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.
One downside to the usage of the photos from the 1940s is that Joan Crawford in in there, looking like a Frankenstein-inspired tranny.
When this picture popped up earlier, I had commented that there were some bowsers in the old-school composite. Also, I think that they liked ‘em chunkier back then. To put it another way, the girl on the left is almost a Catherine Zeta Jones twin while the girl on the right is a bunch of mismatched facial features. My point being, I don’t know if you can jump through so many genetic, biomechanical determinism based on a crappy picture.
I wonder if there is a list of “hottest 100 chicks” for the 1940s. We could then make a comparison using that list.
yeah, you know, there was a pin-up culture back then. I bet that if you took a composite of those Betty Paige types and of airplane fuselage girls, you’d have a better idea of what men back then found attractive as opposed to some random collection of mediocre looking starlets.
I would swoop both girls.
I think the one on the right would take a little more time.
The one on the left could be swooped within 3 hours from the moment she asked you for a cigarette.
– MPM
yeah, the ’40s composite is flawed. as said before, the freak presence of Joan Crawford totally throws off the mix, and the hottest women of the era–Ingrid Bergman, Lauren Bacall, Rita Hayworth, Ava Gardner, hell, even Donna Reed–aren’t there…
I think the sample data used isn’t so great – best actresses in the 40s as well as now need to appeal to a wide demographic of men and women, while askmen.com will be catering mainly to mens tastes. Also, its interesting how the women are both beautiful but the modern day one on the left just looks sexier, even with a blank expression. A neuropsychologist friend was explaining to me about how exactly the brain learns to distnguish between a face and a car, and different faces, etc. Basically, what is encoded in your neurons is directly related to what images you are exposed to throughout your life. If the modern day picture is more sexy it may be because women are more openly sexy, and yes there may be the gay influence too. It still bothers me though, that they didn’t do a composite of marillon cottillard and halle berry and charlize theron and kate winslet who are baby faced feminine beauties.
As a complement to your suggestions, it could be that loser-beta-ish men realize the importance of having alpha genes (having seen the down-side of not having them) in their kids and long for women who have alpha traits.
Since loser-beta-ish men are more likely to see “Transformers 2″ because of a hot chick, starlets are chose to appeal to this audience.
I’ve always had the hots for taller women even though I’m 5’11″. Could be my genes talking.
Also, maybe a female can comment on the change in cosmetics over the years. Women from the 40s always look like they are wearing 1″ of pancake make-up in photographs.
I wonder what it would have looked like had you added:
Grace Kelly
Ava Gardner and
Audrey Hepburn
into the mix of the devil’s pie.
– MPM
Lefty looks like Jessica Biel, while the other is mainly Olivia DeHavilland.
The composites were skewed when I saw this before.
Comparing ancient actresses’ Oscar-winning skills vs “Extreme! MaleMAG” morons’ votes isn’t accurate.
Comparing 21st Century bimbos to a Vargas girl is more so
By the way the last part of my comment was referring to modern day best actress winners.
roissy:
the composite on the right has a chubbier face than the one on the left. that’s really the main difference. it’s a stretch to assume that the one on the left is overly masculine.
you might also be overlooking one thing: the woman on the right is much more “white” looking while the woman on the left is more exotic. It seems that women in the 1940s sported a much more homogenous look, possibly since their target audience was more homogenous as well.
in today’s age, with movie audiences of all ethnicities and races, the actresses look has become more exotic and international. you can see this in the higher cheekbones and more oval eyes.
I’m glad everyone already jumped on the stupidity of comparing Askmen’s top hotties to some best actress winners. If it had been some 1940′s “best hottie” winners, then we’d have a comparison.
What do you make of the fact that on the poll on the original blog, most men preferred the masculine modern woman to the more feminine former woman? Especially since people here often state how objective and uninfluenced by cultural changes male standards for female beauty are? If the media is pushing more masculine women and men are preferring these more masculinized women, doesn’t that show media and culture influence male tastes at least a little?
