Beauty Is Not Mysterious

Which of these two women is more attractive? (UPDATE below.)

Reader “potato” sent me a link to a story in the New York Times about a new software program known as a “beautification engine”:

The photograph on the right was doctored by the “beautification engine” of a new computer program that uses a mathematical formula to alter the original form into a theoretically more attractive version, while maintaining what programmers call an “unmistakable similarity” to the original. […]

Scientists took the data and applied an algorithm involving 234 measurements between facial features, including the distances between lips and chin, the forehead and the eyes, or between the eyes.

Essentially, they trained a computer to determine, for each individual face, the most attractive set of distances and then choose the ideal closest to the original face.

If you are honest in your assessment and not trying to score dorm room debate points on your not-so-humble narrator, then I predict 95% of my readers, male and female, will agree that the girl on the right is more attractive. The two photos are of the same woman. The girl on the right has been “beautified” by the software algorithm.

As I have been saying all along, beauty, especially female beauty, is not in the eye of the beholder. It is objectively measureable. And now, science is proving me right.

Studies have shown that there is surprising agreement about what makes a face attractive. Symmetry is at the core, along with youthfulness; clarity or smoothness of skin; and vivid color, say, in the eyes and hair. There is little dissent among people of different cultures, ethnicities, races, ages and gender.

Beauty is not only objective, it is universally agreed upon across cultures.

Yet, like the many other attempts to use objective principles or even mathematical formulas to define beauty, this software program raises what psychologists, philosophers and feminists say are complex, even disturbing, questions about the perception of beauty and a beauty ideal.

Let’s run this paragraph through the patented Poon Translator:

“Yet, like the many other attempts to use objective principles or even mathematical formulas to define beauty, this software program raises what Freudian holdovers, blank slate believers and ugly women say are personally disturbing truths about the perception of beauty and a beauty ideal they’d rather sweep under the rug or obfuscate with all manner of sophistry.”

Much clearer!

“How can they prove it?” said Lois W. Banner, a historian who has studied changing beauty standards, referring to scientific efforts to define attractiveness. “They are never going to locate it on a gene. They are never going to get away from the cultural influence.”

The problem with reading the New York Times is that it needs to be run through the Poon Translator in its entirety to get at the nuggets of truth buried under the mounds of evasive bullshit. For example, the above quote should read:

“How can they prove it?” said Lois W. Banner, an insulated ivory tower inculcated leftwing pseudo-historian who has studied Reubens the lone fatty fucker and thinks that proves there were changing beauty standards, referring to scientific efforts to define attractiveness. “I’m praying to my atheistic god that they will never locate it on a gene. My pointless career, and my fragile feminist ego, is on the line so I will tirelessly obstruct real science to ensure they never get away from the comforting cultural influence explanation.”

The Poon Translator — Serving the Truth since 2007.

So what did the above woman think of her new, scientifically beautified, face?

She said she was struck by how different she looked in the second shot.

“I think the after picture looks great, but it doesn’t really look like me at all,” she said in an e-mail message. “My entire bone structure, face shape and eye size is different, and my lip color looks changed as well.”

She added, “I would like to keep my original face.”

Imagine seeing a better-looking version of yourself as calculated by a computer program. What a soulkilling ego rape that would be. I can almost feel the shiver that must’ve run down her spine.

While several psychological studies over the last few decades also suggest that perceptions of beauty and attractiveness tend to be universal, critics of that work say it is debatable whether a person’s beauty is actually enhanced by such changes. Character can be lost. A blandness can set in. The quirky may become plain.

The Poon Translator is working overtime:

“While several psychological studies over the last few decades also suggest that perceptions of beauty and attractiveness tend to be universal, critics of that work prefer to stick their heads in the sand. Ugliness can be lost. Attractiveness can set in. Warpigs may have a chance at love.”

After viewing the before and after photographs of anonymous subjects in Mr. Leyvand’s research paper, Dr. Banner, who is a professor of history at the University of Southern California, said the original faces were more attractive.

I’m sure the good professor has deconstructed the term “attractive” to mean whatever the hell he feels it should mean to support his equalist worldview, so that he could say the above with a straight face.

“Irregular beauty is the real beauty,” said Dr. Banner, adding that such attempts to measure beauty are driven culturally by sameness, making everyone look alike.

This is incorrect. Liv Tyler and Bar Raefeli are both beautiful and yet no one would confuse them for the same person. “All look same” is a common meme among the anti-objective beauty brigade, but reality proves that the definable parameters of beauty can coexist with individual distinctiveness.

“We have always had a huge industry to make people look better,” Dr. Etcoff said. “Everyone wants to look better. And we keep taking it further and further to all these images that have been doctored. There is a whole generation of girls growing up who think it’s normal not to look the way they really look.”

Whenever I hear “a whole generation of girls” I know a torrent of mushheaded muddle is on the way. How about a more parsimonious explanation: There have always been less attractive girls who wished they were more attractive because they intrinsically understand that their beauty is the most important trait they can barter on the sexual market.

I say bring on the beautification engines and genetic enhancements. If morality is the promulgation of happiness to the greatest number of people, then my opinion in this matter makes me the most moral fucking bastard in the world.

UPDATE

Here is the PDF of the study referenced in the New York Times article:

http://www.cs.tau.ac.il/~tommer/beautification2008/attractiveness2008.pdf

The test subjects are pictured in that report. I stand by my conclusion that the trend is obvious: Most of the subjects experienced a 0.5 to 3 point bump up the looks scale. Bardot and Brando would seem to be odd outliers. I suspect very extreme beauties, like famous actors and actresses, could suffer a hit from a beautification algorithm because the software doesn’t take into account the tail ends of the beauty bell curve where particularly unique facial features like Bardot’s lips might scramble the software processing.





Comments


  1. on October 13, 2008 at 4:21 pm ironrailsironweights

    The picture on the right is more attractive primarily because the eyes aren’t as disproportionately large as they are in the left, real picture. Other changes are relatively trivial in comparison. What this means is that if the woman didn’t have a rather unusual feature (big eyes), it might be more difficult to alter the picture in a way that would substantially increase her attractiveness.

    This being said, the real woman, as shown on the left, is far from ugly, large eyes or not.

    Peter

    Like


  2. They’re both imperfectly beautiful: the girl on the right (doctored image) has smallish eyes and thinnish lips, while the girl on the left (undoctored image) has a long face, from temple to jaw bone, and a rather mannish nose. I prefer the girl on the left, though, because her face is more striking. A slight adjustment to the nose to make it more delicate (if you insist) could make her a perfect beauty.

    I’m not trying to score debating points. (And I do believe that beauty in human faces is to a great degree “objective”.) This one’s a difference of taste.

    clio

    Liked by 1 person


  3. ironliesironcontrarian:
    Other changes are relatively trivial in comparison.

    stop lying. it is obvious to anyone who isn’t attempting the contrarian two step that her chin and nose have been shrunk, her forehead broadened and heightened, her jawline rounded, and her cheekbones raised.

    oh, and the GNP is for guys who only bang ugly chicks that they have no intention of ever going down on.

    Like


  4. I prefer the girl on the left, though, because her face is more striking.

    clio, of all the female opinions on the subject of beauty, i take yours with the biggest flat of salt. your sidestepping around this matter is in the archives.

    using the word “striking” is a dead giveaway of your doublespeak. that word is a convenient evasive maneuver most often employed by women who want to describe an unattractive woman as something more flattering than ugly.

    A slight adjustment to the nose to make it more delicate (if you insist) could make her a perfect beauty.

    you’ve just discredited yourself.

    ps: this is proof that the *stated* opinions of women on other women’s beauty is not to be trusted. as with all things female, you have to observe their actions and ignore their words.

    Like


  5. “who has studied Reubens the lone fatty fucker and thinks that proves there were changing beauty standards”

    Reubens did paint some rather plump girls, but facially, they remain as beautiful now as they were then.

    Like


  6. I’ve had a cluster of experiences in my own life that made me ask the question, “Which changes of aging create a more attractive older woman, compared to her younger years.

    Work backwards. The features of aging include
    -fading of color
    -thinning of hair
    -thinning of central (not peripheral) subcutaneous fat
    -dessication – loss of luster

    Thus, a 20 year old with strong color (eyebrows, lips), thick curly hair, full central face will look more pleasing at age 45. The 20 year old with blond eyebrows, thin straight hair, thin central face has already past her most cute days.

    More Magazine happened to address this topic at the time I was thinking on it. They highlighted photos of older women compared to their youthful faces, and I was convinced. I remember Ellen Barkin, but none of the others.

    Thus, I am jealous of Indian women.

    Like


  7. Based on my thinking above, the real woman on the left will continue to look great when she is 50.

    Like


  8. on October 13, 2008 at 4:49 pm Stating the Obvious

    “Thus, I am jealous of Indian women”

    You shouldn’t be. A goodly percentage hit the wall at full speed at around 35 or so.

    Like


  9. on October 13, 2008 at 4:52 pm Usually Lurking

    Beauty is not in the eye of the beholder, taste is.

    Like


  10. anony dreamed wishfully:
    Thus, a 20 year old with strong color (eyebrows, lips), thick curly hair, full central face will look more pleasing at age 45.

    i doubt it. show me that link and i’ll judge for myself.

    there are hardly any women, maybe less than 1%, who look better at 45 than they did at 20, unless the change involved massive weight loss to a slimmer figure. unfortunately, the trajectory of weight fluctuation usually goes way up with age.
    for most, a woman who looks good at 45 looked even better at 20.

    They highlighted photos of older women compared to their youthful faces, and I was convinced.

    when you want to be convinced, it isn’t a surprise to anyone when you are.

    Like


  11. I think there’s a pretty “striking” difference between the two women. I would go so far as to say the woman on the left is ugly. She looks very mannish. The girl on the left, while in need of make-up to cover the bad skin they decided not to change between the two photos, is hot. I’d say it’s the difference between a 5 and an 8. Maybe even a 4 and an 8.

    Like


  12. Beauty is not in the eye of the beholder, taste is.

    you misspelled self-delusion.

    Like


  13. on October 13, 2008 at 5:03 pm Usually Lurking

    Dick, I am agreeing with you.

    Beauty is defined by things like Symmetry, lush hair, smooth skin, etc.

    But whether someone prefers Jessica Biel to Jessica Alba is a matter of taste.

    Like


  14. Well I think the most “disturbing” aspect of that picture, which is perhaps too awkward to discuss in the article, despite the fact that it is ripe for lefty belly-aching, is that the woman on the left is obviously an Ashkenazi Jew and an Israeli computer program basically concluded, using it’s cold, un-PC computer brain, that she would actually be attractive without her giant ugly Jew nose. The slideshow shows the same obvious aesthetic “correction” with Woody Allen.

    I imagine you’d see the same computer brain decisions for black and Asian women, where “correcting” their face would involve skin lightening and making broad, flat “ethnic” noses into thin, small, projecting European noses.

    http://www.femininebeauty.info/cosmetic-surgery-changing-ethnic-looks

    Like


  15. on October 13, 2008 at 5:14 pm ironrailsironweights

    it is obvious to anyone who isn’t attempting the contrarian two step that her chin and nose have been shrunk, her forehead broadened and heightened, her jawline rounded, and her cheekbones raised.

    Those changes are relatively minor in comparison to what was done with her eyes.

    oh, and the GNP is for guys who only bang ugly chicks that they have no intention of ever going down on.

    Dead wrong. Nothing enhances aromas and flavors like a nice GNP.

    Like


  16. Yeah, the one on the right (the doctored one) is much prettier. My first-split-second, pre-rational reaction to both photos when I saw them:

    Left: Pendulous contour, center-mass at the upper maxilla.

    Right: cute girly eyes

    Like


  17. — oh, and the GNP is for guys who only bang ugly chicks that they have no intention of ever going down on.

    Wrong, my friend. The absence of (a properly maintained) GNP detracts from the beauty of this most magical of gardens.

    Like


  18. I read this article a few days ago on reddit. It is interesting because a lot of the design principles I use involve the golden ratio and mathematics, and moving objects a fraction of an inch (or a few pixels on the screen) can have profound effects.

    For the longest time people said bigger eyes were more attractive on females. Yet here are people saying that a face with absolutely smaller eyes is more attractive. I decided to do a bit of doctoring of my own here:

    Clio mentioned that the girl on the right has somewhat smallish eyes. So I made them bigger. The top right photo has the woman’s original eyes, the middle right photo has the woman’s original eyes shrunk 90% vertically and softened slightly, and the bottom right photo is the one provided by NYT.

    The algorithm might have some deficiencies since it could be the same averaged value applied to each face. In terms of eye size, slightly bigger is more visually attractive (more neotenous), but too big can be disconcerting. But it is not necessarily her eyes that were throwing people off about the face, as the top right photo is still attractive, but rather the elongated head / jaw line etc.

    Like


  19. Those changes are relatively minor in comparison to what was done with her eyes.

    the line separating beautiful from ugly is often mere millimeters.

    but in this particular case, the overall facial composition was changed in a non-trivial way, even in relation to the change in her eyes.

    Dead wrong. Nothing enhances aromas and flavors like a nice GNP.

    nothing enhances eating a girl out like not having to pause every second to remove pube floss.

    and a non-aromatic, non-flavorful pussy is usually what normal men prefer. although if you really get your kink on sniffing and tasting tuna pussy, pubes aren’t necessary. those things emanate from inside the folds.
    but you already know this, one note johnny.

    Like


  20. on October 13, 2008 at 5:33 pm the Ugly Truth

    The NYT article’s gallery of faces is mostly men. Men don’t get changed much by the beautifier.

    You can see a lot more before/after shots of women (almost all perceptibly better looking) in the original paper. It is here:

    http://www.cs.tau.ac.il/~tommer/beautification2008/attractiveness2008.pdf

    Like


  21. on October 13, 2008 at 5:33 pm ironrailsironweights

    Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed that our blog host seems to be in a really bad mood today?

    Peter

    Like


  22. Dick, I am agreeing with you.

    Beauty is defined by things like Symmetry, lush hair, smooth skin, etc.

    But whether someone prefers Jessica Biel to Jessica Alba is a matter of taste.

    Agreed. Some beauty standards are universal and transcend culture, other things are determined by culture and personal tastes.

    Take porn. At one time porn was filled with curvy chicks with dark hair and natural breasts and hairy muffs. Even Traci Lords was a brunette when she started. It turned guys on and gave them boners. Vivid Video and Hugh Hefner made the walking Barbie doll aesthetic more culturally preferred and suddenly porn was filled with superskinny, platinum blondes with superfake looking breasts. And it still turns them on and gives them boners.

    I’m sure both sets of women had a lot in common as far as having symmetry, good hip-to-waist ratio, etc. But men’s taste in beauty changed in a lot of other aspects thanks to culture. I don’t buy into this idea that what men find hot is 100% immutable. Some things are immutable, some things can be changed.

    Like


  23. the woman on the left is obviously an Ashkenazi Jew and an Israeli computer program basically concluded, using it’s cold, un-PC computer brain, that she would actually be attractive without her giant ugly Jew nose.

    Here, I’ve pasted her original nose onto the top right and top middle photos, leaving the photo that was generated by the computer program in tact at bottom right:

    Even with the same nose, the overall proportions are more aesthetically pleasing in the middle right photo.

    Like


  24. For the longest time people said bigger eyes were more attractive on females.

    in general this is true, unless the eyes have a weird bulging quality to them, as is the case with the woman in the photo.

    btw, jeff and pupu above both linked to more pics of people who have gone through beautification enhancements. i’d advise everyone to check it out. you’ll find that in most of the test subjects, men and women, the beautification program worked as advertised.

    Like


  25. roissy:

    Much clearer!

    LOL

    Yeah, definitely the one on the right, although both of them upper lips that are too thin for my tastes. I can see they broadened the forehead and trimmed the jaw to give a more typically feminine triangle shape.

    9 anony:

    Thus, a 20 year old with strong color (eyebrows, lips), thick curly hair, full central face will look more pleasing at age 45.

    This is delusional of course, but I agree that women of color tend to age far better than fair-featured ones. The other reason I prefer brunettes/exotic types is that they don’t need much make up due to their natural coloring. They look the same in the morning. But a blond model like Claudia Schiffer goes from a 10 to a 7 without the makeup. Contrast with someone like Christy Turlington (much more my type).

    I have to admit though that sometimes I am “irrationally” drawn to the beauties who have one noticeable flaw. You know, a 9 or 10 with a slightly large nose, or a weak chin. I suspect it has to do with my perception they are more “available.” But honestly, sometime I *do* find them more…intriguing…than the bland sameness of “perfection.” So, one (small) point in Clio’s favor.

    It’s like going to a furniture store and buying that sweet Eames lounger during a scratch-n-dent sale for half price…you can ignore the slight flaw and just exult in the value you got that otherwise would not be possible.

    Like


  26. Here’s one I made of Catherine Zeta Jones, who is already very beautiful. I enlarged her eyes, shortened her chin, and took a few pixels off from one side of her face.

    The face on the right loses a lot of its characteristic CZJ-ness this way, but it appears somewhat younger and more feminine.

    Like


  27. Both Catherine Zeta Jones and Angelina Jolie look different in their early roles, compared with their look once they became famous.

    Did they have plastic surgeries?

    Like


  28. Here, I’ve pasted her original nose onto the top right and top middle photos, leaving the photo that was generated by the computer program in tact at bottom right:

    Even with the same nose, the overall proportions are more aesthetically pleasing in the middle right photo.

    I have to disagree. The girl on the right in Roissy’s post whose image was produced by the computer program is definitely prettier than the original “before”
    picture on the left. For sure

    However when you put the original nose onto the photo generated enhancement picture I’d say the enhancement became worse than the original “before” pic because with the smaller head, that big nose dominated the face even more than it did before.

    Like


  29. UL:
    Dick, I am agreeing with you.

    that’s “monster dick” to you.

    But whether someone prefers Jessica Biel to Jessica Alba is a matter of taste.

    as i wrote in my post, beauty falls within objectively measureable parameters, and what separates one hot chick from another hot chick cannot deviate too far from the fundamental beauty script. so while one guy may prefer biel and another guy prefer alba, that minor difference in taste is not indicative of any sort of subjective quality to beauty, except inasmuch as individual facial characteristics don’t have to be completely subsumed in order for the underlying beauty template to exert its influence.

