology.
Your point about aliens bringing in pathogens is a good one and deserves a decent post by itself. The aliens bring all kinds of multidrug-resistant and deadly diseases to the West, and I have recently heard that California’s economic scenario a couple of years from now will be notably worse, thanks to the pouring in of Mexican illegals with multidrug-resistant tuberculosis, among other factors.
Posted by J Richards on Wednesday, June 29, 2005 at 08:41 PM | #
Amman,
Read the post carefully; the third experiment used actual Eurasians to come up with a Eurasian composite in addition to the hypothetical Eurasian composite. In the third experiment, the hypothetical Eurasian composite was not rated as more attractive than the Caucasian composite, but the actual Eurasian composite was, and a visual examination reveals that facial narrowing likely played a major role in its higher rating. Eurasians are expected to have facial breadth intermediate to Europeans and Asians; so, we are dealing with notable sampling bias in addition to problematic methodology such as equalizing interpupil distance.
As far as white opinion of Asian (Mongoloid) attractiveness goes, this should be fairly intuitive to a white person. None of my white acquaintances or friends have ever said anything positive about the Mongoloid appearance, and whites generally do not aesthetically appreciate whites with large cheekbones, flattened noses or large jaws. Therefore, it is unlikely that they will generally aesthetically appreciate a population where these traits are the norm. Assuming that you have Caucasoid features, what do you think about Mongoloid facial features? Ignore skin color, just focus on the bone structure and soft tissue traits. A Hindoo acquaintance of mine, with a Caucasoid face, told me that Hindoos often refer to Mongoloids using a contemptuous term that translates to flat-faced; I don’t recall this slur, but I guess that whereas they do appreciate the light skin of the Northeastern-type Mongoloids, they dislike Mongoloid facial features.
Posted by J Richards on Wednesday, June 29, 2005 at 08:43 PM | #
Another factor is that they used two northern adapted populations for their estimates of effects of admixture. A mix of northern and tropical adapted groups would generate more anomalous looking mixes. The study is not such as could detect the effect of genes not being coadapted, resulting in discordant phenotypes.
Posted by John S Bolton on Wednesday, June 29, 2005 at 09:49 PM | #
Also, all the examples have perfectly symmetrical faces, thus smuggling in the assumption that the mixed race are no more likely than others to have outward signs of incompatible genes, such as would generate asymmetrical faces as well. Has a bit of sleight of hand been detected?
Posted by John S Bolton on Wednesday, June 29, 2005 at 09:56 PM | #
John S. Bolton,
The third experiment did use Eurasians with various Asiatic backgrounds, including S.E. Asian, which can be observed in the composites seen in Figures 5 and 6. Additionally, N.E. Asians are a lot more Northern-adapted than whites, given their thicker skins, fewer sweat glands, shorter limbs and better ability to generate body heat.
Speaking of symmetry, the study design prevents it from being assessed as blending cancels random right and left asymmetries, thereby increasing facial symmetry; so, this should not be considered a sleight of hand.
Posted by J Richards on Wednesday, June 29, 2005 at 10:55 PM | #
“ ‘Note that the assumption here is not that races form genetically distinct groups, only that geographically distinct populations have different locally adapted gene complexes’
“… that is an outright distortion, since population genetics studies that are capable of distinguishing racial groups ... are based upon neutral gene loci, not ‘locally adapted gene complexes.’ Now, as Bamshad has shown, racial groups can be distinguished using either neutral loci or functional (possibly ‘locally adapted’) genes. Thus, genetic differences between groups are both kinship-based and adaptive.” (—JW Holliday)
JW Holliday is right of course, but I want to go a little further than he does in being completely clear about that quote from the article, if I may: groups differing from one another with respect to “locally adapted gene complexes” amount to “genetically distinct groups.” For the author of the article to imply they don’t is something that can only be called mind-boggling considering this is supposed to be a “scientific paper.” The woman who wrote that statement is a moron and so’s the editor, peer-reviewer, and whoever else allowed that statement to go into the final draft. We all know the reason it happened, of course: people are falling all over themselves trying to be PeeCee. They literally cannot see elementary scientific reality.
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wednesday, June 29, 2005 at 11:56 PM | #
The other thing I meant to say was, it’s perfectly obvious, on seeing Miss Rhodes’ own photo, why she chose the particular kinds of caucasian female faces we deduce she must have, for averaging up in making the composites for the study: she didn’t want them to be better-looking than she. It’s hard enough for men to suppress the interests of their amour propre in pursuit of objectivity in science; for women it’s impossible: the woman who can do it hasn’t been born since the world began, scientist or no.
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thursday, June 30, 2005 at 12:08 AM | #
I did in fact comment on the methology. I said this in the comments:
“Nobody has noted that I didn’t say a word about the post. I just reproduced a news report. I could violently disagree with it for all anybody knows.
Ans as a matter of fact, as a cynical old psychologist, I do. All I think it shows is political correctness at work. People were expressing what they thought would be approved of.”
Posted by jonjayray on Thursday, June 30, 2005 at 01:27 AM | #
Ahh, yes, I see now. Guess I should have been reading a bit more carefully. Something you said interests me, though…
we are dealing with notable sampling bias in addition to problematic methodology such as equalizing interpupil distance.
How did Ms. Rhodes acquire her samples, anyways? I assumed she just picked random Asians and Whites, but if what you say is true, it’s unlikely random variation would have come up with a composite Asian and composite white which the experiment used. You mention that “a dispropotionate amount of ugly, obese white women (probably Irish) went into the white composite,” so do you know if Ms. Rhodes got most of her volunteers from an Irish neighborhood or something? That might explain the sampling bias.
As far as white opinion of Asian (Mongoloid) attractiveness goes, this should be fairly intuitive to a white person. None of my white acquaintances or friends have ever said anything positive about the Mongoloid appearance, and whites generally do not aesthetically appreciate whites with large cheekbones, flattened noses or large jaws. Therefore, it is unlikely that they will generally aesthetically appreciate a population where these traits are the norm. Assuming that you have Caucasoid features, what do you think about Mongoloid facial features? Ignore skin color, just focus on the bone structure and soft tissue traits. A Hindoo acquaintance of mine, with a Caucasoid face, told me that Hindoos often refer to Mongoloids using a contemptuous term that translates to flat-faced; I don’t recall this slur, but I guess that whereas they do appreciate the light skin of the Northeastern-type Mongoloids, they dislike Mongoloid facial features.