Firepower:
If you read the comments on Dieneke’s blog, some people comment that the composites are skewed. Dienekes replied that all the pictures are equally weighted.
lovelysexybeauty says
By the way the last part of my comment was referring to modern day best actress winners.
here, or in Bollywood?
The one on the right reminded me of Olivia de Havilland. Other than that, I agree with G’s assessment.
Ben
Firepower:
If you read the comments on Dieneke’s blog, some people comment that the composites are skewed. Dienekes replied that all the pictures are equally weighted.
I know, and it’s obvious Dieneke is full of shit, or too stubborn/arrogant to make the correction.
even Academics make more mistakes then they admit – they’re just more intellectually adept at obfuscation.
You touched on this, but diets were radically different among beautiful women in both eras. Lots more meat, specifically red meat, and fat in 40 era diets. Less whole grains, and stone age work out regimes. All those play a role in how fat sits on the body and the face.
Roissy–
I agree with some of the gentlemen here…I think you’d be better served to use your own selection of women, here….although I realize to make a comparison of older times, the photos will mostly be black and white, but I think you’d get a much more honest response with color photos.
Try comparing the photos of Bettie Page that are in color for the woman on the right. I realize that your point is the brain “measures” and sizes up faces without needing to “see” the color, so to speak….but things that are important throughout history like “dilated pupils” to make a woman’s eye appear larger and such can’t be judged by these photos.
The gentlemen also asked about make-up. Well I have no idea what make-up was like back then anymore than you do, but of course ALL the actresses used the “Pancake” type of make-up for the stage and films (but stage and film is different because modern actresses also use it) however your average woman now uses “mineral make up” of the more natural persuasion and obviously make-up trends change over the years as well.
Keep in mind, that the woman on the right is wearing significantly more make-up than the one on the left. Even the eye make-up isn’t comparable because of that.
I’m glad everyone already jumped on the stupidity of comparing Askmen’s top hotties to some best actress winners. If it had been some 1940’s “best hottie” winners, then we’d have a comparison.
In the prefeminist, more “sexist” 1940s, top female actresses were primarily chosen on looks, grace and sex appeal, so it’s not that much of a stretch.
Chuck – you just brought up a great point about the increasibgly diverse ethnic make up of the media world today. I wish I had the articles to back it up, but in facial attractiveness studies both empirical and the medical ones where the test out neural functions, what people find to be attractive is the most average composite made slightly more feminine. Well, I think this also applies to skin and hair coloring. It wasn’t too long ago that beige beauties like jessica alba and j lo were considered the most attractive across races. A nicely tanned white chick and a lighter skinned straight haired and finely featured black chick are usually considered hottest nowadays.
F
I think the importance of the sexual attractiveness of the pictures is getting blown out of proportion in the discussion.
If we used a list of modern Oscar winners in the 1990s or 200s, do you think we would have a feminine face like the 1940s composite? I don’t think so, although to be fair I don’t know who has won the Oscar awards recently.
I think we can conclude from this composite that the women in the media are become more masculine.
Best actresses != hottest women
Therefore the left composite is hotter.
Holy crap!
So it’s as if western men have bought some line about not being masculine enough, have ‘internalized it’ as they say, and subconsciously want to mate with more masculine females …. to improve the reproductive chances of their offspring?!?
Firepower – actually with increased exposure to western media the hottest bollywood actresses have trended more and more euro-indian looking. People in india have almost always liked fair skin but if you compare 40s indian actresses and models to today, in tghe old days the actresses were usually very indian looking with indian features and today they tend to have more western features. And its not a power thing because the british ruled india back when movies started in india too, but there didn’t seem to be as much preference for western feautures. If you want to compare, old bollywood actresses were madhubala, sridevi, and meena kumari for example. Modern day hotties are katrina kaif and aishwarya rai.