    Like


  30. I honestly think that both women/pictures are attractive.

    Both have clear skin, symmetrical faces, nice brown hair (I love brunettes), aren’t fat.

    The differences that I perceive (other than the left one having a longer face and bigger eyes) are:

    The one on the right somehow looks younger and has a more innocent, “cuter” Drew Barrymore face (which I don’t find attractive). But the one on the left has a more sophisticated, older look.

    I would give the one of the left a 7 and the one on the right a 7.5.

    Like


  31. i love that dove evolution video. expose the beauty industry for how fake it is in order to (voila!) sell more beauty products!

    Like


  32. Actually you guys should follow the link to the original NY Times article and see the slideshow with more examples. Some very interesting results. For example James Franco is run through the beautification engine and comes out looking exactly the same, suggesting he’s pretty much perfect already. On the flipside, Bridgette Bardot is run through the beautification engine and comes out much uglier after the scientific universal standards of beauty are applied to her.

    Like


  33. on October 13, 2008 at 5:53 pm ironrailsironweights

    At one time porn was filled with curvy chicks with dark hair and natural breasts and hairy muffs.

    Ah, the good old days.
    Especially in one respect.

    Peter

    Like


  34. Young Marlon Brando looks SIGNIFICANTLY worse when run through the beautification engine. Whoa!

    Like


  35. On the flipside, Bridgette Bardot is run through the beautification engine and comes out much uglier after the scientific universal standards of beauty are applied to her.

    yeah, the bardot one is an outlier. as is brando.

    but if you go to the link pupu posted above, which has, i believe, all of the test subjects, the trend is unmistakeable — most people got better looking by .5 to 2 points after being run through the program.

    Like


  36. on October 13, 2008 at 6:05 pm ironrailsironweights

    On the flipside, Bridgette Bardot is run through the beautification engine and comes out much uglier after the scientific universal standards of beauty are applied to her.

    Must’ve been how she looked many years ago. I don’t think it’s possible to make Bardot look any worse than she does today.

    Like


  37. “For the longest time people said bigger eyes were more attractive on females.”

    Yeah, but this lady looks like she escaped from Area 51. In which case, smaller and further set apart would be an improvement. Her face is also very long — looks like a horse.

    9 — “Which changes of aging create a more attractive older woman, compared to her younger years.”

    Well, you may have a point in some respect. Russian girls’ beauty curve starts falling off a cliff around age 25-30; more than others. I suspect what makes them beautiful makes them subject to rapid aging. Thin, delicate skin, delicate features, thin hair. Once thin skin starts to sag, you’re done. Go direct from hot devushka to hag babushka.. there is no transitional form. It seems to me that Black people, with their thicker skin and extra collagen, age much better than Slavs.

    I think beauty is pretty objective in some respects– there are traits that are going to be universally beautiful in every circumstance, (i.e. facial symmetry and clear skin) but the one concession I can make (and I hate ever agreeing with the politically correct crowd) to the liberal crowd is this: it is POSSIBLE the whole world may be moving to the European ideal of beauty due to worldwide mass media — I remember reading that the Japanese and American Indians were initially repulsed by what they thought were the disgusting features of the first European voyagers/missionaries, etc. Now if you go to Japan and you’re a blonde European, you’re an instant rock star. Asian people now get their eyelids operated on and some Chinese even go through some surgery to lengthen their legs to more European standards. Black people go through lightening, hair straightening, and nose narrowing procedures. If it’s actually true that foreigners were initially repulsed by European looks, it’s going to continue to be very hard to settle this debate.

    Like


  38. Beauty still IS in the eye of the beholder, it’s just that all the beholders pretty much think that same things are beautiful. While we allow for some outliers (i.e. fat fetishists) and some subtle variations because of certain traits being more advantageous depending on where a race evolved, we’re all human, and much of this is basically hardwired in all of us.

    Like


  39. yeah, the bardot one is an outlier. as is brando.

    but if you go to the link pupu posted above, which has, i believe, all of the test subjects, the trend is unmistakeable — most people got better looking by .5 to 2 points after being run through the program.

    I don’t have earphones so I can’t listen at work to the video at the link Pupu provided. Does the audio accompanying the video say that all the examples provided represent all the test subjects, or did the software designers only put up the before and after pictures that made their program look good? Without that info I can’t be sure whether Brando and Bardot are outliers or not.

    I seem to spot a trend here. The NY Times one did a wider range of photographs through the software, while the webpage and video provided by the software designers seems to focus on 5-7s. Seems like if you are already homely you can go up 1 to 2 points but if you are already an 8 or above, further applying universal scientifically accepted standards of beauty makes you look either exactly the same or worse.

    To me then the best thing about this program is not so much its beautification features, since I can’t tell how consistent they are, but that it can be used as a good way to find out once and for all how objectively good looking you are. If you put your pic through it and come out looking the same or drastically worse, the better looking you must objectively be. And on the flipside, the better you come out looking, the worse you must objectively look.

    Like


  40. Nothing enhances aromas and flavors like a nice GNP.

    mostly hair adds a strong whiff of stale urine to the whole experience. If you’re into that, more power to you.

    Like


  41. I think beauty is pretty objective in some respects– there are traits that are going to be universally beautiful in every circumstance, (i.e. facial symmetry and clear skin) but the one concession I can make (and I hate ever agreeing with the politically correct crowd) to the liberal crowd is this: it is POSSIBLE the whole world may be moving to the European ideal of beauty due to worldwide mass media — I remember reading that the Japanese and American Indians were initially repulsed by what they thought were the disgusting features of the first European voyagers/missionaries, etc. Now if you go to Japan and you’re a blonde European, you’re an instant rock star. Asian people now get their eyelids operated on and some Chinese even go through some surgery to lengthen their legs to more European standards. Black people go through lightening, hair straightening, and nose narrowing procedures. If it’s actually true that foreigners were initially repulsed by European looks, it’s going to continue to be very hard to settle this debate.

    I’m pretty far right-wing, and even I can make this concession to politically correct liberals. I don’t think it’s either/or. There’s definitely some things hardwired into us and some things that are media and culturally-influenced. After all, our soft-culture is pretty much our strongest and more powerful export at this point. And I’ve noticed now how attractive white women of all cultures are much more open about finding black guys attractive since the rise of the hip-hop aesthetic around the globe. The question becomes whether the rise of blacks, the athlete image and hip-hop aesthetic actually made blacks more attractive to women of other races or if other races were always this attracted to black men but the change in how they were respresented in the media just made it more socially acceptable to admit it out loud.

    Like


  42. dynamo kiev dynamited:
    it is POSSIBLE the whole world may be moving to the European ideal of beauty due to worldwide mass media

    there is one other possibility besides mass media.

    are you ready? this would qualify as a VERY ugly truth if true.

    european lineaged women may indeed be more beautiful on average than women from other parts of the world, and the trend in worldwide beauty standards simply reflects that.

    Like


  43. One of your best posts ever. Seriously.

    Like


  44. Roissy

    You might be interested in this. Beauty is symmetry, no matter if you’re talking female faces or particle physics.

    http://www.forbes.com/2008/10/07/nobel-prize-physics-oped-cx_mk_1007kaku_print.html

    Like


  45. there is one other possibility besides mass media.

    are you ready? this would qualify as a VERY ugly truth if true.

    european lineaged women may indeed be more beautiful on average than women from other parts of the world, and the trend in worldwide beauty standards simply reflects that.

    Problem is, as pointed out in the rest of Kiev’s comment, many of the indigenous people in lands the Europeans first encountered, when first being exposed to Europeans, found them very physically unattractive. So I don’t really know about that.

    Also, there’s too much proof out there that purely European features don’t really drive people that crazy either, just like extremelty strong African or Asian features also don’t. Like, a really pale Caucasian girl with a pancake butt and thin lips and nose is probably going to be viewed as less hot than the lead singer of the Pussycat Dolls.

    I think that if anything, racial ambiguity is the new standard of beauty, not caucasian features per se. That’s why white women tan and try to plump their lips up and enhance their butts, features associated more with darker peoples. Meanwhile blacks are lightening their skin and thinning their lips and nose to move more in the caucasian direction. Straightening your hair is really a move in the Asian direction, as they are the race out there most likely to have bone straight hair without a hint of natural waviness. There seems to be a growing sentiment that the more races one can claim, the more good looking they are likely to be. There’s a new study here that suggests that Eurasians may be considered the optimal race for beauty, often considered more attractive than people who are solely European or solely Asian.

    Like


  46. “Striking” is not just an escape-hatch word. It is meant to suggest someone whose face is memorable as well as pretty or beautiful.

    Rachel Weisz (your own fav., Roissy) is a good deal more striking than either Britney Spears, even at her best, or Lindsay Lohan, yet there are many men who would find the latter two more conventionally attractive. And please don’t bring up that tired old saw of yours about how it’s easy for men to debate the relative merits of unattainable women, and how they would grab any of the three women I named if they were available and interested. You may well be right about that, but I’m considering which of the three would be most likely to turn male heads on the street or in a club.

    Of course, it’s possible to be striking without being beautiful, like Angelica Huston, but that’s not what I meant here. The doctored photo of Brigitte Bardot is less striking, and less appealing, than the real one because her short upper lip, one of her most striking features, was “corrected” to a more conventionally attractive length.

    p.s. The overl-large eyes on photo #1 could be made to appear a more normal size with…makeup.

    Clio

    Like


  47. on October 13, 2008 at 6:58 pm ironrailsironweights

    p.s. The overl-large eyes on photo #1 could be made to appear a more normal size with…makeup.

    Or she could leave them as is. While her large eyes are unusual, or striking if you prefer, they are not repellent in the way some odd features could be. They certainly help her stand out from the crowd.

    Peter

    Like


  48. Hope, your links aren’t working for me. They’re all giving me “An Error Has Occurred — The profile you are looking for has been deleted or does not exist.”

    Like


  49. T.
    Problem is, as pointed out in the rest of Kiev’s comment, many of the indigenous people in lands the Europeans first encountered, when first being exposed to Europeans, found them very physically unattractive.

    i agree that *if* this were true it would point to… something. but what that something is eludes consensus.
    there are questions left to be answered:

    1. do we have solid evidence that natives did indeed find europeans physically revolting in the sexual sense? and of those europeans they met, how many were good-looking themselves? it’s very possible that the first wave of euro settlers were the ugly bunch of the euro lot.

    2. if (1) is true, to what extent is the newfound indigenous love (assuming this is true) of euro looks a change in tastes influenced by mass media or an actual change in sexual taste that mass media is simply reflecting?

    3. if tastes are changing worldwide to converge on a euroasian norm, does that suggest a preference for eurasian looks, or a preference for a fundamental substrate of female beauty that eurasians happen to have more of than women from other races?

    btw, i have read the same studies showing euro-asian mixes to be the most universally appealing, so i don’t necessarily subscribe to the theory i suggested in my above comment that european women are the most sought after. i happen to personally believe there are beautiful women of all races, that the basic female beauty building blocks are the same the world over, but that it is possible, based on these studies and my own observations, that euro-asian mixes have more of the fundamental beauty building blocks than other kinds of women.

    Like


  50. It’s true that both mixed race whites and asians AND mixed race blacks and whites are considered more attractive than their single race counterparts, but there are several different reasons this might be so:

    1) mixed race people are more heterozygous, and therefore have more attractive, variable immune systems giving them a more attractive scent, and healthier appearance. They are also more symmetrical. This is the one theory for why they might be inherently more attractive.

    2) mixed race people are unusual looking, and rare “exotic” phenotypes are considered more attractive looking. In an environment where a mixed race people are the majority (macau?) single race people would once again be considered more attractive.

    3) the parents of mixed race people are not representative of population attractiveness. If the parents of mixed race people are simply more attractive than is average for their respective races, then mixed race children will be more attractive.

    Like


  51. Imagine seeing a better-looking version of yourself as calculated by a computer program. What a soulkilling ego rape that would be. I can almost feel the shiver that must’ve run down her spine.

    Women don’t need a computer program to have this experience — all they have to do is open their yearbook from their junior or senior year of high school. It may not have been when they peaked, but compared to what they look after about 27, it will be unmistakable. That’s probably why they stop looking at them, leaving them buried in the basement, after their early 20s.

    Have you seen the new picture of Kim Kardashian at 14, looking like a Brazilian bikini model?

    http://www.kimkardashian.com/2008/10/i-never-had-plastic-surgery.php

    Sweet statutory, she doesn’t look bad now, but she looks great then — definitely better than what she’ll look like at 30. She’s obviously an early-developer, though, and for most women that photo would’ve been from when she was 16 or 17.

    Like


  52. 49 Mr. T:

    I think that if anything, racial ambiguity is the new standard of beauty, not caucasian features per se.

    This is an interesting idea. I’ve noticed in my own life that the women I have found *most* beautiful were mutts, i.e., mixed race/ethnicity. Not that I have a preference for mutts in *general*, but that whenever I’ve come across those “11’s” whose looks *really* make my heart go all a flutter, they have usually been of some mixed background. And I noticed something else: they mixture was always a combination of light/dark. Italian/German, Asian/Hispanic, Irish/Greek, etc. In fact, the Lost Love of Tupac’s life, his Heaven and Hell, was a Finnish/Mexican hybrid(!). She looked like a darker Rose McGowan.

    I suspect some of this might be due to my own mixed race background, but perhaps it might be due to the fact such intermingling has the potential to create new forms of beauty. I have an inherent love of the novel and never-before-seen, so that might have something to do with it. I get bored easily.

    Here’s to hoping Agnostic has something to say on the matter.

    Like


  53. @ 56, TC –

    Even if you just consider “pure” Hispanic women, who are often very hot, they are in essence a “mixed,” or “mestizo” race. They are a mix of African, Spaniard and native Indio people. I used to have a thing for Filipino girls too, and they are also a mestizo race made up of Asian, aborigines and Spaniards. I also find that when you mixed a Filipino with just about any other race you get some really beautiful people as a result. Out of all the white and Asian mixes, I find the white and Filipino mixes turn out the best. Another underrated mix is White and Indian or Black and Indian. I met a lot of the former who are from England and a lot of the latter who are from Trinidad.

    Like


  54. Re: changing standards of beauty, there are changes over time, but they are bounded by universals. Here are three posts showing this for Miss America, Playboy Playmates, and porn actresses:

    http://www.seductionlabs.org/2008/02/06/87-years-of-beauty/

    http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2008/06/your-generation-was-more-into.php

    http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2008/06/bygone-brunette-beauty-fashion-in-hair.php

    It looks like 24 is the oldest you can be and still look great, and about 16 or 17 at the youngest. Within those bounds, it can move up or down, go through cycles, etc.

    Miss America has become more in-line with *masculine* attractiveness: taller, older, heavier, narrower hips, smaller bust, etc. It’s not so bad that we think they’re ugly, but still, guys who were born after 1960 or so need to break out of the Matrix by looking back to when the feminine ideal was the rule, like the late ’60s or early ’70s at the latest.

    Like


  55. “I’m not trying to score debating points. (And I do believe that beauty in human faces is to a great degree “objective”.) This one’s a difference of taste.”

    I started to say.

    Roissy tried to make it look like the one on the left was the lesser of the two, but if my buddy had the one on the right and I was with the one on the left, I would not feel cheated! Yeah, you can talk about differences between ethnic beauty vs. Anglo beauty, but I’d feel like I was getting a good deal either way.

    Like


  56. DoJ, copy and paste the URL into your browser and press enter, and you should be able to see the pictures. I forgot that the .htaccess on the site is set to a certain permission.

    On the subject of mixing, I agree that a lot of mixed people look nice on the whole. It decreases the number of mutations from recessive genes, possibly increasing overall symmetry and fitness.

    Within “races” there are also ethnic subgroups. For example among whites, there are Celtic Irish vs. Welsh, Slavic vs. Basque, etc. In Asia, which is really quite a large and ethnically diverse place, you have Han Chinese vs. Manchurian, Indo-Aryan vs. Dravidian, etc.

    Liked by 1 person


  57. mixed race blacks and whites are considered more attractive than their single race counterparts

    They are?

    Like


  58. If the parents of mixed race people are simply more attractive than is average for their respective races

    That’s a big “if.” Especially if you’re talking about those elephanitine blondes at Walmart.

    Like


  59. @ 54 Rain and – Another theory, and this is just pure speculation on my part, no proof to support it, may be that since people tend to prefer dating within their own race, it takes someone who is above average looking to make them consider “jumping the color line” and mixing race. Hence the kids they produce come out more attractive. People may be raising their standards when dating interracially, hence the better looking kids.

    But there are some flaws in this theory of mine, for example fetishists who are so hard up to date someone from a certain race they actually lower their standards. Like those white guys who have yellow fever so bad they will choose Sandra Oh over Megan Fox.

    Like


  60. @61 PA –

    They are?

    In my experience, yeah, on average. Even if the black parent and the white parent are homely, the biracial kid will usually be less homely than either parent, even if it doesn’t turn out hot. Montreal was a hotbed of black/white pairings back in the day and their biracial girls currently are to die for. Many of my dad’s Haitian friends settled there in the 60s and had biracial kids, and it’s very common for them to be better looking than either parent.

    Like


  61. 57 Mr. T:

    Agreed on all points.

    I also find that when you mixed a Filipino with just about any other race you get some really beautiful people as a result.

    Like Cassie:

    You feel me dawg? 🙂

    Like


  62. I agree with Clio #2.
    The image of the woman on the left has more impressive eyes and lips. She will age more pleasantly. In the image on the right, they are blanded out.

    Like


  63. clio’s PR agent huffed:
    Rachel Weisz (your own fav., Roissy) is a good deal more striking than either Britney Spears, even at her best, or Lindsay Lohan, yet there are many men who would find the latter two more conventionally attractive.

    “many” is a weasel word in this context. do we have actual evidence that the majority of men would choose britney over rachel for sex? for commitment? we do not, so i don’t know why this meme keeps popping up.
    britney and rachel are within 1 point of each other, though i personally find rachel exquisitely beautiful in a way britney hasn’t been since her salad days of 17-21 years old.