Well, I was actually wondering if there had been any large-scale studies of many whites proving this. The study you mention in this post is, of course, unreliable, since you’ve just deconstructed its methodology. I was wondering if anyone’s ever conducted an academic study of a sizable white population in which Asian features were met with marked, statistically significant distaste.
As for myself, I’m not a physical anthropologist, so I honestly couldn’t tell you whether I had “Caucasoid” facial features. I can say that I’m not fond of *very* flat-faced women, such as that second picture of Margaret Cho. I will say that I do have a preference for Asians, however--I have a special fondness for Japanese women, for instance. Of course, those are just my preferences, I don’t know whether other Bengalis feel the same way or not.
Posted by Amman on Thursday, June 30, 2005 at 02:57 AM | #
"Ridiculous absurdity”? Isn’t that a repetitive redundancy?
Posted by fingerling on Thursday, June 30, 2005 at 12:14 PM | #
One thing that I’ve always wondered in this vein which no one has brought up is whether the bolder, more aesthetically pleasing features of caucasians are partially responsible for the different directions taken by Oriental and Western art. There is nothing in the Orient to compare to the Renaissance and its ideals of human beauty. Talented artists in the East took their inspiration most commonly from nature and social scenes, not individuals--think Michelangelo’s “David” juxtaposed with Hokusai’s “The Wave”. Might this be because there was simply less in the way of human inspiration?
Posted by GayLikeAFox on Friday, July 1, 2005 at 02:42 AM | #
Oriental art tends to love conformabilities of appearance. Restriction of range is a problem for the study, too. When all are attractive of their type, because they’ve been averaged into symmetry, and away from any freakish deviations, which real populations have plenty of, the preferences expressed may greatly suffer from restriction of range. Looking at the super cauc 50’s in figures 1 and 2; they seem to have got NWEuropeans set as an extreme, with the less extreme composites representing rather plain Med types. In classical art, though, we see more sharp features for Greeks, say.
Posted by John S Bolton on Friday, July 1, 2005 at 03:00 AM | #
A Hindoo acquaintance of mine, with a Caucasoid face, told me that Hindoos often refer to Mongoloids using a contemptuous term that translates to flat-faced....
I have heard “pan face” from Italian-Americans.
Posted by ben tillman on Friday, July 1, 2005 at 05:38 PM | #
“pan face”
These unflattering comments about another race’s looks, rude in any other context one can think of (and certain to shock, obviously—they shock me and I’m pretty tough) are understandable here, where what draws them out is the way the powers that be keep pushing, pushing, pushing other races on us when we don’t want them pushed, pushed, pushed on us, and never ever ever stop their pushing, pushing, pushing, finally provoking frank language from those of us who are sick to death of being pushed ad infinitum. Sometimes boorish or malevolent people who can’t or won’t take a hint have to be told frankly exactly where to get off—told things like, “No, to be perfectly honest, I’m sorry, I don’t think white people need to improve their attractiveness by mixing with other races, be those races the yellows, the blacks, the browns, or what have you. We like our faces, our hair texture, our body builds, and our range of skin, hair, and eye coloration just fine thank you and no, we’re not going to go out and find someone of another race to mix with—now bog off please, and annoy someone else, will you? There’s a good chap!” Sometimes even after that, rude people just don’t get it, and simply have to be told off in very plain language as there’s no other way to get them to leave you the hell alone. “Listen, you crude boor—that makes the millionth time you’ve told me I’ve got to mix racially with the Orientals to improve my looks, the millionth time I’ve said I don’t think I need to, I like my race’s looks just fine thank you very much, and the millionth time you won’t take no for an answer but keep coming back trying to tell me the same crap, that I’d be better off mixing. Well, it happens—to speak quite plainly since you don’t seem to understand English—that I’ve never found Oriental faces all that attractive—in fact, that’s putting it politely: the truth is I don’t find them attractive at all. I don’t like them—which happens to be none of your damned business so I don’t even know why I’m telling you this, except you can’t take a hint! Their faces are too broad and flat for my taste, if you must know, and I vastly prefer the narrower, more three-dimensional faces of European whites. So take your flat Oriental faces, find the nearest high cliff, and take a running leap you and the Oriental faces both, and STOP BOTHERING ME!”
Anyone will be polite till you try to ram things down his throat, things he’s indicated repeatedly over and over he does not want rammed down his throat. At that point he changes from polite to frank. If the frankness shocks—if you don’t like what you hear—just remember who pushed him into it; who left him no choice if he wished to make himself understood at long last; who was deaf to everything he said when he was still trying to be polite: It was you.
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Saturday, July 2, 2005 at 01:52 AM | #
John Jay Ray,
When you posted the news item, you didn’t comment on it within the post. We expect a more scholarly critique from someone with a background in psychology compared to a brief statement in the comments sections.
Amman,
I am just guessing disproportionately high Irish ancestry among the Caucasian women used by Gillian Rhodes, given the facial features of the composite. Rhodes and many others in her lab are redheads (see picture linked to in a comment above) and also often overweight/obese, which would be consistent with disproportionate Irish ancestry. I do not know if there are any large-scale studies showing that whites generally do not hold the Mongoloid face in high regard; but I would expect this to not be disputed by most whites.
Fingerling,
You are correct in that “ridiculous absurdity” is redundant, but take it as a notable absurdity among absurdities.
Posted by J Richards on Saturday, July 2, 2005 at 11:10 AM | #
Gaylikeafox,
Non-Caucasoids hold their looks in higher regard than the extent to which Caucasoids rate the looks of non-Caucasoids, and it is unlikely that Asian or African artists never came across human beauty within their own populations that would prompt them to come up with hyper-realistic masterpieces of art such as Michaelangelo’s David. This would be especially true of a number of African societies with semi-nudity as the norm, wherein it cannot be argued that puritanical attitudes somehow repressed hyper-realistic depiction of the human form in art. The most plausible answer why fewer non-Europeans have been observed in the production of hyper-realistic depictions of the human form via sketching, painting and sculpting is that just as in the production of geniuses, whites have produced the vast majority of artistically gifted individuals. The most artistically difficult challenge is to realistically portray the human form; portraying nature/animals in realistic form is an easier challenge because minor or mild inaccuracies will be often overlooked.
John S. Bolton,
You mention sharp-featured human art forms from classical Greece. Well, the Greek upper class then descended from Northern tribes--such as the Dorians--that moved into the Greek peninsula...thus the sharp features, which strongly contrast with that of most Greeks today.