Joe
In the prefeminist, more “sexist” 1940s, top female actresses were primarily chosen on looks, grace and sex appeal, so it’s not that much of a stretch.
yeah, Luise Rainer and Bette Davis. Sexpots. 23 skidoo
looks like this place is gonna bubble over into a pot full ‘o stupid like the weekend.
hey Raine, how they hangin’ lol
yeah, Luise Rainer and Bette Davis. Sexpots. 23 skidoo
Remember when you told me exceptions are not the norm? Like, about a whole half hour ago? Yeah, you’re right, thanks to you the stupidity really is bubbling over FP.
two unmentioned causes… the frightening rates of fecundity among prole women, who are pretty masculine themselves regardless of how masculine the alphas they fuck are…
But another cause is that among the middle classes, there is also the emphasis in our society on women proving their marriage worthiness by taking on masculine social roles. The women who are considered marriagable by your average middle to upper middle class male is are the women who are reasonably competent breadwinners themselves. This is due to both a rising cost of living and more general cultural changes in attitudes and values. This tilts selection pressure towards women who are a bit who are a bit more ambitious, a bit more competitive and a thus a bit more masculine than before.
But maybe the masculinization of women is all just accounted for by the fact that the hearty farm girl-red-staters are having more kids than their lithe cosmopolitan counterparts.
Sluttier, masculine women do not necessarily have more kids. If anything they have less, even if they do fuck more.
If women are actually becoming more masculine in appearance, most likely it is the result of their being the spawn of more masculine men. I don’t know enough about the human genome to say whether excess masculinity in the father effects will have this effect on daughters, but it does match with a result that I’ve observed: crazy, emotionally unstable, and thus slutty girls that I have dated tend to have alpha fathers. Nice girls tend to have beta fathers.
Zdeno
A more interesting exercise would be to compare crowd shots of women today vs.in the 50′s or whenever.
roissy, could just be women work out a lot now and almost did nothing back in the 30s. I bet several gals like lara croft could beat the crap out of some of the eading men in the 40s too….
yeah, Luise Rainer and Bette Davis. Sexpots. 23 skidoo
looks like this place is gonna bubble over into a pot full ‘o stupid like the weekend.
Here you go Firepower:
http://roissy.wordpress.com/2009/06/12/a-test-of-your-game-the-judging-4/#comment-91819
follow the links behind the quiz, look at the girls in the composites. not hot.
Following this link to, uh, other composites from that era. It’ll show you what men liked (I assume the guys flying the planes were alphas, while the joes who had to paint the planes may not have been so alpha)
http://www.hardeodcafe.com/Gallery2.htm
anyway, even if the modern composite chick (who I maintain is CZJ) is “masculine,” could we blame it on girls polluting our water with their hormonal runoff from the pill? I.e., estrogen for everyone?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2005276/posts
If women are actually becoming more masculine in appearance, most likely it is the result of their being the spawn of more masculine men.
Maybe it’s not that women are becoming more masculine in appearance but that more masculine women are now the ones being selected and promoted as sex symbols by Hollywood and the media.
It might be a case of male tastes changing because Hollywood is promoting more masculine women or maybe Hollywood is promoting more masculine women because male tastes are changing.
G:
Putting Grace Kelly up against the 21st century types isn’t fair—she’ll win hands down. Whatever our surgeons and the like are producing today can’t compete against her. Some of the inclusions in the 2008 poll are amusing—anyone really think that Marisa Miller is on that list because of her face? Yeah, me neither. Ditto Scarlett Johansson.
What I found interesting is that only Kate Beckinsale, and Alessandra Ambrosio to a lesser extent, caught my eye individually. I’ll readily admit to giving an immediate look towards the modern composite, but I agree with others regarding the cold and uninviting look. A statelier perusal of the two makes the right-hand composite more attractive. She looks like she has cheeks, unlike the other one, who probably requires a lot of maintenance. You can almost hear the alimony calculator clicking in the left one’s head. No thanks!
Meanwhile, let’s have Olivia de Havilland. She’s a looker.
Biochemical sabotage is not something I’d prefer to contemplate. Where’s Group Captain Mandrake when you need him?
The left composite woman has parted lips and a more direct sexual gaze. I wonder this skews the poll.