    You may well be right about that, but I’m considering which of the three would be most likely to turn male heads on the street or in a club.

    the nature of always being right means that it is unavoidable much of what i say will seem like an “old saw”. for the record, i’m sure britney and rachel would turn male heads in about equal numbers, give or take a few men for the blonde effect*.
    *the blonde effect occurs when the illumination of blonde hair captures more male attention from greater distance, resulting in an initial skewing of male judgment of beauty.

    p.s. The overly-large eyes on photo #1 could be made to appear a more normal size with…makeup.

    sure. by no more than one point. 😉

    Like


  64. anony off the reservation again:
    The image of the woman on the left has more impressive eyes and lips.

    “impressive”: another female weasel word.

    Like


  65. Honestly, if you look at both the slide show and the original article, the differences in looks pre and post transform are not that great. Most go in the direction of improving looks, but a definite minority do not. (Look at Michael Cera, hardly a classic beauty). Roissy’s statement that people are improved two full points by this procedure seems way, way, off.

    To my eyes, Roissy picked the single most striking case of looks improvement in both the NY Times piece and the original article to lead off his entertaining rant. And even in this case, the pre-modification woman is obviously attractive, although I’d say her more distinctive looks will appeal to a smaller fraction of men.

    Like


  66. Roissy said:
    i have read the same studies showing euro-asian mixes to be the most universally appealing

    I do looooove me some half-Asian chicks. The ideal really in terms of both looks and temprement.

    Like


  67. “They are?”

    PA, yes. Black-white mixes are rated half of a standard deviation more attractive than whites and blacks separately.

    http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/fryer/files/MR%20KIDS%207.1.08.pdf

    “may be that since people tend to prefer dating within their own race, it takes someone who is above average looking to make them consider “jumping the color line” and mixing race.”

    T, that was theory #3. And there is evidence for all three theories. At least in one experiment the most attractive people were most likely to interracially date.

    “1 standard deviation increase in attractiveness results in a 4 point decrease in same-race preference”

    http://scienceblogs.com/gnxp/2008/07/why_does_race_matter_for_women.php

    Like


  68. Yeah, I guess you’re right. Now that I think about it, I like beer when it’s mixed with wine better. And when I buy ice cream, I like to throw all the flavors into the blender. Hurray for hybridity.

    Like


  69. the pre-modification woman is obviously attractive

    I agree. I think that the facial expression is too neutral for her looks to really shine. As I noted in a different conversation, people tend to look a lot better in photos when smiling. Only a small percentage of people can get away with not smiling in photos.

    In the link that Pupu posted, a lot of women had corners of their mouths pointing downward in the original photo, resulting in a slight frown, and the automatic adjustment made them slightly smiling.

    Also, in the original NYT photo, she looks like she was already wearing makeup, mascara, eyeliner and lipstick, with the effect that her large enormous eyes look even bigger.

    Like those white guys who have yellow fever so bad they will choose Sandra Oh over Megan Fox.

    I don’t know that those men actually believe Sandra Oh is more attractive than Megan Fox. They might “choose” an uglier Asian girl because of perceived personality differences, though.

    My husband says Megan Fox is the hottest famous female out there right now, more so than Jessica Alba. He also says Megan Fox has a “bitchy and mean but hot” look. That kind of personality could be off-putting to some men.

    Asians tend to have somewhat lower self-esteem compared to whites due to the media bombardment of attractive European-looking girls. Asian cultural pressures also tend toward perfectionism and status envy.

    A friend of mine said Asian girls are “low-hanging fruit.” I don’t necessarily agree because I don’t think Asian girls are any sluttier, but overall they might be more willing to please. That is often quite appealing to men, particularly in contrast to the stereotype of the typical American woman who is very demanding.

    Like


  70. this has got to be my favorite:

    Figure 10: Varying the degree of beautification: (a) original image, (b) 50 percent, and (c) 100 percent, where the differences with respect to the original image may be too conspicuous.

    ha!
    oh man that hurts. probably even more because it’s done in such a subtle way.
    for that girl’s sake i hope she never sees this paper. she’ll kill herself.

    also, for the record, this algorithm doesn’t know how to do lips right. for instance, figures 9d and 9f have MUCH sexier lips than does figure 9e, whose lips were supposedly beautified.
    wtf? i’d hate to see what this algorithm would do to a sexy black girl’s lips.

    Like


  71. I’m laughing at this “new” research.

    Welcome to 10 years ago, assholes.

    I like the software though.

    Interesting how her eyes shrunk in the “beautified pic”.

    The smaller nose, mouth, jaw and chin make sense.

    Like


  72. “And when I buy ice cream, I like to throw all the flavors into the blender. Hurray for hybridity.”

    Well, it is on average, I’m not trying to tell you what you have to like!

    Watch out with those analogies though: genetics does not work like putting things in a blender. People from mixed race backgrounds are more genetically variable than people from single race backgrounds. A mixed race population would be more phenotypically variable than a single race population, not more homogeneous.

    Like


  73. Well, it is on average, I’m not trying to tell you what you have to like!

    No doubt! I met a Brazilian/Japanese chick turned out that was dumpy and horrid looking. Great sounding mix on paper, horrible in actuality!

    Like


  74. They took away her bug eyes and pulled her hairline back a bit. Pic is the right is the better of the two. The pic on the left makes her looks as if she may suffer from graves disease. I notice the made her lips smaller in the second pic, I think they looks better fuller.

    Like


  75. I agree with t- 76. I’ve seen ugly people from all types of mixes*.

    Like


  76. Like a moth to the flame…

    Agnostic, while I do agree with you in general…not a rule. I had braces, pimples and 50 extra lbs at 14…just saying.

    I always looked the same, though. Hence why I was prompted a lot to lose weight. “You’s be so pretty if….”

    Girl on the right is prettier–I don’t see how anyone can argue this. Truth hurts.

    Like


  77. This being said, the real woman, as shown on the left, is far from ugly, large eyes or not.

    Peter

    Peter, that woman is a good friends with my sister. The three of us were talking about waxing one day, and she said she will never do that to herself.

    Like


  78. on October 13, 2008 at 9:52 pm sins of omission

    the original article makes the point that this software is based solely on caucasian faces and aesthetics. The point is also made that this woman was the most dramatic of the “beautifications” because she was made to look less ethnic.

    Thus Roissy and his acolytes appreciate her looks more in the “after” photo.

    Like


  79. The point is also made that this woman was the most dramatic of the “beautifications” because she was made to look less ethnic.

    more WASP?

    Like


  80. It’s likely the scurvy, poxy, toothless, runty, penniless sailors that made up the European explorers were, in fact, quite ugly.

    Like


  81. on October 13, 2008 at 10:00 pm sins of omission

    from the article, Clio:

    “For most faces, the software made subtle changes, with the person’s essence and character largely intact. In the case of the woman pictured on the front page of this section [the one pictured here, too], the changes were more striking, probably because her features, Mr. Leyvand said, do appear more ethnic than many of the other women and men he photographed. (The researchers have not yet created a program that would be designed with what they call a beauty estimator for nonwhite racial and ethnic groups.)”

    Like


  82. @2 Clio said, “I prefer the girl on the left…”

    Interesting way to put that Clio…so are you into girls too?

    If so that makes you extra hot….just the thought of a threesome with Clio and another chick is almost too much for me to handle.

    Like


  83. Roissy said:nothing enhances eating a girl out like not having to pause every second to remove pube floss

    😯

    He eats 🙂 🙂 🙂

    I’m in love

    j/k
    T saidFor example James Franco is run through the beautification engine and comes out looking exactly the same, suggesting he’s pretty much perfect already

    James Franco is white chocolate. He is one of the best looking men in Hollywood getting screen time. I just hate that he has a substance abuse problem.

    Like


  84. 85 D:

    just the thought of a threesome with Clio and another chick…

    B====D <—- me right now

    Like


  85. 79 Lemmonex:

    I always looked the same, though. Hence why I was prompted a lot to lose weight. “You’s be so pretty if….”

    …you had Tupac’s dick in yo mouf?

    Like


  86. Problem is, as pointed out in the rest of Kiev’s comment, many of the indigenous people in lands the Europeans first encountered, when first being exposed to Europeans, found them very physically unattractive. So I don’t really know about that

    I agree

    I think most people are attracted to those who are like themselves more than the other.

    Meanwhile blacks are lightening their skin and thinning their lips and nose to move more in the caucasian direction

    T, do you know of any AA women doing this? I saw clips from a show that Tyra did but I don’t know anyone personally who does this. I’ve read about the popularity of skin lighting in West Africa among market women. I’ve seen a few African women who bleech their skin and the stuff does not make them truly lightskinned(Alica Keys). They go from about Westly* Snipes or Natalie Cole to about 2-3 shades darker than myself.

    Like


  87. If you look at Western history at least, the standards of beauty have been pretty much universal for the last 3000 years, from Greek sculpture, Medieval tapestry, Renaissance art and onward to today, the standards are pretty much the same. And outside the Western world, light skin and light hair, preferably blondish hair, are almost universally sought after qualities in women among men. Chinese or Japanese men have always preferred lighter skin women, as have Semitic or African men. This is pretty much historical fact. The goddesses in Greek literature are almost always described as having blondish or reddish hair and fair skin. Hera, the wife of Zeus, has the epithet of “white-armed.” And remember the Greeks are rather swarthy among Europeans, so lighter skin was valued among what most outside of European society would consider a white skinned people.

    I personally prefer blondish, blue eyed women. I know it is not too PC to state that, but I like my women as Teutonic as possible. Most men do. The proof of this: ask any escort service anywhere in the world what is the most sought after escort, and which escorts command the highest price, and they will tell you it is the blond hair, blue eyed women with thin but feminine features. When it comes to paying for fucking, every man on the face of the earth is going to toss out whatever PC notions of race sensitivity he may spout to his friends and associates on a daily basis. The blond haired pussy is the most valued on the face of the earth.

    Like


  88. britney and rachel are within 1 point of each other,

    Turn the Tv off. You sound as bad as the guys fawning over Rihanna. Britney is about 4 points away from Rachel. Britney looks like someone smashed her in the face with a brick.

    Like


  89. Chinese or Japanese men have always preferred lighter skin women, as have Semitic or African men.

    @racer x- It’s not true about African men my dear.

    Like


  90. I personally prefer blondish, blue eyed women. I know it is not too PC to state that, but I like my women as Teutonic as possible

    Why is that? Your taste are your taste.

    Like


  91. Dead wrong. Nothing enhances aromas and flavors like a nice GNP.

    Try tasting surstromming, I think you might love it.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surstr%C3%B6mming

    “[…] Because of the smell, the dish is often eaten outdoors […]”

    Like


  92. If you look at Western history at least, the standards of beauty have been pretty much universal for the last 3000 years, from Greek sculpture, Medieval tapestry, Renaissance art and onward to today, the standards are pretty much the same. And outside the Western world, light skin and light hair, preferably blondish hair, are almost universally sought after qualities in women among men. Chinese or Japanese men have always preferred lighter skin women, as have Semitic or African men. This is pretty much historical fact. The goddesses in Greek literature are almost always described as having blondish or reddish hair and fair skin. Hera, the wife of Zeus, has the epithet of “white-armed.” And remember the Greeks are rather swarthy among Europeans, so lighter skin was valued among what most outside of European society would consider a white skinned people.

    That’s kind of slim evidence for a universal preference for fair skin. In the west among Europeans from 3000 years ago, it makes sense that fair skin would be most valued. But “Europe” does not equal “universal.” There was a whole other world out there outside of Europe. For example I’m skeptical about the whole continent of Africa having an innate preference for lighter skin.

    Yes, old Europe and classical civilizations may have valued fair skin, but its hardly a universal value. Nowadays that same fair skin that would have been the pinnacle of beauty in say Victorian times would send a white girl today running to the tanning bed. Or to the drugstore for spray tan. In Australia it’s gotten so bad for example they have started passing laws to restrict white girls from tanning so much because they wanted to cut down on the cancer rates. They were tanning that much:

    http://blogs.smh.com.au/lifestyle/beautybeat/archives/2008/02/fair_comment.html

    Also interesting is the comments section to the article where people talk about the law, and how one white girl mentions how she has been slowly learning to accept and celebrate her pale skin. My simple point is that nothing is as universal as you make it out to be, and many beauty values are fluid. In Europe every Latvian girl I met was so tanned that when I actually met one who didn’t tan I was actually taken aback.

    I personally prefer blondish, blue eyed women. I know it is not too PC to state that, but I like my women as Teutonic as possible.

    Nothing wrong with that, you like what you like. Fuck being PC. Do people really hold liking blondes against you? If so that’s silly.

    The proof of this: ask any escort service anywhere in the world what is the most sought after escort, and which escorts command the highest price, and they will tell you it is the blond hair, blue eyed women with thin but feminine features.

    Sure. This is true. But also ask if the natural paleness is preferred or a golden brown tan and they’ll say the golden brown tan.

    The blond haired pussy is the most valued on the face of the earth.

    This is true. There is an undeniable power blondes have over the average guy.

    Like


  93. An article on the changing views of fair skin in the west:

    http://www.renmenbi.com/pale-beautiful

    Like


  94. @90 Racer X

    your comment portrays perhaps one of the most annoying contemporary habits: playing pop social scientist.

    are you a historian? have you performed some worldwide survey of escort services? stop speaking like an expert on shit you know very little about.

    is beauty an objective standard or does beauty conform to social norms? the answer is yes, to both parts of that question . it’s a false dichotomy. social and cultural norms arise as a reaction to objective truths.

    remember, from the standpoint of evolution, people are always thinking about their grand kids. people find mates attractive, in large part, because they have characteristics they want their kids to have. if your kids have sought after traits, it means they will more successfully mate and pass on more of your genes. it’s impossible to make any real hard distinction between evolutionary behavior and social behavior. culture is one of the mechanisms through which evolution does its work.

    Like


  95. T saidNothing wrong with that, you like what you like. Fuck being PC. Do people really hold liking blondes against you? If so that’s silly
    I agree

    UL* and I were commenting on how few WASP,
    Scandanavian, or Dutch looking women do well in Hollywood.

    Besides Charliese of course.

    Like


  96. The claims that white-black children are on average more attractive than each of their parents doesn’t pass the common-sense test.

    I suspect that if this were the case, miscegenation taboos would have never been around; white men would be proud when their daughters married across racial lines; white women would not obsess over straightening out their biracial daughters’ hair; and the adjective “beautiful” would not be de rigeur when referring to some specific biracial child.

    Like


  97. I suspect that if this were the case, miscegenation taboos would have never been around; white men would be proud when their daughters married across racial lines; white women would not obsess over straightening out their biracial daughters’ hair; and the adjective “beautiful” would not be de rigeur when referring to some specific biracial child.

    There were miscegenation laws because people hated blacks and viewed them as subhuman. The question of whether blacks were inherently mentally inferior was a major debate. The prospect of having possibly more attractive kids would hardly outweigh the social stigma of marrying into a race considered subhuman. There used to be antimiscegenation laws against the Chinese too, yet many agree that Eurasian offspring tend to be considered better looking on average than people who are strictly European or Asian. I doubt the white southerners during the era of Slavery and later Jim Crow would go against all that antiblack tradition just because they may get some better looking kids.

    Like Rain And said above, no one is telling you who to like. If you don’t personally find biracials to be more attractive, that’s your preference. It doesn’t change the fact that anecdotally and in studies many people on average do seem to find them to be more attractive than either pure whites or pure blacks.

    Like


  98. 100 PA:

    The claims that white-black children are on average more attractive than each of their parents doesn’t pass the common-sense test.

    You might be surprised at how cognitive generalizations can distort direct perception at the margins.

    Like


  99. I doubt the white southerners during the era of Slavery and later Jim Crow would go against all that antiblack tradition just because they may get some better looking kids.

    I agree

    What I find so interesting about this is many of the most racist white southerners had blk mistresses. If you hate something so much why do you want to sleep with it???

    Like


  100. 104 Chic:

    What I find so interesting about this is many of the most racist white southerners had blk mistresses. If you hate something so much why do you want to sleep with it???

    Christian tradition demonized sexual desire as part of our animal nature so the whites who looked upon blacks as sub-human saw them a fitting companion for their “sin.”

    Like


  101. ^^^ like those freaky Republican senators. Kinda sounds like Bestiality to me.

    Like


  102. roissy saidironliesironcontrarian:
    Other changes are relatively trivial in comparison.

    stop lying. it is obvious to anyone who isn’t attempting the contrarian two step that her chin and nose have been shrunk, her forehead broadened and heightened, her jawline rounded, and her cheekbones raised.

    You must have really examined the two photos. Who the hell would study someone’s face like that. Then again, I am woman so maybe it’s a male thing.

    oh, and the GNP is for guys who only bang ugly chicks that they have no intention of ever going down on

    Oh really???

    using the word “striking” is a dead giveaway of your doublespeak. that word is a convenient evasive maneuver most often employed by women who want to describe an unattractive woman as something more flattering than ugly

    If you say so. While I don’t agree much with Clio’s taste, I understand jolie laide type of beauty appeals to some people.

    Anony- Christie Brinkley& Gillian Barberi are exceptions to your rule.

    Like


  103. The chick on the right is obviously more comely.

    Anyone with half a brain would see this. Her features are, as Roissy pointed out, almost perfectly spaced from one another. This is what we call “even” features.

    Genetics are the most unfair thing on this planet. Some are blessed, others screwed. It doesn’t mean that homely people can’t be genuinely great human beings and wonderful friends, wives, husbands, and children………….but they do start out at a disadvantage.

    Ive seen children in our family not be able to take their eyes off a particularily pretty cousin that I have. They will be anxious for her (my cousin) to pick them up and sit in her lap. They will stare at her. They are elated when she kisses them. She is just pretty, a real baby doll or honey bunny with feminine features. She has moved up the ladder at her job (broker) very quickly and is already making big money at 28. The fact that she is so easy on the eyes always makes you happy to see her. Its just natural. I hope she has several kids.

    Like


  104. If you hate something so much why do you want to sleep with it???

    Interestingly, the defense team for the black Carr brothers (google the Witchita massacre) argued that their execution-style murder of five white people was not a hate crime because one of the defendants was dating a white woman.