Posted by J Richards on Saturday, July 2, 2005 at 11:14 AM | #
J. Richards,
I agree with you in regards to sub-Saharan Africa. But East Asians are certainly a high-IQ bunch, and there is much beautiful art in that part of the world. What interests me and prompted my post is that East Asian artists didn’t try, try, try to capture the human form, give up and turn to natural scenes because they were easier. As far as I’m aware, they didn’t show any interest in sculpting hyper-realistic humans; their minds just don’t seem to bend that way. Why? From what does the Western appreciation for individualism stem?
Posted by GayLikeAFox on Sunday, July 3, 2005 at 01:49 AM | #
Individualism goes back as far as Aristotle, at least. The dominance of mystic holism over against the raw materials of something like individualism, was exhaustive in Asia. There could be no science, or precisely realistic representations informed by theories of the same tendency, in places dominated by a feeling that the function of almost any sort of representation is to vaguely suggest, and to mystify. Chinese maps from the seventeenth century appear to be centuries behind those of Europe, and it would have been because it was considered a crime against authority, to care about the truth. On the other side, the cave paintings from 35,000 years ago are European and are thousands of years ahead of the rest of the world in terms of realistic representation. It takes a lot to defy authoritative pronouncements, which are presented also as coming from a leftist priority on taking care of the poor; and genetic factors could be part of what is needed.
Posted by John S Bolton on Sunday, July 3, 2005 at 07:39 PM | #
Gaylikeafox,
N.E. Asians are comparable to Europeans in average IQ, but when it comes to being able to hyper-realistically depict the human form in art, we are not talking about the ability of the average person; we are talking about the gifted. As in the notable underrepresentation of N.E. Asians among scientific and engineering geniuses (I will be addressing this topic in a future post), it is likely that they are also notably underrepresented among the artistically gifted, which should translate to fewer N.E. Asians with the ability to hyper-realistically depict the human form as in Michelangelo’s David.
Speaking of the Western appreciation of the individual, as John S. Bolton has suggested, genetic factors cannot be ruled out, but it is unlikely that the notable overrepresentation of Europeans among scientific geniuses or highly creative people can simply be attributed to the greater individualism of Western societies compared to Chinese/Japanese societies--for the simple reason that much of the cutting edge achievements in science in any given generation are often very abstruse and may require significant investment of effort, whereby it is unlikely that less emphasis on conformity would either generate a desire to study abstruse topics at length or somehow be entirely responsible for novel insights/solutions.
Posted by J Richards on Tuesday, July 5, 2005 at 11:44 PM | #
Being a Caucasian (Caucasoid), I can tell you I’ve never found Mongoloid faces attractive. It’s not just their looks, it’s the whole appearance that I dislike.
They are sexually amorous yet woefully ungifted (smaller reproductive organs). Their eyes are small and hair straight like porcupines (lol). Women have flat buttocks and breasts, men are not muscular at all. Lack of body hair and feminine voice makes them a feminine race but does not make their women particularly attractive.
Their women have flat broad noses, small eyes, flat breasts and buttocks, smaller vaginas, less height, display greater lasciviousness (anywhere in the world, you’ll find more mongoloid whores than their proportion of the general population would suggest).
And all that crap that Lynn came out with mongoloids having higher IQ is bs. Probably because his wife is a mongoloid or maybe he himself is half a mongoloid, he boosts the mongoloid morale.
The fact remains very few (if at all ANY) mongoloid geniuses ever existed. Almost all inventions, scientific disciplines, great theories and what not, have been brought about due to ingenuity displayed by a handful of uber genius caucasoids (not your average joe blow caucasoid).
I lived in a mongoloid majority country which, according to Lynn, has IQs in excess of 100. Yet I have never come across ONE genius in that country.
In my own caucasoid country (which, according to Lynn, is only average in IQ) I’ve come across numerous geniuses. Not that all inhabitants in my own country are geniuses; in fact, most are plain dumb.
But then again, that can be due to part mongoloid admixtures. I hold those “caucasoids” (as in those who are phenotypically caucasian) with slit eyes (or very small eyes) in much greater contempt than I would a caucasian with oval eyes even if he were rather ordianary in intelligence.
Here’s a caucasian with mongoloid admixture (and hence, someone whom I feverishly hate).
In fact most caucasians I see have very small eyes; probably most europeans aren’t pure caucasians anyway. Still whatever pure caucasians remain, they have much larger eyes than any mongoloids.
Heineken,
Here are a few comments concerning your post. You mention Asians having broad-flat noses; they do have flat noses, but you are likely mistaking the increased breadth of the face portion between the eyes among them [compared to whites] with a broad nose. The upper nasal region (nasal bones, not entire distance between the eyes) of Asians is narrower among East Asians than whites, on average, and this may not be visible in a real Asian—as opposed to an Asian skull—given the flattening that is seen in the face of Asians. In regard to the greater alleged lasciviousness of Asian women, S.E. Asian nations are often poor, and hence supply many prostitutes throughout the world. On the other hand, if you look up venereal diseases statistics in the 2000 British NATSAL survey, a population-representative study, or equivalent data from elsewhere in the West, then East Asian women have lower rates of venereal disease than white women, and are best conceived as being more sexually restrained, on average, than white or black women. I myself am not yet clear about the IQ comparisons that Richard Lynn talks about; his data concerning higher average N.E. Asian IQ compared to whites likely mostly come from non-representative surveys of N.E. Asians, although even if they are true, I agree that there is much evidence that Asians are underrepresented among geniuses. Lastly, I would urge you to exercise caution in inferring other-population admixture based on a single trait, such as the eyes in the white male that you point to. In regard to many facial traits, variation within a population exceeds the variation between populations, i.e., the extent of other-population admixture is best judged by looking at multiple traits rather than a single trait. The white male shown likely does not have much significant Asian ancestry. What you seem to refer to as a “pure Caucasian” is likely someone that closely fits an ideal template that you have in mind, and this template is probably an attractive person that is clearly distinct from non-whites on all counts pertaining to racial physical variation, i.e., in this sense, many whites would not be pure enough for you.
Posted by J Richards on Saturday, August 27, 2005 at 05:56 AM | #
J Richards
I have a hard time believing this is a white person. To me her eyes, flat/(broad?) nose, higher cheekbone, round head, hair and many other features make her as much of a mongoloid as hu jinpao/kozimuri (spell?)(the chinese/japanese national leaders). Skin colour taken alone can not reveal racial heritage.
same with the following light haired/fair skinned/light eyed guy here
his broad nose (perhaps flat as well), small eyes, relative lack of facial hair (5 o’clock shadow/stubble not pronounced) clearly indicates mongoloid admixture to me. He isn’t a pure mongoloid nor a pure caucasoid. For mixed-race men, having blue eyes/blond hair isn’t unusual if they inherit those genes from a pure caucasoid parent. In this guy’s case, I suppose his face exhibits more caucasoid traits than mongoloid, so that would imply he’s mostly had caucasoid ancestors with a smattering of mongoloids somewhere along the line.