Joe drooled:
Here you go Firepower:
http://roissy.wordpress.com/2009/06/12/a-test-of-your-game-t
thanks for qualifying yourself kid. it’s very..tender of you
now go look up [like an adult] actresses from that era and see how hot they were. If you like mannish, Katherine Hepburn, well, it’s telling.
just don’t rely on me to do the reference work for you. I’m busy removing my foot from your ass.
go pollute Lady Raines blog. if i want to read simpering, sniveling reason, you’ll both be condensed in one locale so i won’t waste my time
Joe
It might be a case of male tastes changing because Hollywood is promoting more masculine women or maybe Hollywood is promoting more masculine women because male tastes are changing.
Hollywood typically latches upon some trend it finds somewhere in society that it both likes and feels it can maybe sell (or use as a subtext and not have to really sell for box office) and then greatly promotes it. Hollywood does not promote all trends equally and indeed demonizes many.
Firepower, I know a lot of the golden age of Hollywood. The proportion of hot actresses to ugly actresses is much higher than it is today, sorry. You can watch hours and hours of AMC, Turner Classic Movies and Fox Movie Channel if you doubt me. Don’t rely on my to do your research for you.
Your foot is nowhere near my ass, sorry, because you’d have to extract it from your mouth first. 😉
Virginia Gentleman
Meanwhile, let’s have Olivia de Havilland. She’s a looker
keep her in felt garb like in Robin Hood and maybe.
put her next to Vivien Leigh and in comparison, Olivia looks like Christina Ricci with bloat.
fwiw, Mandrake is captive to Batguano, if that is his real name.
The data is skewed and corrupted. Basing a composite of one era to another where one criteria is an acting award and the other is what current bitch looks hottest in Jessica Alba’s bikini is incomparable; if everybody keeps arguing it is valid, well – they’re just plain stupid and f’cked in the head and I won’t waste my time comparing APPLES TO ORANGES.
Jessica Biel never won an Oscar, while Bette Davis did. Who looks better in garters with a load on their ass…as compared to what?
Jessica Biel never won an Oscar, while Bette Davis did. Who looks better in garters with a load on their ass…as compared to what?
Cherrypicking examples doesn’t change the fact average actress was hotter back then. Marilyn Monroe never won one while Meryl Streep won a bunch in modern times.
Joe lisped:
Firepower, I know a lot of the golden age of Hollywood.
i bet…you really, really do. probly well-versed in Broadway Show Tunes too.
You can watch hours and hours of AMC, Turner Classic Movies and Fox Movie Channel if you doubt me.
no thanks. I’ll leave that fruitful realm to you.
lol, if i knew putting a foot up your ass was foreplay, I never would’ve lit your fire
Firepower to Joe:
“just don’t rely on me to do the reference work for you. I’m busy removing my foot from your ass.
go pollute Lady Raines blog. if i want to read simpering, sniveling reason, you’ll both be condensed in one locale so i won’t waste my time”
Holy shit, firepower….when does the girly slap-fight start? However I do think it’s very telling that you refer to “reason” as “simpering and sniveling”. This genuinely made me laugh out loud because it’s just so…well….telling, lol.
Suck it up, sally girl…the only sniveling here is coming from you:)
*Firepower bitch slaps Joe and pulls his hair…*
Zendo–
If women are actually becoming more masculine in appearance, most likely it is the result of their being the spawn of more masculine men.
No zing intended to you in particular Zendo, but the idea that the genome (genes, as opposed to physical appearance after all that goes into it, aka phenome) of American women could have become noticeably more masculine in two generations is frankly absurd. Hey, chalk me down for the modern Cochran and Harpending view supported by the DNA sequencing evidence that human genetic change has been accelerating over the last 10,000 years rather than having essentially stopped 100k years ago (the Steven Jay Gould/Marxist view which he called the “categorical imperative” of human racial and other equality), but two generations is more than pushing it bro.
How often did 40′s chicks hit the gym even for pilates or the eliptical machine, much less weight racks?
