Feed on

Which of these two women is more attractive?

Commenter Ben left a link in the comments from this post to an anthropology blog written by a guy named Dienekes, who posed the above question in a post comparing the beauty of top models and actresses in 2008 to leading actresses from the 1940s.

The pictures above are computer generated composites of, on the left, eight hot babes from Askmen.com’s Top 99 Women of 2008, and on the right, seven Best Actress Oscar winners from the 1940s. If you go to the Dienekes link, you’ll see photos of the individual women used to make the composites.

A couple thoughts…

Both women are attractive. This isn’t a comparison between beautiful and not beautiful; it’s a comparison between two beauties of nuanced facial differences. My jizzbombs would travel impressive distances with either woman in my bed of sin, though I’d feel more emotional satisfaction — more OWNAGE — spackling the woman on the right because she has the look of Bambi-fied innocence. The woman on the left is only superficially penetrable.

The 2008 composite hot babe is more masculine than the 1940s composite hottie. 2008 woman has smaller eyes, slightly thinner lips, more angular jawline, and a heavier brow ridge overhang — all indicators of masculinization. She has a smaller nose, which is more feminine, but with nose jobs being standard operating procedure for modern women in the looks-based industries (actresses included) it’s not revealing to compare the natural noses of past beauties with the manufactured noses of present beauties.

I bet if I could feel the cheeks of each woman the cheek of the 2008 composite would have a soft layer of vellous peach fuzz, while the cheek of the 1940s composite would be nearly free of vestigial ape fur. I’d also bet that the 2008 composite is sluttier than the 1940s composite, and more likely to make you eat a dick sandwich.

I found these composites fascinating for what it potentially reveals about American mating preferences of the last 60 years. Is it simply an example of marketers, agents, and producers in 2008 choosing women who look masculinized based on the whims of personal (read: gay) preference? Or is the genetic pool of beauties becoming more masculinized such that there aren’t many ultrafeminine women available to rise up the ranks of the looks-based industries? If the latter, is it possible for the genetic substrate of OBJECTIVELY DEFINABLE beauty to change so rapidly? Within a few generations? My belief is that it is equally likely that genetic change drives cultural change as the other way around, and this includes the average change in women’s facial bone morphology.

Stepping back to look at the big picture, it would make sense in a world of Western decline where white men are becoming feminized that white women should become masculinized. But why are women getting a harder, badass Lara Croftian look? I submit there are three primary reasons for the change:

1. Naturally sluttier women are enjoying greater rewards than long term commitment-oriented women as the sexual market since the 1950s has evolved toward advantaging short term hookups and disincentivizing settling down:

Avery Leake, 25, knows what this is like from the other side. He’s in a relationship now, but he says that, in general, most of the young women he used to meet “just wanted sex. They’re independent.” Being in a relationship was not important to them, especially if it interfered with their careers or their pursuit of advanced degrees, he says.

Leake found that he was also up against women who had as much money as he had, if not more, and he says dating had just become too expensive. “You used to be able to get away with paying $30 for a dinner and a movie,” Leake says. “Not anymore.”

As masculinization plays a major role in determining how eager a woman will be to ride the cock carousel, the single mother slut wave of post-nuclear family America has evolved a generally manlier disposition in both appearance and attitude.

2. Women living under the new rules of the polygyny-favoring modern sexual market are choosing alpha males at greater rates than women under the older, monogamy-favoring system. And naturally, the alpha males these women choose are more masculine than the betas they are no longer keen on settling down with. When they have kids with these alpha skittles men — and it’s the low class Idiocratic brood sows who are having more kids than the play-by-the-rules plush beta herbs — the thug genes are passed on and their sons are born with their fists already swinging or holding a beer and their daughters are born with lantern jaws and a propensity to fuck with piston-like efficiency.

Behold the future that single moms with a vaginal itch for tattoos, bikers, and pimpslap game bequeath us with their vile spawn:

Boys who carry a particular variation of the gene Monoamine oxidase A (MAOA), sometimes called the “warrior gene,” are more likely not only to join gangs but also to be among the most violent members and to use weapons, according to a new study from The Florida State University that is the first to confirm an MAOA link specifically to gangs and guns.

3. Gender bending chemical sabotage is altering the sexual landscape. High carb, low fat diets are making women more masculine and the Pill is fucking with women’s mate selection filters. Estrogenic compounds in the water supply from urine secreted by women on the Pill may also be messing around with male hormonal profiles, contributing to the recent shift to dandyism.

Interestingly, the case can be made that it’s no accident the rise of the subculture of seduction science and its PUA practitioners follows closely the rise of the masculinized Western white woman. Ultimately, for a guy who has game, a sexual market filled with slutty, aggressive women is a pussy boon. But for the hapless beta male offering his thin gruel of a steady corporate income and clockwork dependability, the rise of the Terminatrix has been a dispiriting bust.


Leave a Reply