That’s my take on it. It isn’t really the most scientifically correct analysis you’ll ever find :-).
Heineken,
I don’t see your point in posting the picture of Margaret Cho above. Who is claiming that Margaret Cho is white? No one!
You are right that your analysis of the next picture—that you posted again—is not very scientific. To better understand your flawed reasoning, start with the figure below.
The figure above shows considerable overlap between races regarding the shape of the upper nose; see the context of this figure on this page (Figure 12). Now, genetic analyses based on multiple genes will clearly distinguish the races examined in the figure above, and if you use a large enough number of genes, then individuals taken from these races will be assigned to their respective races with close to 100% accuracy by a computer that does not know which DNA sample comes from which race. In other words, even though there can be a considerable overlap between races in regard to individual traits, when one considers a cluster of traits, the overlap is sharply reduced. Thus, for instance, the considerable overlap between races in regard to the upper nasal region shape notwithstanding in the figure above, when the whole face is considered, the vast majority of individuals picked at random from the races examined will be correctly assigned to their respective races via an examination of facial features, including skin.
It happens to be the case that the majority of the variation in individual traits typically exists within populations and only a minority exists between populations. Therefore, not only should racial classification be based on a cluster of traits but also evidence for other-population admixture should be based on a cluster of traits. If you consider the overall appearance of the white person shown, the odds are very low that he has substantial East Asian admixture. Remember to not guess the extent of other-population admixture based on one or two traits. Your references to a “pure Caucasoid” should be changed to an “ideal Caucasoid.” After all, all races have an ancestral population in common, and there is bound to be an overlap in trait variation on several counts.
Posted by J Richards on Saturday, October 8, 2005 at 08:58 AM | #
I stumbled across this “study” while surfing the net today. I find all of it demeaning, disgusting, and downright pointless. Furthermore, there are posts here which are offensive, some of which are straight up racist and should have been removed a long, long time ago. Why the hell would anyone spend so much effort into coming up with a scientific facial template of who or what is considered “attractive?” I am talking to Rhodes and Richards here. I pray that you are both intelligent people because if you are, you already know that true beauty (however one defines it) is in the eye of the beholder. Why are you trying to apply statistics to something that is subjective? In this troubled world we live in, do you people not have anything more constructive to do with your time? I sincerely hope none of this “work” was funded by tax dollars. Shame on all of you.
- Kevin Leung
Designer, Ubisoft Montreal
Posted by Kevin Leung on Sunday, November 6, 2005 at 02:59 AM | #
Kevin Leung,
The nature of attractiveness is a topic worthy of investigation—for at least some people—and if it is pointless to you, then I am surprised that you even bothered to read this post.
I know that some comments are potentially offensive, but this blog respects freedom of speech. Comments will not be removed unless they constitute spam or present such liability that we are forced to remove them.
There is a great deal of research out there that has spread cold water over the notion that beauty is entirely subjective. It has been shown that there is cross-population broad agreement as to what is beautiful and the biological significance of what people find beautiful —such as correlations with health and fertility—has also been described in a number of cases. Of course, people have their own preferences, i.e., to some extent beauty lies in the eye of the beholder, but it is not all subjective.
Posted by J Richards on Wednesday, November 9, 2005 at 09:48 AM | #
"Figure 9 shows the remarkable extent of facial flatness found among some Mongoloids that no mentally sound white should find remotely attractive. “
you’re a total racist and extremely biased. “no mentally sound white should find [asians] remotely attractive”. what the hell? obviously you consider asians an inferior race. fyi there are millions of white people who find asians irresistibly attractive. but your caucasian bias is blinding you from seeing any of that beauty. you need to open your eyes. if you plan on writing any more articles like this, you need to be more open minded, because frankly, your writing is useless without a broader perspective.
Posted by Hannah on Sunday, February 5, 2006 at 08:27 PM | #
Hannah,
So I am a “total racist” because I don’t find the flatness of Mongoloid faces appealing? Is there a requirement that non-Asians should find Asian faces appealing? I have no problems accepting that the average IQ of the Japanese is higher than that of whites. So do I believe that Asians are racially inferior to whites?
A small minority of whites like the physical appearance of Mongoloids, but then a small minority of people have bizarre sexual interests; most whites prefer whites.
Posted by J Richards on Sunday, February 5, 2006 at 09:59 PM | #
Hannah,
JR’s work on facial attraction is perhaps too easily misunderstood by those who are unaccustomed to his argument. But it is an important and worthy argument when, as with us, a people are under constant bombardment from so many directions to accept aliens in their midst, even though it means these peoples becoming a minority themselves in their own homelands. This bombardment is in large measure predicated on getting them to see these aliens as no different to themselves.
Inevitably, the encouragement of miscegenation - certainly the breakdown of taboos against it - has a central role in the effort. Miscegenation is never described as it is - the loss of racial distinctiveness - but something inconsequential, progressive, freeing etc.
This is racial Marxism and we reject it. We identify it for what it is and where it will lead. We explain, as JR has done here with great authority, that it is based on complete, indeed completely evil falsehoods.
It is not us who are the supremacists but the people who propose racial Marxism to us. It is not us who hate, but them.
We have a choice: to continue to exist as a people or to cease so existing. Understand JR’s post on the light of that choice and if you still object, explain why it is we are bound to the duty to give our living space to all humanity, and our sons and daighters, too.
Posted by Guessedworker on Sunday, February 5, 2006 at 10:30 PM | #
racist ppl...chill out, get a hobby
Posted by sknjkns on Thursday, February 16, 2006 at 12:18 AM | #
Kevin - think back to when you were a teenager, at school or whatever, did you ever notice there were some girls that a lot/all the guys found attractive? Do you think there was anything that these girls had in common? Do you think that any attempt to try and document any common factor is hopelessly doomed?
Hannah - Millions of white people find asians irresistibly attractive. Phew! Thats a pretty strong statement, can you back that up at all? I take that to mean that when it comes to a choice of sexual/marriage partner millions of white people choose asians over anyone, anyone else.
We are talking about millions of white men here arent we, not white women and asian men. Im not sure what that asymmetry actually signifies but on its own it undermines your unversialist assertion that millions of white people find asian people irresistibly attractive doesnt it.