    I believe the way it works with human nature is that racial animosity is primarily directed toward members of one’s own sex. If one hates another race, he probably hates the males, and may desire their women as a kind of loot.

    I doubt the white southerners during the era of Slavery and later Jim Crow would go against all that antiblack tradition just because they may get some better looking kids.

    Anti-miscegenation taboos are virtually universal, particularly among non-African people.

    Like


  105. Anti-miscegenation taboos are virtually universal, particularly among non-African people.

    Yes, but it doesn’t refute my point that they are based on racism, and that racism can often trump the desire to have kids with someone. You can still have lust for that person of other race, but to invite that person and your mutual offspring into your family, risk a loss of social status in your community among your peers and pass your resources and estate onto them is a whole different matter.

    Or to put it a different way…if the urge to breed across races wasn’t a real, tangible urge, why the obsession in the South…and I mean real OBSESSION if you read the history…with anti-miscegenation laws? I mean we have bestiality laws on the books, but the powers that be never had to be vigilant about enforcing them and our country has never exactly obsessed about making sure people follow the bestiality laws because most normal people don’t have a great urge to bang animals.

    Like


  106. Yes, but it doesn’t refute my point that they are based on racism, and that racism can often trump the desire to have kids with someone. You can still have lust for that person of other race, but to invite that person and your mutual offspring into your family, risk a loss of social status in your community among your peers and pass your resources and estate onto them is a whole different matter

    I agree, most people are to beta to stand against the group. Thomas Jefferson, Geroge Washington and the like usually went along with what society said was right

    The CNN special blk in America* featured a mixed family in which the grand or great grand father went to live with his blk wife* after leaving his white wife.

    Like


  107. *Thomas Jefferson, Geroge Washington, Storm Thurmond and the like*

    Like


  108. I’m not sure if I expressed my point clearly now that I reread it so I’ll try again to make sure. Whenever a society or community is obsessed with enforcing a law and is dedicating a lot of resources toward that end, that shows to me that there is a genuine urge among the populace to break said law. A good example is Prohibition. If drinking wasn;t such a primal urge, Prohibition would not have been so tough to enforce.

    And just because there were anti-miscegenation laws on the books and people were averse to actually marry a black person doesn’t mean people weren’t doing it. Black people in America on average have 20% or more white genes than blacks in Africans from centuries of race-mixing. Southern slave culture meticulously defined and named every level of racial mixing: mulattoes, quadroons, octaroons, and so forth. If these intermixes weren’t common occurrences why so much obsession with such labeling?

    Like


  109. chic, when men hate another group, there’s *nothing* they like more than taking their women. There’s nothing men hate more than having their female relatives/coethnics ravaged and there’s nothing more devastating to the men you hate than ravaging their women.

    Diversity is the ultimate objectifier of women: the more a society is divided into feuding clans, ethnicities or religions, the more it views women as war booty and the less reproductive freedom it allows. It’s no coincidence that you see super-patriarchy in super-clannish Middle Eastern countries and ultra-feminism in utterly homogeneous Scandinavia (and as clashing diversity is increasing, men’s tolerance for feminism is dropping).

    One universal truth is that when men gather to discuss sex and relationships on the net, the forum fills up with racial/ethnic stuff (if it’s not moderated). The women who visit will be baffled, to the men it makes perfect sense.

    Like


  110. chic, when men hate another group, there’s *nothing* they like more than taking their women. There’s nothing men hate more than having their female relatives/coethnics ravaged and there’s nothing more devastating to the men you hate than ravaging their women.

    This is true. When you really hate people of another race, you really want to ravage their women. But I’ve noticed something else to also be true,and it’s often discussed even less: When you really, REALLY have a tendency to desire women of another race, you find yourself starting to really hate their men because you worry they may naturally prefer their own deep down to you.

    I think it actually becomes a positive reinforcing loop.

    Like


  111. Whenever a society or community is obsessed with enforcing a law and is dedicating a lot of resources toward that end, that shows to me that there is a genuine urge among the populace to break said law. A good example is Prohibition. If drinking wasn;t such a primal urge, Prohibition would not have been so tough to enforce.

    Indeed. I’ve seen the argument (from Steve Sailer, perhaps?) that black men were primarily feared as sexual competitors, so the law was designed to obstruct them as much as possible with a combination of anti-miscegenation statutes and various measures intended to keep their social status down; while Chinese men were primarily feared as economic competitors so the laws against them were quite different. I think this explains quite a bit.

    Like


  112. when men hate another group, there’s *nothing* they like more than taking their women

    Jaakeli I agree with most of what you wrote. I just see similarities between the hate/desire race and sexual orientation.

    Your explanation doesn’t work for the gay senators and the like.

    Sometimes there is no hate against the”other” group. I think men just want to experiment with new p*ssy. Or they find the darker skin/lighter skin/different eye shape/different body type a turn on.

    Jaakeli are you from Finland?

    Like


  113. More proof that antimiscegenation laws don’t necessarily indicate a lack of natural attraction: when male Asian unmarried workers were coming into this country and white men feared they would start meeting and intermarrying with white women due to the fact they had no Asian women to mingle with, anti-Asian miscegenation laws were created in the 1800s. Yet when American soldiers went abroad during WW2, Korean War and Vietnamese War, there was an epidemic of “war brides” and Eurasian offspring, and many of these men brought the women home. So many servicemen had war brides they wanted to bring home to America this helped lead to the 1965 Immigration Act and its family reunification rules that allowed men to bring their Asian wives and Eurasian kids over to join them in the States.

    Antimiscegenation laws in America basically amount to white men telling white women “Do as I say, not as I do.”

    Like


  114. on October 14, 2008 at 1:03 am ironrailsironweights

    Peter, that woman is a good friends with my sister. The three of us were talking about waxing one day, and she said she will never do that to herself.

    If I weren’t already married, I’d marry her in a flash.

    Peter

    Like


  115. ^^^I agree T

    I think Sara even linked to some stuff about said Asian workers marrying blk women because they were not allowed to marry white women and there were too few Asian women to go around.

    The Conquistadors did the same thing. They didn’t bring their own women so they got the Popes blessing to sleep with the Native American* women.

    Like


  116. Peter

    How long have you been working out?

    Like


  117. while Chinese men were primarily feared as economic competitors so the laws against them were quite different.

    There were laws prohibiting Asian and white marriages. There aren’t terms for half Asian, half white kids in the South because it was not very common, but there are such terms in Hawaii like hapa. There are still people who still are uncomfortable with the idea of Asian-white pairings, though.

    Once I went to the local grocery store’s pharmacy to fill out some prescriptions with my husband. The pharmacist was this old, doddery white man, and he asked meaningfully if I was a “Miss” or “Missus” while looking at my health insurance card (which has my Asian last name on it). Then, while filling out the order, he said something to the effect of “this will decrease the effect of birth control pills, so send him away for a few weeks!”

    I would not have really picked up on those subtleties if my husband hadn’t commented on it. Basically the man seemed very uncomfortable with the idea that a white guy (though my husband is mixed Caucasian and Cherokee, he looks white) might marry and procreate with an Asian girl. Ironically, we’d just found out that I was pregnant a few days before that. I do hope our kids don’t come out ugly…

    Like


  118. though my husband is mixed Caucasian and Cherokee, he looks white

    All blk and white Americans are mixed with Cherokee*.

    Like


  119. on October 14, 2008 at 1:12 am PA = Ignorant

    PA:

    Kill Yourself.

    Now.

    Like


  120. All blk and white Americans are mixed with Cherokee*.

    In his case though it is a big chunk of mixing not a tiny mixing. He has dark, nearly black hair and dark eyes, whereas his father had fair/red hair and light eyes.

    Like


  121. 119 Chic

    I think Sara even linked to some stuff about said Asian workers marrying blk women because they were not allowed to marry white women and there were too few Asian women to go around.

    I don’t recall getting into the fray on that subject, and roissy has been obliterating my comments. Guess he can’t take it anymore, poor thing.

    Like


  122. ^^^j/k

    Hope, I’ve been in ear shot of WW who have a problem with Asian women dating white men. When the white man in question is handsome, the mumbling, hard looks, huffing, and puffing can get nasty. I understand why WW would feel a bigger threat from AW since almost half of all Asian American women marry out.

    Women are like cats.

    Like


  123. If you wanted to test that misceganation hypothesis, there would be a lot of data in old European laws. Back when racial theorizing was the fashionable thing there were all sorts of weird laws governing the permissibility of ethnic mixes. My favourite anecdote is that Finnish/German intermarriages had to be personally approved by the Führer himself…

    And T, when were you in Latvia? Northernmost Europeans are almost all tanned during those few months when you can lie on the beach. At other times it changes according to fashions. It still used to be a signal of wealth in the early 1990s but then cheap solariums popped up, fake tans were introduced and the price of flights dropped. Now that everyone can get tanned it’s more of a sign of the local equivalent of chavs.

    Like


  124. 121 Hope

    There were laws prohibiting Asian and white marriages. There aren’t terms for half Asian, half white kids in the South because it was not very common, but there are such terms in Hawaii like hapa. There are still people who still are uncomfortable with the idea of Asian-white pairings, though.

    Maybe this is what I get for relying on Sailer too much. How strong was anti-AM/WW sentiment, compared to that against BM/WW pairings? (I realize that a fair comparison is difficult because there were so many more blacks in the US.)

    125 Chic Noir

    Hope, I’ve been in ear shot of WW who have a problem with Asian women dating white men. When the white man in question is handsome, the mumbling, hard looks, huffing, and puffing can get nasty. I understand why WW would feel a bigger threat from AW since almost half of all Asian American women marry out.

    This is really quite sad given how much worse this situation is for Asian American men (because the total number of Asian Americans is still small). I have some more sympathy for WW working in East Asia; I’ve heard some sad stories about them.

    Like


  125. Hope, speak of the devil <a http://www.asian-central.com/stuffasianpeoplelike/2008/10/13/95-resenting-asian-women-for-dating-caucasian-males/

    I love this site btw. Funny how much I have in common with the people who run those what ___ people like sites.

    Like


  126. DoJ- Sailer seems to only cover the American side of interacial daing. I need him to look at it world wide in the same way he attempted to do with why people the world over like light skin.

    This is really quite sad given how much worse this situation is for Asian American men
    No don’t, that means more for me. I like Asian men as much as I like blk men(Sailer-*). Rain and Russel Wong are dream boats in my eyes.

    I am willing to bet that the anti-AM/WW sentiment, compared to that against BM/WW pairings was less so. If I am not mistaken for the most part, Asian-Americans lived in California, New York and Hawaii. There were only a small number living in the South. Besides, blks had become like the Oshu or Untouchables to white Southerners (except when the lights went out).

    I have some more sympathy for WW working in East Asia; I’ve heard some sad stories about them.

    I have too. I question about those stories thought because many of the blk female bloggers who live in Asia don’t seem to have much of a problem with dating.

    Like


  127. on October 14, 2008 at 2:01 am ironrailsironweights

    Peter
    How long have you been working out?

    Just over six years. We were on vacation in Phoenix in August 2002 when, for reasons I don’t quite recall, I decided to give the hotel (Arizona Biltmore) fitness center a try. Up until that point I had been a hopelessly out-of-shape couch potato who had almost never engaged in any sort of sports or exercise. To my great surprise I found exercising quite enjoyable, perhaps because the Biltmore’s fitness center was ultra-posh, and when we got back home I joined a nearby gym.

    Peter

    Like


  128. To my great surprise I found exercising quite enjoyable, perhaps because the Biltmore’s fitness center was ultra-posh

    Ah
    How much did the rush of endorphins play into your enjoyment of working out.

    There is nothing like a 40-50 year old man with a nice body and a FLAT STOMACH. I have a story about a 50 year old man I came across. It’s very entertaining.

    Like


  129. why people the world over like light skin.

    The best theory I read, aside from the class explanation that most are familiar with, is that light skin is another neotenous trait. That is, younger people often have lighter skin tone because of less exposure to sun, and they have less skin damage. Over time the color of the face darkens especially compared to unexposed areas, so it could certainly be another marker of age.

    Other neotenous traits include:

    Sparse body hair
    Bulbous forehead
    Large, round eyes
    Small, short nose
    Round cheeks
    Short jaw
    Small chin

    Psychological and social research on facial attractiveness has pointed out that the presence of childlike facial features increases attractiveness. The flatness of the human face compared to other primates is said to be another neotenous trait, as babies tend to have smaller noses and profiles that are not very pronounced.

    Like


  130. “Like a moth to the flame…

    Agnostic, while I do agree with you in general…not a rule. I had braces, pimples and 50 extra lbs at 14…just saying.”
    Gannon would have loved you anyway.

    The woman on the right looks somewhat more attractive, but not by much. In fact, they look like sisters.

    Like


  131. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuteness

    East Asians tend to be more neotenous as a whole, including the men. In Japan, almost all the male pop icons and stars are feminine looking, and this trend has spread to South Korea and China. Japan also idolizes very young and cute looking female pop stars.

    The term describes an aesthetic that can be found in disparate areas in Asia: a young man whose beauty (and sexual appeal) transcends the boundary of sexual orientation. It has always shown the strongest manifestation in Japanese pop culture.

    Today, bishōnen are very popular among girls in Japan. Reasons for this social phenomenon may include the unique male and female social relationships found within the genre.

    The bishōnen is typically slender, with clear skin, stylish hair, and distinctly feminine facial features (such as high cheekbones), but simultaneously retains a male body. This androgynous appearance is akin to the depiction of angels in Western renaissance art, with similar social roots for this aesthetic.

    Like


  132. Hope I came across that theory too but I can’t say I feel either way about it.

    [email protected]

    Like


  133. Coincidentally appropriate that Gannon posted that right after my post about neoteny.

    Like


  134. *shakes head in agreement with hope*

    Like


  135. chic, if you’re mentioning the well known phenomenon of anti-gay preachers turning out gay, that’s unrelated and has a really simple explanation: the more you see someone repeatedly claiming to not be something disliked, the more certain it is that they’re exactly what they claim to not be and badly afraid of being found out.

    There’s a very obvious left-wing equivalent: the more you see a guy celebrating feminists, the more likely it is that they’re misogynist in their personal life. The more celebrated a left-wing pro-feminist figure is, the more likely it is that the daughter will later write a book to complain about how unloved she always felt.

    There’s also a very obvious racism equivalent. You have a stereotype of gay senators, I have a stereotype of liberal youth politics types who speak in racist slurs when drunk. The much demonized anti-immigration/race realist people I know don’t do that.

    And yes I’m Finnish. BTW with stereotypes of politicans I think Finland made a world record. We had a record landslide for a guy who promised to kick out Africans and hand out merciless justice to druggies and drunk drivers: as an MP he was caught driving drunk, tried to kill his wife while drugged up and was then seen dating a very black woman…

    Like


  136. on October 14, 2008 at 3:15 am ironrailsironweights

    The best theory I read, aside from the class explanation that most are familiar with, is that light skin is another neotenous trait. That is, younger people often have lighter skin tone because of less exposure to sun, and they have less skin damage.
    Other neotenous traits include:

    Sparse body hair

    As I’ve been saying all along …

    Peter

    Like


  137. 134/136 Hope

    Psychological and social research on facial attractiveness has pointed out that the presence of childlike facial features increases attractiveness. The flatness of the human face compared to other primates is said to be another neotenous trait, as babies tend to have smaller noses and profiles that are not very pronounced.

    East Asians tend to be more neotenous as a whole, including the men. In Japan, almost all the male pop icons and stars are feminine looking, and this trend has spread to South Korea and China. Japan also idolizes very young and cute looking female pop stars.

    I think the East Asian equilibrium is different from the Western one. (I recall reading a theory positing that childlike traits were selected for by East Asia’s high population densities.) In the US, my neotenous look does not seem to work to my benefit.

    140 jaakkeli

    And yes I’m Finnish. BTW with stereotypes of politicans I think Finland made a world record. We had a record landslide for a guy who promised to kick out Africans and hand out merciless justice to druggies and drunk drivers: as an MP he was caught driving drunk, tried to kill his wife while drugged up and was then seen dating a very black woman…

    Wow, that is impressive. I want to read about this guy.

    Like


  138. on October 14, 2008 at 3:44 am ResidentCynic

    Cool. That’s a 1.5-2.0 swing, face-wise (haven’t seen the body).

    Now we just need to get this into the hands of plastic surgeons ASAP! 🙂

    Like


  139. Although I think some generalities go way too far (e.g., Racer X saying that the Nordic look is universally regarded as the ideal of female beauty, everywhere in the world), I think there are some generalizations that can be made about the nexus between female beauty and ethnicity.

    Personally, I do find the “Germanic” or “Nordic” ideal the most attractive, but definitely not to the exclusion of other races. I have dated Hungarians, Cubans, Italians, Croatians, Colombians, African-Americans, and am now dating a Japanese, all of whom I found attractive, otherwise I wouldn’t have dated them.

    Among Europeans, English, Irish, German, Polish, Baltic, Greek and Serbian females stand out as especially physically attractive. Personally, regardless of skin tone and hair/eye color, something I find very attractive is strong, symmetric features — prominent nose, cheekbones, and strong (though not masculine) chin. The Balkans are especially notable for this combination of features — check out Greece and Serbia. Croatian women tend to be hot and have great bodies, but are not as stunning (in my opinion) as many Greek and Serbian women.

    Spanish, Italian, and French girls are not generally as attractive, on the whole, as the above ethnic groups, but they carry themselves in a very sexy way, and so are sexier than American women. For instance, it is almost unheard of for an Italian female under the age of, say, 50, to wear her hair short. (Perhaps only hardcore bull dykes do this, but even that demographic doesn’t pop up so obviously in Italy.) It’s likewise almost impossible to find a young woman under, say, 40, in Italy, France, or Spain, who is overweight.

    The Ukraine is an interesting place. I know people here were speaking of Kiev a few weeks ago. I was there about 6 months ago, and found it amazing. It wasn’t so much that all the girls were stunning (they weren’t), but they dressed and presented themselves in such a sexy and suggestive way… David Alexander would LOVE it there.