It’s clearly a cultural shift. Hell there’s been a noticeable shift in just the last two decades. Real thin has been in for longer, but full athletic female muscles have only been widely in for a couple of decades.
the cultural shift involves selection differences in Hollywood and elsewhere, exercise and diet differences, makeup differences and so on.
It’s obviously all largely the result of feminism, or one side of it, the more sex positive side. It’s the sexier version of the empowered aggressive and hence masculinized woman dynamic; the polar opposite horror story for empowerment is the Andrew Dworkin lesbian feminist directly castrating (if only she could) shrew.
I used to bang this hot single mom
She got knocked up at age 19, by a black drug dealer that used to beat her up, aka alpha. She of course kept the kid.
The problem though, is that the kid is a fucking pussy. He shoulda been an alpha, but being raised by a woman, is now a nice wimpy beta.
Andrea Dworkin. Andrew was I’d say freudian, except it would involve too much disdain for men.
I think the big reason is fake tits. Bigger real tits require more body fat in general. Not obesity level fat like is common today but more fat than our modern supermodels have. The ability to buy some fake tits allows modern super hot girls to pursue leanness and exercise without sacrificing having nice big tits. Many of the markers of masculinity are also markers of a generally leaner composition.
I think it might also be the case that now that obesity is so common men might generalize feminine softness as a proxy for future fatness.
I agree with the general consensus that comparing women from one era (solely on the basis of looks) with women from another (based primarily on achievement as determined by their peers and industry) hopelessly flaws this poll.
I also agree with anonymous at 2.39, the woman on the left is giving off much more sexually available look (not only the mouth but the hooded eyes too) the one on the right looks a little like a school marm (a very nice looking one for sure) who’s never even heard of a blowjob (and would disapprove if she did).
“A ….. b… bl… blowjob, Curtis, is that what you really want? I heard the whispers, the rumors, but I never thought it could be true! All right, Curtis, I’ll give you a choice ….a blowjob …. or my love. That’s right, you can’t have both!”
Meanwhile Left girl goes down on any guy who asks her what sign she is.
“I’m a Pisces but my ascendent is Fellatina!”
lol, if i knew putting a foot up your ass was foreplay, I never would’ve lit your fire
Man, you are really acting bitchy bro. Man up and stop throwing hissyfits and slapfighting. You’re not even attempting to use logic anymore, just gay jokes. Lame.
Oh, and unilaterally declaring yourself the winner of an e-battle? Pretty beta.
Good points Cliff Arroyo.
“A ….. b… bl… blowjob, Curtis, is that what you really want? I heard the whispers, the rumors, but I never thought it could be true! All right, Curtis, I’ll give you a choice ….a blowjob …. or my love. That’s right, you can’t have both!”
Meanwhile Left girl goes down on any guy who asks her what sign she is.
“I’m a Pisces but my ascendent is Fellatina!”
Hilarious yet true!
lovelysexybeauty
Firepower – actually with increased exposure to western media the hottest bollywood actresses have trended more and more euro-indian looking…blap blorp blabla
hmmm. You always expound more profusely here, than your own blog.
performance anxiety, is supposed to be the other way around. Well, at least in the West lol
*the dank, musty air of the basement in Firepower’s mom’s house makes him dizzy as he attempt to jerk it to the Spiegel Catalog and the sweet victory of a slapfight in which he is the clear E-Winner*
Lady Raine
*Firepower bitch slaps Joe and pulls his hair…*
this seems a repetitive theme with your sexually frustrated posting habits.
a simple advert in the East Punxatawny cragslist looking for dom Hell’s Angels or recent Gitmo parolees should fill you up on date nite
It’s interesting that this comparison pretty much ignores ethnic beauties of modern times who have come to be considered in most men’s personal top 10 list… how can you compare beauty of yesterday with beauty of today, when in past eras it’s been mainly homogeneous, yet today, is so diverse? Beauty today in America is no longer just a “western white” thing.
Firepower–
Don’t bring me into your girly slapfight with some other poster next time, then.