Posted by Lurker on Thursday, February 16, 2006 at 01:43 AM | #
JR
Congratulations.. you wrote this piece last summer and you’re still getting comments on it. If you get royalities on this you might become rich one day! JR, you seem intelligent and intellectual but some of your claims and statements are somewhat twisted.. but that is probably because of your bias and position.
One position that you take is that the AVcauc woman in figure 1 is a composite average of ugly obese women ( Irish? ) and is therefore an unfair example of the average beautiful caucasion woman. I don’t know about you but most obese women that I’ve come across don’t look as good as her. And in fact, I’d be willing to bet that the wives of most posters on this board are not as pretty as the AVcauc woman. So I just wanted to clarify where did you get this information concerning the many ugly obese Irish women they used? And I also wanted to get the opinion of most of the posters on here of would they rate their wives/girlfriends better looking than the AVcauc woman. And would they/you care to post a pic on here for rating? Also, in a previous article you wrote, you posted pictures of some of the most ugly non-whites I’ve ever seen ( some of the pics look like they were taken from the early 1900s! ) ... to emphasize your claim that caucasians are better looking. To be taken seriously, one needs to be fair in their challenges.
Another claim that you make is that most caucasians find the physical appearances of non-whites unattractive. This may be true but do you have the stats to prove this? This is the same challenge that Lurker gave to Hannah in her claim that millions of caucasians find non-whites very attractive. I would concede that most people and probably animals too find their own “kind” more attractive… It’s only natural But that is different from saying that all causcasians find non-whites ugly or unattractive. For what it’s worth my girlfriend is blonde blue eyed with milky white skin but that doesn’t mean I find other races ugly. In fact, I’ve come across some very beautiful asian, indian, latin women. My girlfriend, like most causcasians also likes to sunbathe to get that tanned non-white tone… why is that? I like milky white soft skin but that’s my preference.
SR
Posted by superrace on Sunday, March 26, 2006 at 07:59 PM | #
SR,
Regarding the average white woman shown above, since averaging produces a better looking face than most of the individual faces comprising the average, and the average is not good looking, the individual faces that have gone into the composite appear to largely comprise of unattractive women who also seem to lean toward mild obesity. In a comment above, I linked to a picture of Gillian Rhodes and her students, but this picture has been removed from her site and she has password-protected some parts of her site. Anyway, the picture showed mostly overweight/obese women, many of them redheads. Gillian Rhodes herself is a masculinized and obese redhead. These are some of the reasons why I have said that she has used unattractive white women to come up with this study.
The wives of the regulars at this site may be anywhere from better to worse looking than the average white woman in Gillian Rhodes’ study, but this is of no relevance to this entry because this entry is about whether attractive whites will end up looking better if they acquired some Asian genes related to physical appearance.
You reference a previous entry of mine, where you encountered some of the most ugly non-whites you have come across. The examples are actually well-within the norm for non-whites with little to no white admixture. People living in the West rarely encounter individuals from Melanesia, aborigines and black Africans, and do not get to see how these people actually look. Black Americans have about 20% of their DNA derived from whites, on average. Therefore, it is best to look at pictures of indigenous people to see how non-whites in their pure element look like. There are people, such as Hindus, that have some European ancestry, and in another entry by me, you can see that Hindus who have less Caucasoid admixture are generally more unattractive, even as judged by the Hindus themselves. You are right that some of the images are dated, but hardly anyone is doing physical anthropology work today that involves photographing indigenous people around the world. More importantly, the picture has not changed substantially today.
It would be difficult to conduct studies where whites are asked to rate how attractive they find non-whites, but there are studies where whites are shown line drawings or pictures of white people, and these figures are manipulated to make the nose flatter or the jaw more protruding, and then the participants are asked to rate the attractiveness of the series of images. It turns out that an increasing amount of transformation toward non-white looks sharply reduces the attractiveness ratings. Therefore, by all means, most whites do not appreciate the looks of non-whites, especially those as different as Mongoloids, Negroids and Australoids. Two examples of the kind of studies that I have mentioned above are:
Archives of Facial Plastic Surgery, 2004;6:257-62.
European Journal of Orthodontics, 2005, 27:123-33.
As to why your girlfriend likes to tan, there could be a number of reasons. Tanning is popular among whites because it is a marker of high status. Most jobs being indoor jobs, poor whites who do not attempt to use a tanning salon or put on a fake tan end up looking really pale. Therefore, many whites tan in order to convey the appearance of high status. A preference for a tan resulting from an innate preference for some color in the skin over a pasty white complexion is likely to be uncommon among whites, given that this preference seems to be socially acquired as it conveys high status in modern society. In the past when poor whites had to mostly work outside, a tan signified lower status, and the upper class preferred to be pasty white.
Posted by J Richards on Monday, March 27, 2006 at 06:55 AM | #
Indeed, a century and more ago it was a marker of high status NOT to have tanned skin, this being the preserve of outdoor workers. Where it touches upon skin tone perfection is, within obvious limitations, a variable.
The attractiveness of East Asian women to European men is likely to be distorted by the reduction in mating opportunities consequent upon mate competition with Negroid males. I cannot quote studies, nor do I believe there will have been a meaningful one for PeeCee reasons, but the assumption must be that where Negroid males win over Europeans with European women is in the behavioural and physical effects of high testosterone: self-confidence, “eyes on the prize”, sexual endowment and performance. Furthermore, among underclass white females especially, Negroid showiness may be mistaken for status.
Similar differentials must apply between European and East Asian males in respect of East Asian females.
Facial attractiveness counts for less in female sexual judgement. But even in the male, it is not the whole story. If natural racial separation was still in force, however, none of these secondary factors would apply. They are a product of Western societal decadence.
Posted by Guessedworker on Monday, March 27, 2006 at 01:47 PM | #
GW makes all excellent points in his comment just above.
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Monday, March 27, 2006 at 02:01 PM | #
Heineken,
you wrote:
I hold those “caucasoids” (as in those who are phenotypically caucasian) with slit eyes (or very small eyes) in much greater contempt than I would a caucasian with oval eyes even if he were rather ordianary in intelligence.
Have you ever heard of Clint Eastwood? lol
Posted by superrace on Friday, March 31, 2006 at 02:14 AM | #
Guessedworker
a couple of months ago you wrote:
JR’s work on facial attraction is perhaps too easily misunderstood by those who are unaccustomed to his argument. But it is an important and worthy argument when, as with us, a people are under constant bombardment from so many directions to accept aliens in their midst, even though it means these peoples becoming a minority themselves in their own homelands.