    The other thing about Ukraine is that, unlike, say Germany, there is no one typical “look” for women in Ukraine. In Kiev you can find EVERYTHING… Nordic-looking blonde Valkyries walking right next to swarthy, dark-haired, Turkish or Greek looking goddesses…. and they are all locals… all Ukrainian.

    In Germany, there is definitely a typical standard look and I, for one, love it. The German “look” is about 5’10, erect posture, blue or grey eyes, perfect angular features and perfect skin, natural blonde hair pulled back in a ponytail, slightly imperious bearing, cool and efficient speech. But, paradoxically, much more open and approachable than the average attractive chick you would meet at a Cosi in Arlington, VA!

    Then there is Latin America…. Roosh is an expert there. I’ve lived in Puerto Rico, and while you have a superstratum of 10-15 percent gorgeous girls there, mostly of European backgrounds with a dash of African for “sabor” and curves in the right places, the vast majority in the caserios are overweight, with gross features and greasy skin and acne from too much fried food. And still, they have the nerve to wear spandex stretch pants!

    I imagine it’s much the same in Venezuela…haven’t been there but they do produce an amazing number of beauty queens, and that look really appeals to me to.

    Like


  140. definitely the right

    Like


  141. “How can they prove it?” said Lois W. Banner, a historian who has studied changing beauty standards, referring to scientific efforts to define attractiveness. “They are never going to locate it on a gene. They are never going to get away from the cultural influence.”

    As the authors point out, Beautification Engine (BE) is currently just a tool: it hasn’t been used to prove anything about universal standards yet, but it certainly has potential in the area.

    The coolest thing about tools like BE is that they create an experimental setting not much different from twin studies. Of each face, we have an exposured and a non-exposured copy–all possible confounding is ruled out. Therefore, one can draw conclusions not only about correlation, but about causation as well.

    Banner is of course right that BE cannot measure how beauty standards are changing on a long time-scale. However, I don’t think art constitutes a good measure either, exactly because the artists may have deviant tastes.

    I believe Playboy centerfolds and pornography are much less biased as indicators of beauty standards, since unlike art (or fashion, for that matter), they are meant to sell as much as possible.

    #25: Take porn. At one time porn was filled with curvy chicks with dark hair and natural breasts and hairy muffs.

    I think we can all agree that there has been a trend towards hairless genitalia in pornography, and that GNP is viewed increasingly as a fetish.

    But video porn is still a relatively young phenomenon, so we cannot yet say whether such change is due to nature or nurture. Perhaps shaved pussy is here to stay, and the early viewers were just unaware of its glory.

    Certainly, in the absence of their shaved counterparts, hairy muffs do give men boners. But why would today’s Internet porn connoisseur bother with the surrogate?

    Like


  142. 146:

    Certainly, in the absence of their shaved counterparts, hairy muffs do give men boners. But why would today’s Internet porn connoisseur bother with the surrogate?

    Right now I’m imagining Peter…stiff-armed and robot-like…stumbling around bumping into walls…smoke and sparks spewing from his ears…”Does not compute…BEEP…does not compute…BEEP”

    Like


  143. Is it horribly un-PC and grossly insensitive for me if I commented that both girls look like members of the “Tribe”, the left one being the more average garden variety type, and the right one being perhaps of more patrician breeding.

    Like


  144. it’s impossible to make any real hard distinction between evolutionary behavior and social behavior. culture is one of the mechanisms through which evolution does its work.

    bingo. So many ev psych types totally fail to get this obvious point. Human beings have physically evolved to be responsive to social cues — your brain is hard-wired to imitate the popular people. It’s a key survival skill, as should be obvious to anyone who takes ten minutes to observe reality. That’s why beauty has an element that is socially dependent (while still following certain universal laws).

    Like


  145. Roissy –

    On an unrelated note, when I look at your site in firefox, the new tabs at the top are messed up. The search is over on of the dating market value tests.

    Like


  146. Something that was overlooked in the above digital makeover, which is a facial feature that is not often discussed and vastly underestimated but packs a huge punch in contributing to female facial beauty, is the distance between the eyebrow and the upper eyelid.

    In general, the greater this distance (up to a point), the more attractive the woman, all other things being equal. This trait makes the eye look bigger, but it appears to have been ignored by the beautification algorithm. If a girl is a 7, just increasing this distance can actually bring her up to 8 or even 9. And most people wouldn’t even be able to articulate what happened.

    BTW, this is one of the reasons I find a higher incidence of very attractive girls in England than in the USA. This trait seems to much more common there than among white females in the US.

    Like


  147. @127

    Chic Noir – you’re right about this phenomenon, and I take it you live in the DC area, where there is a lot of WM/AF pairing. Interestingly, I’ve seen a lot more of it in DC and environs even than on the West Coast, despite the fact that the West Coast has a greater Asian population.

    My take on this is that these white women are hugely threatened by Asian women dating white guys.

    Specifically, it’s not so much that these white girls WANT the same white guys they see dating attractive Asians. Most of these white guys are, in fact, guys whom these white girls would NOT date… they are guys whom these white chicks would actually reject.

    The issue is that these white chicks *resent* the fact that these white guys are dating anyone attractive at all. That’s why they seethe with hatred when they see what they deem an “average” (read: undesirable) white guy with an attractive Asian female.

    It’s not that they resent the fact that the AF has taken the white guy away from them. It’s the fact that the white guy is with anyone desirable at all.

    Most of these WM dating AF are guys whom this particular sociotype of WF would consider nerds, betas, and not attractive enough to meet their high standards.

    Their ability to make themselves unavailable to these white nerds, geeks, betas, etc. in the dating climate of a metropolitan area like DC, enhances the status of these white chicks, and inflates their egos.

    The fact that lower-status white males are able to be with attractive females is anathema to these white women, because they intuitively know that, in a closed or semi-closed environment (like a big city), sexual and dating status is a “zero-sum game” between males and females.

    Anything that increases the overall status or demand for average members of one gender, decreases the same for average members of the other gender.

    By withholding themselves from males they deem nerds or beta, average young white females (let’s say with a mean attractiveness rating of 6-8), collectively increase their own status, and thereby enhance their own ability to call the shots in the dating environment and choose their partners, rather than being chosen by potential partners.

    But the injection of a group like AF into this mix, who have a disproportionate predilection for WM in general, and are less selective about weeding out so-called nerds and betas, is a blow to these WFs’ strategy to increase and inflate their status by rejecting large swaths of WM.

    It increases overall demand for average WM’s, and, because of the zero sum game, it therefore decreases the overall status of these “selective” WF.

    Like


  148. 152 Joe T.:

    The issue is that these white chicks *resent* the fact that these white guys are dating anyone attractive at all. That’s why they seethe with hatred when they see what they deem an “average” (read: undesirable) white guy with an attractive Asian female.

    Those poor poor girls. I hope for their sakes those uppity white guys listen to Chic Noir’s advice to “stay in their lane” and know their place.

    Like


  149. For all of you who are discussing white men with Asian women and why white women hate it so much, despite the men in question aren’t men that White women are showing present interest in:

    Its removing their insurance policy. White women are chasing the most attractive men to them in their late twenties and early thirties now, BUT THINK THAT BETA WHITE MALES WILL STILL BE THERE WAITING ON THEM AT 35. When they see these “beta” men marrying Asian women at 29, you bet your ass they are going to be pissed about it. They certainly aren’t usually nearly as interested in the Asian man who will be left high and dry by the marriage. Its pulling the rug out from under their insurance policy of a white “beta” being available if they wind up single at 35. Of course they are pissed off.

    Also, if the most alpha white males see their white male counterparts with “regular” Asian women, of course they will wonder what “Allen Average” is getting at home that makes him seem so happy.

    Ive seen and heard white women venomously describe Asian women as “playing nice”, but really being bitchy and bossy in reference to white men who are with them. Its abject hatred of a rival female who they know are legitimate competition for the attentions of the men they desire.

    California, I am told by one I trust, is full of White Male/Asian Female couplings, much to the derision of white females out there.

    Feminism didn’t prepare pretty white females in particular for dating competition from “other” pretty women.

    Like


  150. Wow, that is impressive. I want to read about this guy.

    He had a “career” in America, so he actually has an English wiki page. He’s not into gays, either (he has proudly shown us all on TV that he has EXIT ONLY tattooed on his ass), but he hasn’t been caught blowing anyone.

    The sad thing is that these are the kind of people I’m stuck voting for: nobody else is willing to speak against the ludicrous PC and refugee importation. There was a gang rape last night, *again*, and the “respectable” media is already busy talking about humans of no particular ethnicity. (Since that part is already leaking, they’ll soon switch to the script of demonizing all the racists and telling us that these things shouldn’t be reported.) This is utterly ridiculous… but no one is going to say anything about anything since then we’d be classed with the politicians who proudly showcase their anti-gay buttcheek tattoos on TV.

    Like


  151. @154

    z – won’t argue with any of the good points you make.

    I will disagree with what someone told you about California being a mecca for WM/AF couples. Yes, it’s fairly common in Cali, but go to a place like UCLA and what you see these days is a place where 70% of the students walking around are East Asian and maybe 15 percent South Asian walking around campus. That leaves about a whopping 15% for all other races combined, including white. Not many opportunities for white guys to hook up with Asian girls there anymore.

    Even off college campuses in California, I don’t see too many WF/AF couples.

    As I said before, I found this combination *much* more common during the 11 years or so I lived and worked in DC (1990-2001). Don’t know if it’s still all the rage out there anymore, as I don’t get back to DC too much now.

    I think one reason for this is that the DC area is rigidly stratified into dating pecking orders and social circles, like alpha/beta, professional/blue collar/gangster, cool/geek, white/black, etc.

    Another big factor is that in the DC area, young white women wield far more power in the dating milieu than in most places, including California. (California doesn’t even come close… you could *almost* say that guys rule in Cali).

    For guys who grow up in the DC area or live there for a long time, they get so used to this female-dominated regime, where young women call all the shots and make all the decisions in dating (except for ultra ultra alpha males like congressmen and roissy, 🙂 that they think this situation is normal.

    With respect to the pecking orders I mentioned, for a guy in the DC area stamped with one of these labels, it is almost impossible to break out of that group by choice, and date in a “higher” bracket. You have to wait for a girl to choose you. If you even remotely smell of “geek”, you can wait around for years to find a nice, reasonably attractive white girlfriend. I had friends in northern VA and suburban MD who would literally go through entire cycles of their lives, climbing the career ladder, buying homes, etc., and not get a serious date for years, much less be able to find a girlfriend.

    I think this is a big reason that there seems to be more interracial dating in the DC area than in most places, particularly WM/AF. (BM/WF is another story which I’ve discussed here before… it seemed this peaked in the DC area around the early-mid 90s.)

    California is much less rigid and hierarchical than DC, and far less distorted by young white women having an inflated sense of self-worth and dating value. The average white guy in California doesn’t have to put up with the stereotypical “DC lawyer chick” empowered/ultra feminist types, so things are much cooler in CA, and guys have lots more choices.

    Like


  152. Joe T. – I heard the hot quotient is way different in California too, which helps keep women’s self-worth in check and stops it from getting overinflated. I used to meet girls from California who relocated to NY, and they’d be hot by NY standards, yet down to earth. After getting to know them, I’d realize that they were down to earth because in California they were considered just average, despite being considered strong 8s or weak 9s in NY.

    Of course, and sadly, within a few years of getting constantly harrassed, put on pedestals and getting their asses kissed by the typical NY desperate guys they became just as entitled and full of the same inflated sense of self-worth as the average NY woman.

    Like


  153. @157

    Ricky Raw – I’d have to say the dynamic you describe is definitely true, particularly about the NY/Cali dichotomy.

    NY is very much like DC in that regard, i.e., places where young white women have massively inflated senses of desirability.

    In general, the whole northeastern urban corridor from DC to Boston is like that.

    Some of it has to do with the relative numbers of hot girls (versus CA), but a big part of it is embedded in the culture of the Northeast. I don’t claim to know why or how, but it just seems so. Women of the northeastern USA have, by far, the most distorted sense of their own value that I’ve ever encountered, anywhere.

    Like


  154. I’m not too familiar with California but I can vouch for Joe T’s description of the Metro DC region.

    Funny thing is, that changes about three hours’ drive north, and probably south too. I once caught up with an old Army buddy of mine who lives in rural central Pennsylvania.

    Being single at that time and having completely internalized the dismal DC/VA/MD suburban dating realities, I was very surprised by the fact that this friend of mine was married to a very pretty young girl, who would have been way out of his league down here.

    A recent trip to Williamsburg, PA confirmed this casual observation. I went to a firemen’s bullroast event up there, and saw tons of blue collar guys — decent looking, in decent shape, but certainly no DC alpha — in late teens and early to mid twenties, with very pretty girlfriends.

    Like


  155. 69
    And even in this case, the pre-modification woman is obviously attractive, although I’d say her more distinctive looks will appeal to a smaller fraction of men.

    No, she isn’t. I’ve met girls like this in college, two, both Jewish of course. Sure they are tall and slim, but mannish. While not ugly looking, I felt no urge to fuck them, and their personalities were far from feminine – it was more like androgynous girl engineer type. I looked at them and I couldn’t help feeling, “you know, she’s not that bad looking, but she just couldn’t get me hard” – partly the personality that accompanies it.

    Oh, and Montreal women >>> American women.

    Like


  156. Certainly, in the absence of their shaved counterparts, hairy muffs do give men boners. But why would today’s Internet porn connoisseur bother with the surrogate?

    Crazy, unsubstantiated theory time:

    I think today’s man has been so betaized and feminized that he’s (1) having his first sexual experience later and later and (2) more acquainted with the world of women and what they like (as hobbies, not sexually) more than any previous generation.

    Because he’s having sex later and later, the average American guy is more likely to have his tastes in women formed by the media, magazines, porns and Barbie dolls, which are hairless. And because he’s more immersed in the world of women, he’s likely to have seen and maybe even played or examined his sisters platinum blonde and totally hairless (and with big, hard erect and seperated boobs, porn implants anyone?) Barbie dolls growing up, which also helped imprint sexual preferences into him. By the time he’s an adult and ready for his first woman, he’s already been conditioned to want a human Barbie doll, both from seeing real Barbie dolls and from watching porn, which is also trying to recreate Barbie dolls.

    I notice natural alphas, as opposed to the ones who intellectually trained themselves later in life to be alphas, don’t seem to be as into the plastic Barbie image as much as other guys do. I think it’s because for them, most of their early social experiences with women were with actual girls rather than with their sisters and their Barbies and scrambled porn.

    I had the old school 3rd world Island parents that had what many enlightened American yuppies would consider barbaric views on gender. They basically were the type that thought any lapse in vigilance could result in a young boy spontaneously turning gay through neglect. Boys in my family were not allowed to share playtime with girls in the family, so no sharing of toys. We couldn’t even TOUCH female toys. If my sister or female cousin passed me a Barbie for any reason they’d have slapped it out of my hand. A Haitian friend of mine growing up got a spanking for getting caught holding a doll.

    It’s a far-fetched theory but I’m convinced that the breast shape and hairlessness of Barbie dolls have had more effect on the male psyche and sexual preferences than anyone realizes, especially once 90s porn started making the implants and grooming habits match the Barbie.

    Like


  157. Joe T.

    Women of the northeastern USA have, by far, the most distorted sense of their own value that I’ve ever encountered, anywhere.

    Me and my friends have a chicken and egg debate about this all the time: are Northeast girls delusional about their worth because guys are so desperate or are guys so desperate because the Northeast girls are so delusional about their self-worth. Then again, I guess if the guys here buy into it and treat them so good, is it really a delusion on the part of these women to feel so entitled?

    Like


  158. T, JT, PA #157 – 159: I concur with your observations. Although if you guys think DC is bad, live in Manhattan for a bit. I am sure T has seen it first hand.

    Women of the northeastern USA have, by far, the most distorted sense of their own value that I’ve ever encountered, anywhere.

    Absolutely. If I had to venture a guess it is that there are a proportionately higher number of wealthy men in these areas that embellish women with gifts and excessive attention. Twenty, thirty, fourty+ year old men are hitting on the same group of 20 year olds leveraging their wealth as an enticement. When a girl gets here, no matter where she is from, its only a matter of time before she is corrupted. You have to act quick.

    Like


  159. on October 14, 2008 at 2:25 pm So the point is?

    ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

    Like


  160. @162 –

    Ricky – the chicken and egg debate is as valid a way as any to break down this phenomenon, but never leads to a practical solution.

    The only solution is leaving DC, NYC, and the rest of the northeastern seaboard!! Or at least getting the hell out of there as often as possible.

    There used to be a direct flight to Reykjavik, Iceland on Icelandair from BWI airport, that I took a few times for long weekends, but I believe this has been discontinued.

    But I recommend junkets like this…

    As Sam Kinnison used to say, when talking about starving Ethiopians and why they are seemingly resigned to their plight:

    “GET THE FUCK OUT OF THE DESERT!!!”

    Like


  161. on October 14, 2008 at 2:50 pm ironrailsironweights

    A recent trip to Williamsburg, PA confirmed this casual observation. I went to a firemen’s bullroast event up there, and saw tons of blue collar guys — decent looking, in decent shape, but certainly no DC alpha — in late teens and early to mid twenties, with very pretty girlfriends.

    Were the guys volunteer firemen? That’s an activity which seems to attract men who are physically fit and active in a Todd Palin sense, even if they don’t necessarily have high-paying jobs. In fact, many of the guys you saw may have been that way whether or not they were volunteer firemen, given your “in decent shape” comment. They are what you might call “physical alphas,” a blue-collar counterpart to the typical i-banker/BIGLAW partner white-collar Alphas. And like the latter type they are attractive to women, if not the same type of women.

    Your stereotyped introverted IT beta loser nerd may outearn the average blue-collar “physical alpha,” but he’d be no match for one in a barroom brawl.

    Like


  162. on October 14, 2008 at 2:52 pm ironrailsironweights

    A recent trip to Williamsburg, PA confirmed this casual observation. I went to a firemen’s bullroast event up there, and saw tons of blue collar guys — decent looking, in decent shape, but certainly no DC alpha — in late teens and early to mid twenties, with very pretty girlfriends.

    Were the guys volunteer firemen? That’s an activity which seems to attract men who are physically fit and active in a Todd Palin sense, even if they don’t necessarily have high-paying jobs. In fact, many of the guys you saw may have been that way whether or not they were volunteer firemen, given your “in decent shape” comment. They are what you might call “physical alphas,” a blue-collar counterpart to the typical i-banker/BIGLAW partner white-collar Alphas. And like the latter type they are attractive to women, if not the same type of women.

    Your stereotyped introverted IT beta loser nerd may outearn the average blue-collar “physical alpha,” but he’d be no match for one in a barroom brawl.

    Like


  163. on October 14, 2008 at 2:54 pm ironrailsironweights

    Because he’s having sex later and later, the average American guy is more likely to have his tastes in women formed by the media, magazines, porns and Barbie dolls, which are hairless.

    Aha! God damn you for all eternity, Barbie.

    Peter

    Like


  164. Were the guys volunteer firemen?

    Possibly many were off-duty firemen, but the crowd seemed too big and diverse (in the sense of age, personality, and social clique) for them to all be firemen.

    That’s a good point about Todd Palin-like “physical alphas.” They are very common in the US, although not as much in big metro areas like NYC or DC.

    Like


  165. on October 14, 2008 at 3:08 pm ladymarmalade

    Female beauty has both objective and relative parts:

    Objective: Wide set eyes and upside down triangle setting for eyes to mouth
    Subjective: How wide is the face on which the features are set? How big are the eyes, how pointy the nose, how full the lips

    For example, one would agree that whites are a lot more accepting of thin lips than others but thin lips work well with thin noses and generally dolicocephalic head shapes. However, on a generally brachycephalic head, fuller lips, even wider eyes and a wider nose also sits better.

    Objective: WHR around 0.7
    Subjective: Overall size of the woman. A size 2 and a size 10 can both have perfect WHRs.

    Interestingly enough, this may explain the different preferences amongst races. The pattern of fat accumulation bw white and black women tends to be different; white women tend to accumulate intra-abdominal fat in larger quantities than black women. This would mean that 0.7 would be achieved at different weights for both types of women. Based on my experience, a white woman significantly above a size 6 will start to approach 0.9 or 1 WHR: however, black women can generally maintain a low WHR as high as a size 10-12

    Objective: Most men desire a tall woman, however she mustnt be too tall to affect his sense of masculinity.
    Subjective: Whatever height allows the individual to meet the objective.
    Due to the fragility of the male ego, most men aim for the tallest woman who is at least a few inches shorter than him and given the wide range of male heights, this will include a wide range of female heights. Other men with an exaggerated sense of their own masculinity will actively seek the tallest woman they can find.

    Objective: Neotenous features are attractive in women since their fertility expires.
    Subjective: The features that are considered neotenous.

    Blond hair and blue eyes tend to occur more in childhood for whites, so it is a neotenous trait. But again, it is only neotenous among certain ethnicities. Among Africans for example it only occurs due to albinism, a genetic disorder that can shorten life span. Hence, men there are generally not attracted to this type of coloring. They may even find it repellant (changing a bit due to global exposure) Same with Indians who generally find anything outside of jet black hair to be a sign of a sickness (black hair often turns lighter due to damage or disease)
    Light skin however is neotenous everywhere. Keep in mind though that this only refers to lightness relative to an average. Among the Sudanese (black as night) a nigerian girl is light skinned. Among nigerians, a south african girl is light skinned

    Lastly, and here is where the subjectivity is most: men rate each of these areas in differing levels of importance. Some men will trade neoteny for the perfect WHR.

    This is another reason mixed race people are rated more attractive – they make a trade off less necessary. halle Berry is probably not that much prettier than gabrielle union or kate hudson objectively, but she is in the middle enough to not alienate extreme tastes. her skin is not too pale to alienate blacks and not too dark to alienate whites….Her lips, her body type and so on

    Like


  166. […] standardized photo actually more attractive than the original? Local dude blogger Roissy in D.C. seems to think so. “If you are honest in your assessment and not trying to score dorm room debate points on […]

    Like


  167. @170

    ladymarmalade – brilliant post. Really excellent analysis….

    Like


  168. …are Northeast girls delusional about their worth because guys are so desperate or are guys so desperate because the Northeast girls are so delusional about their self-worth.

    T, it’s been widely reported that the northeast corridor has a disproportionate number of single women relative to single men. While it is difficult to break down the demographic by age, its pretty clear that single girls are making their way to the big city (many times with parental subsidy) to land a man with means, not just to further their own careers. They are hedging their bets that there are more attractive suitors – in a financial sense – in cities along the northeast relative to rural or suburban locales. However, I think the stats are misleading because as I said earlier, a larger age demographic of men is pursuing the same pool of women (girls in their 20s). That eliminates the reported disproportion of single women to single men and second, those men usually do have means. The guys then pursue the women with “money game” and the girls eat that shit up.

    I honestly don’t think there are even that many truly beautiful women in the city. I think there is a lot of average to above average but the entitlement is out of control. This is why I think your ‘Simps dilemma’ is so spot on.

    Like


  169. If you even remotely smell of “geek”, you can wait around for years to find a nice, reasonably attractive white girlfriend. I had friends in northern VA and suburban MD who would literally go through entire cycles of their lives, climbing the career ladder, buying homes, etc., and not get a serious date for years, much less be able to find a girlfriend.

    Living in DC, this does not seem accurate to me. What is your standard for “reasonably attractive”?

    Like


  170. Joe T @ 156 – Brilliant. Somehow missed that comment first time around.

    Like


  171. @174

    MQ – my standard for “reasonably attractive” is a 6 or higher.

    In general I found that DC women try to date guys who are at least 1 attractiveness point higher than they are, and they won’t even consider a guy who is 1 or more points lower than they.

    In case you think this is the norm around the world, it is not. In fact, in most places around the world, it is *men* not women who are used to dating “up”.

    DC is definitely an exception and I found that guys who were so immersed in that culture (either from having grown up there or being transplants who’ve lived there for a long time), were so inured and resigned to it that they started seeing it as normal, and even started ratifying and justifying DC girls’ hyperselectiveness.

    Like


  172. #73 Hope,

    Does your friend’s observation pertain to American females of Asian ethnicity, or Asian females? If so, any countries in particular?

    The Japanese have words that differentiate ones outward behavior, demeanor and appearance versus ones true inward feelings. Some of the toughest women I’ve known are Japanese (not Japanese Americans – I don’t know any.) You’d never know it from their outward behavior or casual conversation. What do I mean by tough? A girl whose parents were survivors of the bombing of Hiroshima telling them that she’s going to marry an American she’s known for half a year and move to a country she has never seen, and whose language she doesn’t speak fluently, whether they like it or not, then bringing him home to meet them. Then marrying him and doing exactly what she said she would.

    Anyone who marries or dates one expecting subservience is doomed to disappointment. One thing I never saw was “the attitude.” I suspect WW often don’t do well there, because that is a non-starter.

    Interestingly, a lot of American AFs are also down hard on the AFs who date/marry white guys. I guess it’s a racial/ethnic solidarity issue. I didn’t see that at all in Japan. Lots of girls wanted nothing to do with a foreigner, so they just didn’t associate. Well, not every girl I ever met here wanted to date me either.

    The nerd who can’t get a date here stereotype? Maybe in California, but not so much so in Japan. Likewise, the stereotype of the girl who can’t do any better snagging the WM. I know of some cases, but mostly it was guys getting girls who were way above average in looks. Mostly it was guys doing very well for themselves, period.

    Before I went to Japan, I never felt any particular attraction toward any Asian female. Now they define good looking for me. I’ll apologize for feeling that way as soon as Rod Stewart stops marrying blondes. There are females of other ethnicities who are objectively good looking. Just not for me.

    #122 – Perhaps your husband is finding a racial meaning where none was intended. Wouldn’t the pharmacist have said the same thing if you were both Caucasian? Congratulations.

    Like


  173. I haven’t been able to find any evidence for the claim that young men (teens) are having their first sex later and later, other than reports of a moderate drop-off of activity for teens as a whole, male and female, since about 1995. The drop coincided with an increase, also moderate, of teen use of contraception.

    I am at a loss to understand how this in any way supports the claim, often made here, that young betas are being frozen out of the sexual marketplace, with more and more women being rogered by alphas, leaving the betas with their porn and their lathered palms. I haven’t been able to find much evidence that average age of first sexual experience has risen much, if at all, for either males or females. Everything seems to have peaked sexual activity-wise in the eighties, with some, though not much, decline (about 8% for both sexes) since then.

    So…not doubting the guys who argue for the rising age of virginity-loss, sexually-disenfranchised betas, etc. But where’s the evidence? Where are the numbers?

    Like


  174. Example stat: About 50% of US high school graduates have had sex at some point prior to finishing high school. This rate hasn’t changed substantially since the early 1980s — it has hovered between 50 and 55% since 1984…

    Like


  175. @178

    Patrick – I think only one guy somewhere above contended that teen guys are losing their virginity later and later, and I think that notion is wholly inaccurate.

    Just for disclosure of what I know, there is one scientist who says that human evolution has stopped because men are fathering children earlier, and older men aren’t having as many children:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1070671/Evolution-stops-Future-Man-look-says-scientist.html

    This guy claims that the traditional patriarch who fathers children with multiple, much-younger wives and mistresses, is going by the wayside. Since older sperm is more prone to having DNA mutations, fewer novel mutations are being passed onto offspring and therefore he contends that human evolution has stopped.

    I would seriously argue with this guy’s premise that far fewer older men are fathering children. I don’t know where he’s getting this from. Yes, perhaps in a few small pockets of the urban west, places like NYC, DC, Boston, London, etc., where feminism has inverted the power balance between men and women, leading fewer young women to mate with much older sugar daddies (and the concomitant “cougar” syndrome), but this is a very minuscule phenomenon when viewed from a global perspective. This inverted gender dynamic is just not happening in most of the world.

    However, the age of first sexual encounters is a much different, and separate issue, from young (say 20- and 30-something) beta and nerd males being frozen out of the sexual marketplace in places like NYC and DC.

    Even betas and nerds get some, and even they tend to have their first sexual encounters in their teens, often at ages not much more advanced than their more cool, alpha peers.

    The issue is not the age of first sexual encounter, it’s the *quality* of the sexual partners they’re able to attract once they get out of their teens, into the much more competitive dating marketplace of places like NYC or the DC Metro area.

    What happens is that in these hyper-competitive environments, betas/nerds tend to be frozen out of competition for even marginally attractive females, as a direct result of the inflation of female desirability.

    Thus, if young white women who are 5’s and 6’s will only date 7’s at a bare minimum, and flock like flies on honey towards 8’s and 9’s whenever opportunity presents itself, things become much tougher for the “average” guy, and almost impossible for anyone who is a beta/nerd.

    But objectively, this is exactly the kind of situation that obtains in the big Northeastern cities, and it has become so ingrained into people’s minds as the norm, that many people of both sexes get fearful and defensive whenever the issue is brought up.

    Like


  176. xample stat: About 50% of US high school graduates have had sex at some point prior to finishing high school. This rate hasn’t changed substantially since the early 1980s — it has hovered between 50 and 55% since 1984…

    PatrickH, admittedly I’m going primarily by anecdotal evidence and also the reports about the rise of pickup artist bootcamps and all the older virgins you see now attending them, so I could be totally wrong. Maybe all these older virgins always existed but its only now socially acceptable for them to come forth. Or maybe they are just an anomaly that we tend to notice more because it strikes us as so unnatural.

    What I am curious about though is the gender breakdown of that stat. With more boys today lacking father figures thanks to increases in divorce and deadbeats and more girls feeling okay being slutty at a young age thanks to culture changes, perhaps its possible that the percentage of high schools having sex is similar but the breakdown of gender has shifted more toward girls and away from guys?

    Like


  177. Don’t know, T. Could be. I’m thinking that your point is valid in terms of Joe T’s comment just before yours. We’re talking about the most brutal sexual market on (maybe) the planet…from the point of view of young men: the coastal cities of early 21st century USA. I’ve argued here and elsewhere that young men are the single most abused, despised and low-status age/sex cohort in our society, and it would not surprise me at all if life is indeed fantastically difficult in the world you and Joe and Roissy know (far better than I do). As well, I think you’re right to focus on this small numerical group because of the massively disproportionate influence the big coastal cities have on society.

    It may be (I’m probably sugarcoating here, but hey I’m an optimist) that the rise of bootcamps is a sign of rising young male power…all the abuse directed at them cannot prevent them from studying and learning and making up the social skills deficit that’s been built into their lives since childhood.

    Dunno. Betas, if by that we mean most guys (me included, by the way), are the crapped-on schnooks and schmoes of modern America. This phenomenon is real, and you’re right to point it out. I guess (and it is a guess only) that it transcends questions of getting laid, even if that’s foremost in young guys “minds”, to the question of the whys and wherefors of a much broader contempt and derision, even hatred, directed systematically at young men by almost other every group in America, except newborn babies and the dead.

    Like


  178. Waaaaiiiiiiiiiiit a minute. What??? It can’t be that hard to find a “moderately” attractive woman in the DC/MD/VA area. Roissy finds lots of them all the time, so they’re out there. They’re at grocery stores, getting coffee, riding the Metro, church, in Target, at the gym, etc. This whole fall has been wedding/baby shower central (along the Eastern seaboard at that) so apparently a lot of people are getting something right.

    It sounds like a lot of these men (betas) weren’t socialized to be around aggregates of people period. Not just women. And whatever anger/resentment/desparation they’ve built up over the years is apparently spilling over when they’re trying to pick up women, to a degree that is noted by their targets. Dating at the end of the day is like going to kindergarten. No one wants to play with the wierd kid. So, don’t be wierd.

    On the girls, the one on the right is prettier, but the one on the left has a more interesting face. And I don’t mean “prettier” by interesting, I mean I could stare at it longer and probs attach more meaning to features.

    Like


  179. *desperation*

    Like


  180. jaakkeli
    chic, if you’re mentioning the well known phenomenon of anti-gay preachers turning out gay, that’s unrelated and has a really simple explanation: the more you see someone repeatedly claiming to not be something disliked, the more certain it is that they’re exactly what they claim to not be and badly afraid of being found out.
    That’s why I mentioned klan leaders having blk mistresses. In my opinion, the two are very similar. People professing to hate something, but secretly desiring it.

    And yes I’m Finnish
    I thougth so.

    BTW with stereotypes of politicans I think Finland made a world record. We had a record landslide for a guy who promised to kick out Africans and hand out merciless justice to druggies and drunk drivers: as an MP he was caught driving drunk, tried to kill his wife while drugged up and was then seen dating a very black woman

    It’s not what they say, it’s what they do that counts jaakeli. Are most of the Africans who come into your country entering as refugees( like Somalians or Sudanise) or working as cheap laborers?

    Like


  181. on October 14, 2008 at 8:44 pm sins of omission

    158 Joe T.

    “PEOPLE of the northeastern USA have, by far, the most distorted sense of their own value that I’ve ever encountered, anywhere.”

    fixed for accuracy

    Like


  182. Doj are you Asian?

    @JoeT will you please define “sabor”? I found something weird in the urban dictionary. Websters had no defitnion for it.

    Like


  183. Doj are you Asian?

    Yes, I am.

    Like


  184. MQ said:bingo. So many ev psych types totally fail to get this obvious point. Human beings have physically evolved to be responsive to social cues — your brain is hard-wired to imitate the popular people. It’s a key survival skill, as should be obvious to anyone who takes ten minutes to observe reality. That’s why beauty has an element that is socially dependent (while still following certain universal laws)

    Bravo

    Joe T saidSpecifically, it’s not so much that these white girls WANT the same white guys they see dating attractive Asians. Most of these white guys are, in fact, guys whom these white girls would NOT date… they are guys whom these white chicks would actually reject
    same thing with bw

    Like


  185. DoJ
    Doj are you Asian?

    Yes, I am

    Okay, when you mentioned having a neotenous look, the question poped into my head.

    I really don’t get why people are saying that Asian men are not manly??? I read the Steve Sailor stuff but I don’t buy it. I think a lot of it has to do with the way Asian men are portrayed in popular culture. Asian women are being seen more and more as Americans but Asian men are often portrayed as foreign or the other. Do you get what I am trying to articulate?

    Like


  186. 190 Chic Noir

    I really don’t get why people are saying that Asian men are not manly??? I read the Steve Sailor stuff but I don’t buy it. I think a lot of it has to do with the way Asian men are portrayed in popular culture. Asian women are being seen more and more as Americans but Asian men are often portrayed as foreign or the other. Do you get what I am trying to articulate?

    Well, it goes both ways. On the one hand, yes, Asian men are portrayed in an unflattering manner in popular media. But on the other, a disproportionate fraction of Asian men (including myself) really do need to make an effort to be more engaging to the non-techies around them. I didn’t start trying until very very recently, and I’m already 29.

    Like


  187. Tupac Chopra
    152 Joe T.:
    Those poor poor girls. I hope for their sakes those uppity white guys listen to Chic Noir’s advice to “stay in their lane” and know their place.

    @Tupac if I burned with that “stay in your lane” comment, I didn’t mean to. I am just bothered by the bitterness of some men who are 4s thinking they deserve an 8 or 10 just because. Women value beauty in men too, other things come into play but male beauty is important. The beta buys who look like Rob Lowe or Reggie Williams (NFL) will have an easier time with women than an ugly or plain looking alpha.

    I bet a lot of the female commenters here don’t like guys who look like Rob Lowe & Reggie Williams, but I love pretty boys.

    Quick question: Do Reggie Williams and Rob Loewe have a neotenous look? I think the two have very innocent, incredibly handsome bordering on pretty faces.

    Like


  188. DoJ said:Well, it goes both ways. On the one hand, yes, Asian men are portrayed in an unflattering manner in popular media. But on the other, a disproportionate fraction of Asian men (including myself) really do need to make an effort to be more engaging to the non-techies around them. I didn’t start trying until very very recently, and I’m already 29.