I don’t feel this way but I’m sure a lot of posters at this sight are feeling what the native indians felt/feel when we took over their continent? ( north america ). I’m curious to know if this is how you are feeling… that we will soon nolonger have a continent of our own? that north america and europe is “browning”?
Posted by superrace on Friday, March 31, 2006 at 02:27 AM | #
superrace - Im sure there is a similar feeling in some ways. They were overcome by by organised Europeans in greater numbers and so on. They were defeated in other words. The best efforts of indian leaders might not have changed anything though.
We are being overrun with what seems to be the approval of our “leaders” and elites. There is little doubt in my mind that we could easily overcome the external threats (such as they are) and the incomers. Its the betrayal by our “betters” thats hard to deal with, from the obvious pratical point of view as well as from an emotional/psychological standpoint.
Posted by Lurker on Friday, March 31, 2006 at 03:00 AM | #
"Superrace” is a passive-aggressive leftist.
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Friday, March 31, 2006 at 04:48 AM | #
Either that or a non-white acting out of simple racial self-interest.
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Friday, March 31, 2006 at 04:50 AM | #
Superrace,
What race are you, exactly? I am English, meaning Anglo-Saxon/ Norman French and, therefore, a Northern European Caucasian. My people, along with all Western Europeans, are being exhorted to acquiesce in their own dispossession and deracination. I am of the clear conviction that this is a race-crime against us, greater in scope than any earlier, more violent but more local and short-term genocide. It is effected by our liberal and political elites, but the ultimate enabler is our over-arching political system ... liberalism itself. Essentially, we are blinded by the pursuit of a theoretical and unobtainable individual freedom.
Does that answer your question?
Posted by Guessedworker on Friday, March 31, 2006 at 06:46 AM | #
Guessedworker
I am american of german descent… is that caucasian enough for you? My girlfriend is blonde blue eyed and german descent as well and to my dismay enjoys her tan.
Fred Scooby
You claim that I am a passive leftist but where did you get this information from? In the US, congress is passing tougher immigration laws including one that would require even canadians who enter the usa to carry passports… i would prefer attaching some type of micro chip on each alien visiting the usa in order to track their whereabouts at any given time and i believe that years from now that may be the case… is that radical enough for you? i believe in allowing only immigrants who can contribute to the country to be allowed in… no humantarian bs and i don’t care if they’re from europe, they must contribute! Is that right enough for you? It’s the off the top of your head claims out of anger that makes me shake my head and want to respond… For what it’s worth,if you want to be taken seriously read Lurker’s rational, calm response and perhaps learn from that.
Posted by superrace on Saturday, April 1, 2006 at 05:25 AM | #
Guessedworker
Your answer is very clear of your position. I too believe that caucasians need to have a “homeland”. And that “homeland” should be Europe just as asians, blacks, etc have their own. As for NorthAmerica and more specifically, the USA, the population make-up here has changed alot and there is probably no turning back. But I am of the view that NorthAmerica was originally not caucasian land anyway so it all evens out.
As far as your feeling let down by your “leaders”, well I guess I can only say for you to get off your arse and vote, lobby, etc. Sitting in front of your computer on this site is interesting and entertaining BUT that doesn’t count!
But do it intelligently, otherwise you won’t be taken seriously at best, and at worse all hell breaks loose.
Here’s a thought to stir the pot! Why the hell did the forefathers centuries ago have to go to other lands? That’s how it all started!
Posted by superrace on Saturday, April 1, 2006 at 05:53 AM | #
This blog entry clearly states this blog’s view on the physical attractiveness of Asians and other ethnic groups. However, although your blog seems to patronise Caucasians, it seems to leave out many other traits that are not genetic (such as the higher IQs of Asians, as compared to Caucasians). Frankly, many find the abundance of hair and grossly large noses of Caucasians distasteful. But, of course, it is an individual viewpoint.
Posted by Peter on Saturday, May 13, 2006 at 07:53 PM | #
superrace:
In the US, congress is passing tougher immigration laws including one that would require even canadians who enter the usa to carry passports
whoa that’s toughness. Right now hundreds if not thousands of mexicans are entering the country illegally but those canadians are going to need a passport. I’m impressed.
If they were really worried about canadian citizenship holding would be terrorists they would have done something earlier. They caught one before the WTC attacks. His name was Ahmed Ressam and he wanted to blow up Los Angeles. He lived in Montreal and I think he had a neo-muslim white girlfriend
Posted by JB on Saturday, May 13, 2006 at 09:28 PM | #
Peter,
IQ is strongly related to genetics, and it is true that NE Asians, on average, have higher IQs than whites, but this point is not relevant to this entry. You are right that some non-white races dislike the excessive body hair found among some whites, but the nose is a different matter. Non-whites generally tend to prefer the narrower nose of whites (seen from front) over the broader noses found in non-whites, but some dislike the prominence of the nose in whites in profile view. Nevertheless, several Asians resort to surgery to make their noses more protruding.
Posted by J Richards on Saturday, May 13, 2006 at 10:48 PM | #
Monica Bellucci is one of the most beautiful women in the world with or without make-up on. i understand people have their preferences but to say that she is not beautiful is outrageous. She is a classic beauty, one which north european women can only dream of being. Her face is oval, her nose is tiny and her mouth is extremely sensual. She is tall and her body is a work of art unmatched by any other actress. North European women have hard bone structures, and most have no breasts or behind to speak of besides looking washed out. I have visited the baltic countries and most women there look like men. Light hair in the region evolved to take attention away from unattractive features where as dark hair acts like a frame and brings focus to an attractive face. Southern European women are relatively much more gracile and actually have feminine physiques in sharp contrast with northern women.
Posted by mark on Sunday, May 14, 2006 at 07:29 PM | #
Mark,
What in the world does your comment have to do with this entry? As far as the attractiveness of Monica Belluci goes, she is on the masculine side, and I don’t see how she could be seen as one of the most beautiful women in the world.
Besides, you should take at a look at the facial features of Northern European women shown in the comments here, which should also enlighten you as to the actual reason for a high frequency of blonde hair in Northern Europe. Also read this paper for evidence showing a closer relationship between prehistoric skulls in the Euro-Mediterranean area and modern Southern Europeans rather than modern Northern Europeans, and then tell me who has more gracile facial features, on average, Northern Europeans or Southern Europeans? And, don’t cite anecdotal evidence.
Northern European women may have smaller breasts than Southern European women, but they are taller, have longer legs, are less obese and have more feminine waist-to-hip ratios. Anyway, post your comments in relevant entries.
Posted by J Richards on Monday, May 15, 2006 at 12:09 AM | #
hi, i m of finnish origin, and though we finns got biggest proportion of blonde people, i would not consider blondness as typical characteristic for looking “heuristic-term” caucasoid. my members of family do have characteristics of what u might call “heuristic” asian features and i noticed also between other northern populations like swedes in the western or russians in the eastern part. by the way, maybe it s true that some europeans prefer less broad or flat-faced women, but i think it s disgustive how you comment as if you loved to ridiculize by racial mean. i think facial elements as a point for beauty is determined by context, sometimes a bread sometimes a narrow face fits better to the rest of facial features.....
Posted by mikka on Monday, June 26, 2006 at 01:31 PM | #
http://www.anonym.to/?
I find your posting quite interesting. You show a certain viewpoint of which looks are preferable to which looks.
I’ve heard all sides of how people look. Because I am English/Asian, I’ve mixed with people from the asian and the white side and find its really hard to tell which look people like. People’s taste change over time and some people like their own kind while others like people that don’t look like them. I think this whole subject doesn’t get anywhere. beauty is only skin-deep.
IQ on the otherhand would be something to treasure as that is something that can’t be bought or changed.
However, having really good looks and brains would be something of a lottery win. That’s better than just looks alone or just brains. How many people have both? That’s the winner of this comparison by a longshot.
Posted by Calvin Smith on Wednesday, August 16, 2006 at 09:51 AM | #
[So I am a “total racist” because I don’t find the flatness of Mongoloid faces appealing? Is there a requirement that non-Asians should find Asian faces appealing? I have no problems accepting that the average IQ of the Japanese is higher than that of whites. So do I believe that Asians are racially inferior to whites? ]
It’s not the fact that you don’t find Mongoloid faces attractive that makes you a total racist. It’s the fact that you have said that “no mentally sound white should find remotely attractive” the flatter Asian face. Do you as one person constitute all mentally sound whites? You use the word “should.” You are welcome to think the “flat face” is ugly. You are welcome to announce your own personal opinion, but that is not what you have done.
Fuck you. You’re an asshole. I commend you for speaking out.
[Kevin - think back to when you were a teenager, at school or whatever, did you ever notice there were some girls that a lot/all the guys found attractive? Do you think there was anything that these girls had in common? Do you think that any attempt to try and document any common factor is hopelessly doomed?]
Yes, these girls were all white, with long flowing blonde hair, a flat stomach, and ample breasts. They had cheekbones that were accented when they applied angel dust to their perfectly proportioned face. Teen Barbie in a school outfit. So what? The only correlation I see is that North American adolescents are susceptable to the fantasy offered up by mass media: Hollywood movies, MTV videos around the clock, and glamour magazines in the supermarket (and I work in the entertainment biz and admire beautiful women). You think just because they keep hammering the message to suburban youth that white women make the best sex symbols and are placed on a pedestal that somehow, that makes it right? that it’s acceptable? that it’s “worthy” of the scientific community’s attention? Just stop right there and think about what I said for a minute: anyone who sincerely believes that is very sick, and that’s the truth.
I’m of Chinese descent. I was born in a Western society. So the reason why my highschool friends lusted after these girls is because they were conditioned in this culture. White people are the majority here so, really, you and I should just accept the fact that white women are always going to be glorified in pop culture. Put yourself in my shoes: you’re a 12-year old asian kid and when you turn on the TV, you can’t find anyone on the screen that you can relate to. That you don’t exist. Asian girls don’t see themselves either because white girls are more deserving of the air time and plus y’know, the marketing executive says they bring in more ad dollars. That’s fine. We don’t live in a fair world. But you know what? That wouldn’t be the case if you were born in Africa, or India, or the reserves of Native Americans. You get what I’m saying here? Who you are, what you believe, what women you find attractive, is all based on the environment you grew up in. And I’m still a proud Canadian and I love my country.
So don’t tell me that me that anecdotal observations are a justification for academics like JR to scientifically segregrate people in a society (America, let’s say) that’s already having problems harmonizing in the 21st century. You’re just feeding the problem. ‘Nuff said.
- Kevin Leung
Designer, Ubisoft Montreal
Posted by Kevin Leung on Sunday, November 26, 2006 at 07:10 PM | #
"I’m of Chinese descent. I was born in a Western society.”
The basic problem here is that these two sentences should not be connected. The fact asserted in sentence #1 *should* make the fact asserted in sentence #2 impossible.
That it does not is our misfortune.
Posted by Peter Ralphs on Sunday, November 26, 2006 at 09:27 PM | #
Excuseme,
I did not write, ‘“no mentally sound white should find remotely attractive” the flatter Asian face.’ What I wrote was “Figure 9 shows the remarkable extent of facial flatness found among some Mongoloids that no mentally sound white should find remotely attractive.” In other words, I was talking about the extreme flatness shown in the picture of Margaret Cho. The extent of facial flatness varies among East Asians. As far as I know, even East Asians in general do not like the extent of flatness seen in Margaret Cho; they seem to prefer less flattened faces.
----------------------------
Kevin Leung,
This entry is not about segregating people. Anyway, your observations are not quite correct. To the best of my knowledge, Northern European face shape in particular and blond women in general tend to be appreciated by Asian men living in East Asia. I have heard that a Japanese man with a blond girlfriend will generally be envied by other Japanese men. Similarly, when East Asians in East Asia undergo cosmetic surgery they seem to mostly focus on the mid-facial region (the mid-facial region being what is notably distinctive about East Asians), and the outcome of the cosmetic surgery is generally to shift the mid-face toward the European direction. Similarly, people in India appear to overwhelmingly prefer light skin and Caucasoid facial features. Such observations are not consistent with your assertion that “Who you are, what you believe, what women you find attractive, is all based on the environment you grew up in.” Even if you were to bring the global influence of Hollywood into the picture, what is it that makes non-whites readily appreciate white beauty?
Posted by J Richards on Monday, November 27, 2006 at 05:37 AM | #
Mix whites and Asians, you get smarter people.
Posted by George Chell on Friday, December 8, 2006 at 09:56 PM | #
"The basic problem here is that these two sentences should not be connected. The fact asserted in sentence #1 *should* make the fact asserted in sentence #2 impossible.
That it does not is our misfortune. “
Aww. Poor you. Life would be much simpler if race was divided neatly into national boundaries, wouldn’t it? WN, just like anti-racist lefties, oversimplify and obscure.