    I see Asian men who are nerds but I also come across those who do well in school but are still somewhat or very sociable. The same thing with height, I come across a number of Asian men who are as tall as and taller than myself(5’9.5). The one thing I’ve noticed about Asian men who have approached me is they are sometimes nervous(cute 2 me) but not weirdo nervous(bad bad bad).

    Like


  189. Z saidCalifornia, I am told by one I trust, is full of White Male/Asian Female couplings, much to the derision of white females out there.

    Z, I heard/read it was really bad in San Francisco. If you look at craigslist’s rant page you will notice that there is a lot of bit*hing about AW in any city where there are a lot of Asian people. Most of the people who write those evil rants say that they are WW*.

    Like


  190. Anyone who marries or dates one expecting subservience is doomed to disappointment.

    Different people are different, but there is truth in what you have written. I think a lot of men conflate certain attributes, equating quietness with meekness, and demureness with subservience. Strength and willpower can and do often hide under an unassuming exterior.

    I didn’t see that at all in Japan. Lots of girls wanted nothing to do with a foreigner, so they just didn’t associate.

    The Japanese are a very proud people (I am sure Americans know a little of this from WWII), and in attitude they tend to disdain other East Asians and look down on foreigners. The Japanese tend to idolize whites over any other group of people. The Chinese are similar in many ways, which is why I think the Japanese and Chinese often dislike each other.

    I know of some cases, but mostly it was guys getting girls who were way above average in looks. Mostly it was guys doing very well for themselves, period.

    A lot of Japanese women really like western men, but numerous cultural differences can keep them from acting on that. So if the white man is already in Japan, speaks the language and is indoctrinated into the culture, then he will practically guarantee his pick of attractive Japanese women.

    Perhaps your husband is finding a racial meaning where none was intended. Wouldn’t the pharmacist have said the same thing if you were both Caucasian? Congratulations.

    Thanks. It’s very possible that he could just be paranoid. But he is a lot more observant and aware of other people than I am. At first I insisted there was nothing weird about the old pharmacist. He might have just been very old-fashioned and doesn’t like premarital sex in general. But then he seemed a bit smugly relieved about the fact that I was a “Miss,” and the casually joking remark about our sex life was, if nothing else, a bit too private for some random stranger to comment on.

    Today while we were out shopping during lunch, my husband joked that we should walk in front of the old pharmacist and make out with tongue. I said, well, in a few months when I’ll be obviously showing, I’ll just wear my wedding set and wander in front of him.

    Like


  191. Not many of you could understand- no doubt you’ll dismiss this, but you’ll be wrong no matter what:

    Like


  192. no doubt you’ll dismiss this, but you’ll be wrong no matter what

    In school, I saw that white girls dated Asian guys. It’s not as common as Asian girls dating white guys, but it of course happens.

    If you look at craigslist’s rant page

    Oh dear, please don’t judge anything by Craigslist’s rants. It is filled with trash, spam, and some opinionated individuals making sure their view of the world is the one broadcasted.

    Most of the people who write those evil rants say that they are WW

    White women are the (currently) most populous group in the country, so if there are ones making noise, they will also seem more numerous.

    There are a lot of great white women, many of whom, I freely admit, are far better people than I could ever be. Of course I do live in the midwest, where people are more down to earth, so I know little about what is happening in the urban coasts.

    Like


  193. @187

    ChicNoir – “sabor” means “flavor” (or something very close to it) in Spanish. It’s used in Latin cultures to describe something culinary, but also to refer to a certain cultural attitude or attribute, as in music, art, or people with “Latin flavor”. Another synonym would be “spice”.

    Like


  194. Jakelli said: He had a “career” in America, so he actually has an English wiki page. He’s not into gays, either (he has proudly shown us all on TV that he has EXIT ONLY tattooed on his ass), but he hasn’t been caught blowing anyone.

    OH MY GOD!!!! I DON’T BELIEVE YOU!!!

    Joe T said: I had friends in northern VA and suburban MD who would literally go through entire cycles of their lives, climbing the career ladder, buying homes, etc., and not get a serious date for years, much less be able to find a girlfriend.,/i>

    That is very sad. Are your friends socially awkward or very unattractive? I don’t understand why they would have to go years without a date. WW are not that bad/picky.

    Joe t said Some of it has to do with the relative numbers of hot girls (versus CA), but a big part of it is embedded in the culture of the Northeast.
    LA has pretty women while NYC has the pretty but ambitious women. A part of me is convinced the weather plays a part in this too.

    I forgot to add that Toronto has a large Asian population and there are a lot of AW/WM relationships .

    ladymarmalade said: Blond hair and blue eyes tend to occur more in childhood for whites, so it is a neotenous trait

    Can anyone explain why some white people have blond hair as children but become brunettes by the time they are adults?

    Blk newborns are often white in appearance but darken with time and the hair texture changes by the time they are two years old.
    Among the Sudanese (black as night) a nigerian girl is light skinned. Among nigerians, a south african girl is light skinned

    Southern Sudanese(esp Dinka tribe) are dark skinned but the Northerners are golden brown like myself or slightly darker like DA. Nigerians like the Yoruba are usually dark skinned but Ibos are often my complexion & lighter. The Fulani’s are often ligh skinned and the Hausa can range in complexion. There are something like 250 ethnic groups/tribes in Nigeria so there is a big range, I just wrote about the four largest.

    South Africans are another group who have a large range. The San people are light skinned and some of them have East Asian eyes(for lack of a better word). The Xhosa(Nelson Mandela) are sometimes light skinned or light brown too. The Bantu are dark skinned more often than not.

    Like


  195. @ Joe t- thank you

    Like


  196. I’m confused, I always thought large eyes were supposed to be pretty, but her eyes have been reduced by like 20%. I agree the results are prettier, but I can’t tell why. Also, the features have been made to gather in the lower part of the face, kind of like a baby. Is this neoteny?

    And does anybody else see a difference in expression? The real woman appears to be looking aggressively at the camera, while the fake one seems more neutral. Why is that?

    Like


  197. The bottom line for me is I would date the girl on the right, but I would never date the girl on the left.

    Like


  198. Ladymarmalade said: halle Berry is probably not that much prettier than gabrielle union or kate hudson objectively, but she is in the middle enough to not alienate extreme tastes. her skin is not too pale to alienate blacks and not too dark to alienate whites….Her lips, her body type and so on

    A good point. I love the three examples that you used. The three are very similar in their type of beauty and appeal esp. Union and Hudson.
    Will someone please explain this entitlement issue that some women have?
    Joe T said In case you think this is the norm around the world, it is not. In fact, in most places around the world, it is *men* not women who are used to dating “up”.
    No argument here. In third world countries women are encouraged to go after the guy who can feed you because handsome won’t fill your stomach. Keep in mind that good-looking men still rank supreme in the fantasies of women but money > good looking.
    Mark, there is no need to apologize for your preference.
    Mark DInterestingly, a lot of American AFs are also down hard on the AFs who date/marry white guys. I guess it’s a racial/ethnic solidarity issue
    I think it’s the self hatred that bothers AF more than anything. I’m not an Asian or white male yet I’ve gotten into debates white both WW&AW for writing off as trash, group of men who look like their farther and brothers. It’s one thing to like/prefer people who are different than yourself but it’s another to say horrible things about your own kind. There was an article written by a WW journalist* in which she wrote about her preference for BM. The bitterness, mean spirited, petty things she said about WM bothered me.

    Like


  199. @Kelvin- Large eyes yes but large bulging frog eyes no.

    Grace said whatever anger/resentment/desperation they’ve built up over the years is apparently spilling over when they’re trying to pick up women, to a degree that is noted by their targets
    I agree Grace. I am fearful of bitter men because I think they are physically abusive. It’s at that juncture, that Alpha posing can go wrong.

    Dating at the end of the day is like going to kindergarten. No one wants to play with the weird kid. So, don’t be weird.
    The weird guy is scary. He is the type you imagine trying to kill you because the two of you break up.

    Hope I mentioned that the posters write that they are ww because I don’t believe all of them are in fact aw. I also don’t make judgments about things based on those rants. I just noticed there are many anti-AW rants in areas where there is a high concentration of Asian people. You can only imagine the things I’ve read about myself in those rants 😆

    Like


  200. @204

    ChicNoir – regarding anti-WM/AF tirades on sites like Craigslist (I haven’t read any of these rants but I do believe that they exist), has it occurred to anyone that they may actually come from AM posing as AF?

    There are some Asian-centric sites on the internet, such as GoldSea.com (which I believe is Korean-American run but targeted at all Asian-American groups), where almost the entire site is one big panegyric against Asian women who date white guys. Every possible permutation of commentary, news report, factoid, and diatribe is presented to rather vociferously and angrily support the following contentions:

    1) American media is biased against Asian males, and only portrays them as either nerdy weaklings and betas, ancient wisemen or mindless martial arts practitioners.

    2) Asian-American females are enraptured by this biased media presentation of Asian males, and adopt white beauty standards, selling out their own people and cultures and giving Asian-American males the shaft.

    While there is some degree of truth in point 1, the idea that it necessarily and inexorably leads to point 2 is complete bullshit.

    This is complete whining on the part of *some* Asian-American males (in my experience, thankfully it only represents a minority of them, albeit a very vocal minority).

    Has it ever occurred to them that many Asian females simply and for whatever reasons (perhaps something genetic), are attracted to white males?

    This contention on the part of some Asian-American males amounts to blatant “reverse racism”, as well as sexism. What they are essentially saying is that Asian females are not smart enough not to be influenced by media superficialities, and that their sexual interest in men of another ethnicity needs to be controlled because of that.

    Really, these whiners need to pull up on people and let them date whoever they want.

    Like


  201. chic, yes, it’s true, we did have a politician like that. You guys are badly disadvantaged to speak the global lingua franca: we can see how stupid your politicians are but you can’t see how stupid ours are! If more Americans knew the kind of idiots that proportional representation puts in a parliament, that would be the end of all stereotypes of European sophistication.

    Most blacks here are refugees from East Africa, although lately I’ve been seeing a lot of West African looking people who aren’t officially here in such numbers. Illegals coming through the EU, we’re told. The funny thing is that the illegals seem to be no trouble at all compared to the refugees. Illegals don’t come here to sit on welfare and harass people all day, because illegals don’t get any welfare…

    As for white people’s hair, everyone’s gets darker with age. Almost all Finns are born very blond but for most it turns brown by teenage. It’s also true for some Asians (I’ve seen some blond-haired Siberian kids) and I hear it’s also true for Australian aborigines (they have their own blonds).

    Eye colour doesn’t change gradually with age. Some people are born with blue and change their colour in infancy but it doesn’t constantly darken like hair does.

    Like


  202. joe t said has it occurred to anyone that they may actually come from AM posing as AF

    yes, I mentioned that in my reply to Hope. In comment 194 I forgot to add they say they are ww

    Has it ever occurred to them that many Asian females simply and for whatever reasons (perhaps something genetic), are attracted to white males?

    but 50% does not seem normal, and I wonder why many of that 50% exclude AM completly.

    What they are essentially saying is that Asian females are not smart enough not to be influenced by media superficialities

    We are all influenced by media superficialites to different degrees.

    and that their sexual interest in men of another ethnicity needs to be controlled because of that
    It’s what men do to protect their women.

    Really, these whiners need to pull up on people and let them date whoever they want
    For the most part, I agree with you.

    Like


  203. As for white people’s hair, everyone’s gets darker with age. Almost all Finns are born very blond but for most it turns brown by teenage.
    I guess what ‘s so striking with whites, it’s often the hair going from very light to dark, and with most other people, it’s going from dark to darker.
    it’s also true for Australian aborigines (they have their own blonds
    they do, I’ve seen some in a documentary.

    Like


  204. @206

    jaakkeli – i’ve been meaning to answer one of your posts for a while now, you are really cracking me up with your descriptions of over-the-top PC politicians in the Nordic countries.

    Reminds me of a news article I saw recently. It seems a committee of the European Parliament wants to ban *all* TV commercials that have any sexist content whatsoever. This would not only include banning young women in bikinis on beer commercials, but even any depiction of males or females engaged in “stereotypical” (read: traditional) gender activities, like a woman cleaning her kitchen.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/2686538/EU-wants-to-ban-sexist-TV-commercials.html

    This bill was written by one Eva-Britt Svensson, a MEP from Sweden.

    Here is bio of Ms. Svensson with her photograph:

    http://www.europarl.europa.eu/members/expert/alphaOrder/view.do?language=EN&id=28134

    Need I say more?

    As someone in the US who votes 100% liberal Democrat, for reasons of the economic and ecological survival of the country and the planet, this is the one realm of US and international “liberalism” that has always alienated me.

    This kind of PC is a self-perpetuating, virulent dogma concocted by intellectual masturbators with nothing better to do and a meaningless, nihilistic axe to grind.

    I’ve never been to Finland, but your descriptions of the country are at once fascinating and distressing. I think I’d like to visit it sometime and explore some of the comedy/horror stories you present here so amusingly. Sort of do a “Borat Does Finland” exploration of the Nordic PC mentality and what drives that bizarre, twisted mindset.

    Like


  205. on October 15, 2008 at 12:44 am Comment_Not_So_Much

    *******
    On the flipside, Bridgette Bardot is run through the beautification engine and comes out much uglier after the scientific universal standards of beauty are applied to her.

    *******
    yeah, the bardot one is an outlier. as is brando.

    but if you go to the link pupu posted above, which has, i believe, all of the test subjects, the trend is unmistakeable — most people got better looking by .5 to 2 points after being run through the program.
    ********
    ********
    Because, you know, these guys who made it are super-honest and they would never have eliminated pictures that turned out badly. People just don’t do that.

    That said, it’s remarkable that the program works at all.

    Like


  206. Peter said – “They are what you might call “physical alphas,” a blue-collar counterpart to the typical i-banker/BIGLAW partner white-collar Alphas. And like the latter type they are attractive to women, if not the same type of women.”

    Glad you made this point, even if it does still condescend to the blue-collar man. Men who do real work for a living are more attractive. I can’t help feeling instant contempt and dislike for men who think that success means doing as little work as possible for as much money as possible. I ask myself, “In a post-apocalyptic future, after the massive breakdown of society, would I want this man at my side?” Ability to part people from their dollars means very little in this respect.

    Like


  207. @210

    Lisa – remember, in a post-apocalyptic society, women would be busy too, spending hours washing clothes on washboards, weaving clothes, grinding cornmeal, churning butter, etc.

    Should I chose my mate now based on her ability to do these things?

    Like


  208. Joe T saidremember, in a post-apocalyptic society, women would be busy too, spending hours washing clothes on washboards, weaving clothes, grinding cornmeal, churning butter, etc

    How many women in my age group can do those things.

    Should I chose my mate now based on her ability to do these things?

    If you did, you would never get married my dear.

    Like


  209. @Comment_Not_So_Much- like cigarettes don’t cause cancer because Harvard trained doctor ____ said so.

    Like


  210. Maybe not on her present ability as chic noir pointed out, but your perception of her willingness to do what it takes to pull her share of the load, day to day or in a crisis. Yeah, I’d say that’s important when any person is choosing a mate.

    I was being tongue in cheek, but at the same time sincere.

    Like


  211. Joe T, I get you on the alienation. I’m otherwise very social liberal but the PC and the immigration nuttiness kills it for me. There’s no political home for people like me, nothing that even comes close: I either have to vote for the populist idiot with EXIT ONLY tattooed on his butt, the anti-everything conservatives or the clueless leftists who think denouncing American theocrat bigots while selling off the country to radical imams makes them brave anti-fascists.

    But if you want the height of nuttiness, you should do Sweden. Finland is not even close to the levels where you can seriously propose a man-tax or spread theories on how the glass ceiling comes from cabals of powerful men sacrificing babies to Satan.

    Like


  212. This is not surprising at all.

    You can, in fact, buy software that makes people better looking automatically for $80 – http://www.portraitprofessional.com .

    Of course, facing up to your faults is something most people struggle with.

    Like


  213. @217 Alex:

    Programs like Portrait Professional and the beautification engine in Roissy’s post are pretty much going to be the end of the online dating industry once they become ubiquitous and cheaper. Photoshop’s always been available but at least requires some skill to use. These things, being automatic and low-skill, will become widespread and no one will be able to trust online profile pics anymore.

    Like


  214. Should I chose my mate now based on her ability to do these things?

    Yes. Domesticity in a woman is correlated with many other desirable qualities.

    Like


  215. There’s certain things a woman should be doing. You have to ask yourself, is she frugal or does she waste money? If you pop a button off your shirt, does she sew it back on or is that shirt a goner? Does she even care if you and yours are walking around unkempt or does she feel no responsibility for integrity of appearance? Does she cook or does she have absolutely no inclination to do so?

    People nowadays say that couples used to stay married b/c they had no other options. But I have to wonder where people nowadays got the idea that there are better options. Life is easier when you have a partner.

    Like


  216. Lisa is right. Nothing would suck more than life with a sloppy, messy, lazy, incompetent, untrustworthy wife, even if she was “hot” when you met her.

    That’s why I advise men to marry a girl just over your attractiveness threshold who has the best personality possible.

    Like


  217. To go back to the issue of black-white relations in American for a moment: T and Chic Noir, you talked about the hatred that is felt or was felt by many whites towards black people, and how this affected their perception of black people’s sexual attractiveness, and miscegenation laws. One point you both left out of your comments was the fact that the idea of black people as “sub-human” and “ugly” was important, and indeed essential, to the social and political stability of a slave society.

    Allow the races to mingle sexually and produce children, and inevitably (due to natural affections) many people, of whatever colour, are going to start asking, “so why can’t my black or partly black mistress, lover, child, be allowed to take a place in society? Why can’t men of colour vote? In fact, why do we have slaves at all – isn’t it unjust?” In order to prevent this kind of chaos, it was absolutely necessary to convince white people that blacks were subhuman and ugly, so subhuman that to have sexual relations with one was not merely a sin but a disgrace, like having sex with an animal.

    So any talk about the ugliness and bestiality of black people in the days of slavery and segregation has to be taken with a grain of salt. No doubt many whites internalized these ideas, but for many others it must have been merely a social fiction, in some cases supported by anger. I suspect many southern white women must have been very angry because they were half-aware that their husbands had sexual relations with female slaves, and this would have given fuel to their insistence that black people were ugly.

    clio

    Like


  218. T and Chic Noir, you talked about the hatred that is felt or was felt by many whites towards black people, and how this affected their perception of black people’s sexual attractiveness, and miscegenation laws.