Posted by ek on Friday, December 15, 2006 at 01:03 AM | #
without further twisting and perversion of aesthetic tastes, i say, THE CAUCASIAN RACE IS THE PERFECT RACE. THEY ARE PERFECT IN SYMMETRY, THEIR COLOR, THEIR EYES, THEIR ACHIEVEMENTS. i’M an Asian, but I AM CONVICTED BY MY CONSCIENCE AND BY THE PROOFS I AM SEEING, THAT THE WHITE RACE ARE STILL THE OST UNDISPUTABLE BEAUTIFUL RACE ON EARTH. MIXING THEM IS A POLLUTION IN THE BLOOD.
Posted by Artaxerxes M. Garcia on Friday, January 12, 2007 at 08:26 AM | #
I think the most beutifull white people are those who have Native American antcestry, like for example Angelina Jolie, Johnny Depp, and Demi Moore, most people with mixed European and Native American antcestry have beautifull black hair, beautifull dark eyes, and well defined cheekbones to name a few which gives them a very sharp appearance.
Posted by Sriniva on Friday, January 26, 2007 at 06:21 AM | #
To the person who said that the blond blue eyed White man juxtaposed with the Asian, is part Asian, you obviously don’t know much about Eurasians! just because he appears to have a flatter nose than the average Caucasian, that does not nececarely mean that he is part asian (he might be 1/256th african)… if he was part Asian he would have a wider face, and deffinitely would not have blond hair (dark genes are stronger). Maybe if he is of Ukrainian, Lithuanian, Russian, or Polish descent, he might have some Tatar admixture, but i just don’t see it in his face.
Posted by JOrnatta on Friday, January 26, 2007 at 03:45 PM | #
Notice that most Caucasian males go bald, you could say that all European males will loose at least some of their hair, or start experiencing baldness at some point in their lives; Asians on the other hand, very rarely experience significant hair loss, in fact, most Asians never go bald! If you gave the European population a Mongoloid admixture, it would very likely solve the problem of hair loss amongst European males.
It is proven by science, Europeans are the most prone to male pattern baldness, and Asians are very likely the least prone to it, So therefore yes, I am convinced that a Mongoloid admixture would help most Europeans retain their head hair, and therefore is a very good thing, if you enjoy having a full head of hair that is.
Posted by Jarnugospe on Friday, January 26, 2007 at 10:34 PM | #
Sooo, basically, this article was written by some ugly fat ginger woman who had nothing better to do with her time than borishly dissect every feature of the Mongoloid anatomy in order to somehow demonstrate that Caucasoids are, by default, more attractive?
Admittedly, I’ve never been attracted to an Asian face, and do agree that on a whole, whites are more attractive.
But that’s personal taste, some of the comments made here are a little degrading, and to be honest offensive. Everyone is entitled to a view/opinion, but a little sensitivity probably would be appreciated. After all, people are BORN a certain way, it’s not like they can choose to be attractive/unnattractive or not have a “flat-face”!
Also, some of you are so far stuck up your own arse that you refuse to admit that some white people do find Asians attractive. You don’t, fair enough. Some people do, hence the Eurasian population?
So really, the point of this article was what? Attempting to convince white people to never find Asians attractive, or attempting to make yourself feel better by receiving comments from mindless rednecks who are evidently, just as small-minded as you are?
Don’t give me the “ooo why did you bother commenting then”? Because I fucking felt like it. :D
And no, actually, I myself am white.
Posted by Tina Gruenberg on Friday, February 2, 2007 at 02:32 PM | #
is borishly word ? but ugly fat ginger woman, hahaha ! don’t know if that’s true but still. and evidently, i’m not a mentally sound white.
Posted by D Benjamin on Friday, February 2, 2007 at 02:37 PM | #
Tina,
The point of the article is plain to anyone with a heart unadulterated by self-hatred. Europeans are being recommended to miscegenate, this recommendation being founded on false premises. It is entirely proper to oppose a deception which, should it win the day, will accomplish the soft, slow genocide of a great people.
Really, try to understand the righteous nature of our argument, and the pathology of your emotional response.
Posted by Guessedworker on Friday, February 2, 2007 at 02:54 PM | #
Thank you for the insight “Guessedworker”, I respect that your reply was not a narrow-minded comment such as “no mentally sound white should find attractive”, and admittedly I understand a little more from your explanation.
Apologies for the overly emotional response :D
Also, surely the small number of white people finding Asians attractive is personal taste, and recommendation or not, they will continue to do so ?
Posted by Tina on Saturday, February 3, 2007 at 12:32 AM | #
Tina,
this is essentially the message whites are regularly being subjected to in various forms (movies, news, books, music, magazines). It never stops and no one is allowed to oppose it on official channels of information hence the need for a website like this one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RWP8Pws9mw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nojWJ6-XmeQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-A9orvi85Q
Alon Ziv’s bs (first YT link) is discussed in these threads :
http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/oh_for_g_ds_sake/
http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/alon_ziv_on_race_mixing/
Posted by JB on Saturday, February 3, 2007 at 03:07 AM | #
Again i say, the Europeans, or the White people are the most beautiful people on earth because they are white, their nose are well-formed, their eyes are blue and their hair is blond. No race can eual their beauty, no, not the chinese, and those blonging to the chopstock culture. Not india, not mexicans, not the Europeans and Europeans alone. I am a Filipino, and o don’t appreciate Filipino beauties.
Posted by Artaxerxes M. Garcia on Tuesday, February 20, 2007 at 09:59 AM | #
Let me repeat what I’ve said.
The Caucasian race are only the exclusively beautiful people on earth. I am disgusted to see Asians or Negros to be regarded as beautiful. To people who can still feel conscience, and whose eyes are not yet perverted, don’t lie to yourselves. It is an inarguable fact from the dawning of Western Civilization that Caucasians are the only beautiful race. And it is awkward to say Egyptians, Indians, and Chinese to be beautiful. Look at their faces, aren’t they ugly and deformed? I am a Filipino, but since childhood, ever since I became conscious of myself at the earliest age, I am never convinced that Filipinos are beautiful people. When I saw a Caucasian at a magazine,, my body hormones reacted positively. And who taught me such a disdain to my race but the inward truth within me which says “White race -superior race.”
Posted by Artaxerxes M. Garcia on Sunday, March 18, 2007 at 07:11 AM |
Posted by J Richards on Wednesday, June 29, 2005 at 04:58 PM | #