    Actually Clio, I don’t think the hate affected the sexual attraction that whites felt for blks. The hate just affected the potential for longterm relationships between the two races.

    I agree with your comment 100% btw.
    I suspect many southern white women must have been very angry because they were half-aware that their husbands had sexual relations with female slaves, and this would have given fuel to their insistence that black people were ugly

    Oh Clio, there are some slave naratives of blk women who were master’s favorite and they got hell from master’s wife pure hell.

    Like


  219. 222 Clio:

    Weren’t there many slave societies in the ancient world who didn’t view their slaves as specifically sub-human or ugly? (Remember the pun from Gregory the Great about how Angles on sale as slaves in Rome were not “Angli” (sp?) but “Angeli” because of their beauty? A laugh a minute he was, good ol’ Greg.)

    I’m not sure that the particular taboos/conventions of American slavery need to be interpreted as meaning anything other than what they were: slaves were seen as subhuman because, well, the owners saw them that way. That belief is what allowed them to enslave blacks in the first place, not merely to keep them separate from the owning race.

    Like


  220. I think the first generation of slave owners was well aware that their African slaves were human. They just used those lies as a way to justify their actions. Some of the first abolitionists were in fact Europeans who worked on the slave ships.

    Like


  221. Patrick, the nature of slavery in Greek and Roman society was very different from it was in the US. Not only did the former have (marginally) more rights – it wasn’t illegal to educate or set them free, for example – but neither Greece nor Rome ever established any form of race-based slavery. Oh yes, their slaves were drawn from conquered peoples and slavery in ancient societies would have been seen as racially-based by those who upheld it, so that it’s tempting to assume that they were essentially similar to US slavery. BUT in spite of these facts, there was one tremendous and significant difference between the US and any other slave-owning society – and I’m surprised it hasn’t occurred to you: in the US, a slave could be identified by appearance alone; that is, by colour.

    That was the point of enslaving only black people: it meant that they could be easily picked out of a crowd and prevented from running away; it meant that they were fundamentally viewed as slaves first; and that they were always treated as slaves by white society. It also meant that it was easy to justify slavery by insisting that people of this particular race were not worthy of full citizenship because they were inferior to other races – an important issue in a society that claimed to be truly democratic.

    It has also been suggested by at least one historian (whose name I’ve forgotten) that the existence of black slavery helped to defuse some of the class tensions that might otherwise have developed in the States between rich and poor, especially as land in the east began to fill up and marginal farmers were forced to give up their property and become industrial workers. They could look to the south and say, “I’m not rich – but I am free.”

    And yes, Chic Noir, I agree that earlier slave owners knew very well what they were doing. After all, the architects of the US constitution referred to slavery as “the peculiar institution”, suggesting that they knew it didn’t really fit their vision of what the “United States” was supposed to be.

    Clio

    Like


  222. BUT in spite of these facts, there was one tremendous and significant difference between the US and any other slave-owning society – and I’m surprised it hasn’t occurred to you: in the US, a slave could be identified by appearance alone; that is, by colour

    Bravo

    They could look to the south and say, “I’m not rich – but I am free.”

    Ah yes. I’ve come across poor whites who have this sort of thinking. They would prefer being poor and white vs black and wealthy(+140iq) any day of the week.

    Like


  223. Yes, Clio, point taken. I am merely suggesting that since slaves could be identified visually because of the colour of their skin, it’s also possible that the view that blacks were “ugly” was also derived from the visual differences between blacks and whites (not just colour of skin, but that too).

    You suggested that the view that blacks were:

    “ugly” was important, and indeed essential, to the social and political stability of a slave society’.

    I am suggesting that the same visual cues that made slaves identifiable might also have been seen as ugly by the owner class. “Ugly” wasn’t anything but what it sounded like…a response to how black people looked to the white slave owners of the period.

    Dark skin colour could still have functioned as an identifier without being seen as ugly.

    Like


  224. Hmm, Patrick. Seems to me I already covered that in my previous post on the issue. Southern society wanted to discourage any possibility of mating between blacks and whites because that too would inevitably confuse the clear demarcation between slaves and free citizens. Obviously the idea didn’t quite work as it was supposed to. In fact, sexual relationships between slaves and masters did sometimes lead fathers to educate their mixed-race offspring illegally, and to the equally illegal manumission of their offspring as well.

    clio

    Like


  225. Oh jeez. Canadians, with their goofy christification of black people.

    Like


  226. Oh jeez. Canadians, with their goofy christification of black people.

    Oh geez, I hate political correctness as much as the next guy, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that the politically INCORRECT answer is automatically the right one either. People who knee-jerk look for the politically incorrect answer to everything can be just as bad as the Pollyannas.

    Do you have some better proof to cite in comparison to Clio’s? Or are you discounting it simply because it’s not politically incorrect? What specifically is “goofy” and implausible about her analysis?

    Like


  227. PA, your comment makes no sense. I was trying, after all, to explain certain aspects of the history of slavery in the US, which differed from slavery elsewhere in important ways. Given the way I set up my comments, you could, I suppose, accuse me of “demonization” of the US, though I think you would be mistaken. But there was certainly no “Christification” of black people anywhere in my comments.

    Clio

    Like


  228. on October 17, 2008 at 1:16 pm ladymarmalade

    I think it is the default for people to think people of a different race are ugly. The farther away from you they are, the more abnormal they look to you. (e.g. asian eyes, african noses, european lips)

    Extreme features are likely to ignite deeper passions – and interestingly, disgust and lust tend to have a very narrow divide.

    In my estimation, asians have less extreme features than blacks or whites, and whites have less extreme features than blacks…

    This also means that many non-asians will find asians not particularly ugly, but often not particularly beautiful either. Same with whites and blacks. Africans tend to think whites are plain, but not necessarily ugly.

    Hence, with blacks being at the extreme, they will generally get more more of the lust/disgust dynamic from whites and asians, while whites will get it from asians. It is rare the other way round.

    For example, the Hottentot Venus was paraded around Europe as a freak of nature for her abnormally large posterior, yet she ended up a prostitute because enough of the high class men wanted to sleep with her. Same with the european scientist’s declaration that african men were animalistic due to their larger “members”, yet they are quite popular as objects of non-african female lust for this very reason. Lastly, Koreans and Japanese famously derided Caucasian for being smelly and hairy and yet they seem to revere anything caucasian in popular culture.

    Like


  229. I don’t think you even really demonized the U.S. Clio. When I first became conservative I went through a mindset that was similar to what PA seems to be exhibiting in his comments in this thread. When I started realizing that so much of the truth was politically incorrect, and so much of the politically correct talk was bullshit, I was so outraged at the lies I was brought up with that I started believing that EVERYTHING had to be politically incorrect to be true and that EVERYTHING politically correct, no matter how plausible, had to be bullshit. But I ended up realizing that mindset is almost as bad as knee-jerk liberalism.

    Like


  230. @ 233 Lady Marmalade – I agree with much of your post, but just curious…based on the pics I’ve seen, wasn’t the Hottentot Venus a freak even by black standards too? I mean, that was one crazy ass.

    Like


  231. The idea of Clio being a PC liberal makes me giggle. She’s one of the most personally Burkean bloggers out there by my reckoning. Being reactively anti-PC doesn’t really strike me as conservative, either. It’s all so emotive in that misplaced way of our times instead of steely-eyed.

    That’s a compliment to Clio, for what it’s worth.

    Like


  232. Hence, with blacks being at the extreme, they will generally get more more of the lust/disgust dynamic from whites and asians, while whites will get it from asians. It is rare the other way round.

    Can you define more clearly what you mean by lust/disgust dynamic? Because I see you generalizing by race alone, without making clear distinctions about gender. For example the lust dynamics between asian men and white women seems quite different than those between asian women and white men. Same for black men and white women, who seem much more comfortable with openly lusting after each other, than with white men and black women.

    Like


  233. Being reactively anti-PC doesn’t really strike me as conservative, either.

    Oh I agree. Being conservative often requires being anti-PC, but once you become knee-jerk and reactively anti-PC in everything then you become something else altogether.

    Like


  234. Clio, incorrectly: Seems to me I already covered that in my previous post on the issue. Southern society wanted to discourage any possibility of mating between blacks and whites because that too would inevitably confuse the clear demarcation between slaves and free citizens.

    My darling Muse: You have not answered my point. You have claimed that southerners viewing blacks as ugly was to discourage any possibility of mating with resultant loss of demarcation.

    Slaves have often been viewed as beautiful, without fear of loss of demarcation. Tribes we have encountered and brutalized have been viewed as everything from beautiful to ugly to subhuman. My point is simple enough, it seems to me: there is no necessary connection between viewing a subordinated group as ugly and keeping them subordinated, or differentiated. All that is needed is that they be seen as different, that is all.

    I am not contesting that Southerners demarcated themselves from their slaves, nor that anti-miscegenation laws were in effect to maintain that distinction. I am only attempting to suggest that the Southern view of blacks as “ugly” was not in service to the causes of either demarcation or subordination, but was the expression of how Southerners really did see blacks.

    As ugly.

    It may be that I am wrong, dear Clio, but you have not provided me any reason to think so.

    As for the accuracy of the Southern view of blacks…well, de gustibus non disputandum est, as the Jesuits taught me (or maybe someone else). But you are disputanding their gustibus indeed, Fair One, reducing it to something other than taste. I just don’t think you’ve succeeded.

    As for my own matters of taste, I find many black people beautiful and even entrancing. It seems to me that this attitude has its own costs however, in demarcating me from them, from “objectifying” blacks as exotic or alien. Demarcation and separation can be felt by someone without attributions of ugliness entering the picture at all.

    Like


  235. And you are not PC at all, Clio. That’s funny.

    Almost as funny as dismissing your comment as christifying blacks. That is funny in more ways than I can say.

    Just not funny as in “ha ha”. More like “Funny, guy, the way you don’t seem to know how to read. Give it a try sometime. Ha. Ha.”

    That kind of funny.

    You, Clio: PC. Heh.

    Like


  236. lady marmalade, you made a really good point. Blacks are probably seen as more different from Asians and from whites by both groups, who by comparison appear “closer” to one another. Blacks would then be most likely to produce in others, at a minimum, a strong reaction. Maybe, as you stated correctly, it can take the form of disgust or lust, which are not as far from one another as we might think, but there will probably be a strong reaction one way or the other, more so than by Asians and whites with respect to one another.

    If this is right, and I think it is, then proximity and familiarity will dull the edge of the reaction (it has already, to some degree).

    Like


  237. I am only attempting to suggest that the Southern view of blacks as “ugly” was not in service to the causes of either demarcation or subordination, but was the expression of how Southerners really did see blacks.

    As ugly.

    The only problem to me is that if blacks were so naturally abhorrent to the white Southerners on a visual basis, that leads to some other questions:

    1) Why did so many of them impregnate their slaves? Blacks in America have on average 20% more white genes than blacks in Africa. That’s a long history of race mixing. Light-skinned blacks have been common since early slave times, hence all the race laws in place in the South clearly defining different racial blends and the proper names for them (mulatto, biracial, quadroon, octaroon, etc.). These laws and terms would not have been so common if race-mixing was extremely rare. Deep down they could not have truly viewed blacks as subhuman to have been sexing and impregnating them as they did. Look at things that whites truly did view as subhuman and ugly, like farm animals. I doubt they were fucking them and taking them in as mistresses the way they were with slave women.

    2) Why did many prominent slaveowners aggressively pursue slave women as mistresses, secondary wives of sorts but without any social status and few legal rights? Many slave narratives by female slaves discuss how aggressively chased they were by slaveowners and wooed with promises of being a top concubine. A good book with cites to lots of supporting documentation is Black Texas Women, but most good slave histories can describe black concubinage in detail using documents of the period.

    You can see much of the book online at this link Go to page 28 and you can see the description of black concubinage. Some wives, after being disgusted by the long-term live-in affairs even divorced their husbands over them. After having long-term relationships with their concubines, some plantation owners would bequeath them property and emancipation in their wills.

    So there’s some question to how universally subhuman and ugly they were actually considered. Many probably did view them as universally ugly and subhuman. Many apparently didn’t based on the long-term concubinage situation and the constant interracial children. For others, as Clio points out, it was a convenient legal fiction beneficial to keeping slavery alive. For most it was probably a subtle mix of all of these.

    3) The existence of anti-miscegenation laws in general seems to imply that blacks were not universally viewed as ugly. If something is so truly ugly and subhuman to someone, why do you need to obsess about stopping unions with them. The ugliness and subhuman status should naturally keep miscegenation in check.

    I do believe that blacks were viewed by whites as less attractive than whites, but I don’t think they were universally viewed as totally ugly either. I think history shows the reality to be way more conflicted and complicated than that. Given that conflicted evidence combined with the fact that we’re hundreds of years removed from the parties involved means I doubt we’ll ever truly know how whites truly viewed blacks in terms of attractiveness.

    Like


  238. *imagining slave/master sexual roleplaying with Chic Noir*

    Like


  239. T: some comments–Clio was the one suggesting that the view of blacks as subhuman and ugly was in service to the cause of demarcation and subordination of blacks. I questioned the connection.

    Your comment that many whites, those who pursued sexual relations with black women did not view them as ugly. This supports my position contra Clio, that viewing the subordinate as ugly was not a necessary component of the Southern reduction of blacks to servitude.

    I did agree with Clio, however, that Southerners (many not all) did view blacks as ugly. This would be a general view, both of Southerners, and of course of blacks. That some black women were seen as desirable by white slaveowners doesn’t change the reality of the general southern view of blacks as ugly. I’m not an authority on southern views of blacks, but I think your disagreement is as much if not more with Clio (and Chic) than with me.

    One last point: the rate at which interracial matings needed to occur to produce a modern white-into-black DNA admixture of ~20% is actually quite low. The math is too involved for me, but I think someone over at GNXP once calculated how often white/black matings needed to occur to do so as very, very low, far lower than the rate at which such matings occur today. Intromission doesn’t need to happen very often if it goes on long enough, to have substantial effects on a gene pool. In any case, I’m waaay outside my area of knowledge here.

    As for knowing how people viewed one another in the past, the best thing to do is ask them and look at how they behaved.

    Like


  240. I never said that I thought white southerners really viewed blacks as ugly, PatrickH. I said, or meant, that they paid lip-service to this idea, and that the reason for this form of lip-service was anxiety about the possibility of sexual connection and what it would mean for American social norms.

    I keep feeling that there’s something you’re missing in my argument, although it may be the other way around.

    The heart of my point was that the US had to make different kinds of distinctions between white and black than other slave societies, and to preserve them with greater ferocity, because it was a different kind of society from that of Brazil or Greece or Rome. First, Greece and Rome (though not Brazil) made no colour distinctions between slave and free, so preventing intermarriage to protect that distinction was not necessary.

    An additional point, which may (finally) clarify what I’m trying to say: These societies never claimed democracy on the grounds of universal (male) human rights. Pay close attention here: If you claim that your society is based on holding “these truths to be self-evident: that all men were created free and equal”, how do you justify denying black men the right to vote? Well, you say that they aren’t really men, after all, that really they are a somewhat superior race of farm animal, but not human.

    In order to preserve this notion in a slave-based society, you have to work hard to prevent people from freeing slaves, or educating slaves. On what grounds would you deny an educated and successful black man the right to vote, since he has clearly demonstrated that he’s not sub-human? It becomes difficult to justify. Wouldn’t matter in Brazil, which was not democratic anyway in its slave days, or in Greece or Rome, where the concept of citizenship and voting rights was based on something other than simple human rights. But in the American south before the Civil War, preventing ex-slaves, mulattoes, and others in similar positions from voting or demanding the right to vote was extremely important. An emancipated slave with an education might just vote against slavery, might he not?

    Clio

    Like


  241. Clio, I concede all of your points. I was initially responding to only this specific one, and only a part of it [my emphasis]:

    the fact that the idea of black people as “sub-human” and “ugly” was important, and indeed essential, to the social and political stability of a slave society.

    My argument with you–and it wasn’t really much of an argument–was only that “ugly” was not “essential” to the stability of “a” slave society. Ugly might have been simply what southerners thought. Peoples have viewed other peoples as ugly throughout history. I was arguing only that you were attempting to explain that specific evaluative response to blacks by southerners in terms of its contributions to stability. Maybe you’re right! I just don’t see how you can make that rather indirect claim without first showing that the southern reaction, if it really was that (see T above for doubts about this) was not simply what it seemed: a people of a time and place finding another people of that time and place unattractive.

    Maybe I’m wrong. But it seems precipitate to simply ignore the possibility that the cigar in this case really was just a cigar.

    I agree with everything you’ve said. It’s what you haven’t said that’s caused me some doubt.

    Like


  242. Tupac Chopra
    *imagining slave/master sexual roleplaying with Chic Noir*

    I’ll be Demark Vessey you idiot.

    Like


  243. @Ricky Raw- Hotintot Venus makes Buffy the Body’s but look like a pancake. To add to her otherness*, the lips of her labia were very long.

    Like


  244. @Ricky Raw- Hottentot Venus aka Sara Blackman makes Buffy the Body’s butt look like a pancake. To add to her otherness*, the lips of her labia were very long.

    Like


  245. T saidSo there’s some question to how universally subhuman and ugly they were actually considered. Many probably did view them as universally ugly and subhuman. Many apparently didn’t based on the long-term concubinage situation and the constant interracial children. For others, as Clio points out, it was a convenient legal fiction beneficial to keeping slavery alive. For most it was probably a subtle mix of all of these

    & what clio said sums it up.

    Like


  246. 247 Chic:

    Oooh. A little fight in you! I like that.

    Like


  247. I like the one on the left more. I like large eyes, and I think her mouth suits her better.
    The one on the left looks very plain to me.

    Like


  248. I meant the one on the right looks plain.

    But I’d fuck them both.
    They look about the same in terms of how hard to bed they might be.

    Like


  249. Yep. The beautified woman on the right is much more attractive.

    Like