You seem to have a strange fascination with bikers…. once again way to just make shit up. I have never dated a biker OR a parolee so that would not fill up my date night at all. If you want an honest opinion of what a really hot guy looks like to me, go to my myspace page again and click on “Mick Rock” on my top friends (or just look at the pic). We dated earlier this year, but we’re just friends now….but THAT is my type, not fat bikers, lol…ugh.
And since when did Jessica Biel and Scarlett Johanssen become “top actresses”… I don’t know, a lot wrong here.
But this post is great for all the interesting articles it links. Lots of good info.
I’d go with the one on the right. I find her not only more beautiful but more intelligent looking and with a hint of a sense of humor. The one on the right is pretty in a more conventional way. The one on the right looks like a classically beautiful movie star of Hollywood’s Golden Age, while the one on the left looks more like the kind of woman I would see a dozen of on any given weekend at one of the more upscale shopping malls in this city.
There is an obsession in this society in turning the female into the masculine.
Witness Hollywood’s pushing of broad-shouldered Jessica Biel and masculine-looking Snadra Bullock and Jennifer Garner.
The pron industry and sex columnists can’t get enough of “female ejaculation” — women apparently feel the need to be just like men, so they have to ejaculate too.
And whether anyone realizes it or not, the pushing of soft lesbianism is making women into men — because you have women saying “I’ll do her,” as if they were guys. In other words, women now want “hot babes,” just like the guys. You like Megan Fox? Well, they do too!
Hm…I notice Lady Raine listed herself as “bi” on her MySpace page. She earns her own money just like the gusy, and wants hot babes just like the guys, apparently.
I’m wondering when sociologists will classify many of today’s women as having sexual identity problems.
go to my myspace page again and click on “Mick Rock” on my top friends (or just look at the pic). We dated earlier this year, but we’re just friends now….but THAT is my type,
don’t flatter yerself, Red. I never looked at your page, just the pics roissy posted.
I have no interest in single moms. I don’t find another man’s baggage sexually interesting.
Hey, why am I getting moderated?! What did I do?
me too, my brilliant and insightful insights are being moderated. just sayin…
Good post, Roissy, and I think your theory, and the logic behind it, is sound.
I favor the Woman on the righthand side of the screen; I’ve always been more partial to a fuller face, larger eyes, fuller lips, etc, on a Woman. “Mannish” features and the like don’t appeal to me at all.
O
he just likes white women
lol – just kiddin’
If men are becoming feminised and women masculinised, there’s a problem with your theory: as you point out, the women you describe should have MORE, not less, masculine sons. And if estrogen in the water is enough to override a genetic trend, it stands to reason (although I freely admit to non-knowledge about hormones) that girls too should become feminised by the water they drink.
the woman on the left is much hotter
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
with the exception of the “smaller eyes”, none of the features described above is obvious. The women on the right doesn’t look innocent, but frigid.
Lady Raine
… makes him dizzy as he attempt to jerk it to the Spiegel Catalog
lol Spiegel Catalog?jeez – how old are you Red? maybe you think it’s current – because you still use it for ass wipes in the Appalachians
What’s wrong with bikers anyway? Lots of them hang out in my neighbourhood and they’re mostly cool dudes. Sure, they smuggle drugs and stuff, but I’m not really opposed to drugs, legal or not. The way they deal with kiddie rapists and other true scum makes me wish we had more bikers and fewer judges.
like, how about these composites of male taste in the 40′s
http://www.hardeodcafe.com/a12.jpg
http://hubpages.com/hub/BomberGirls
actually, this list of hot chicks from the old days may be better (hint, no joan crawford or joan fontaine):
http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/hangar/1956/indexpinups.html
Maybe I would find the girl on the right attractive if she was also making bedroom eyes.
Women weren’t as tall back then. Maybe 5’2 or 5’4. They expanded outwards instead of upwards. Women back then were seriously built. They were designed for a man. Not twiggy with some tack-on boobs. You see this in the older movies.
I can’t believe the woman on the left is winning. (76% as I post this). Yes, she’s hot. But masculine. The woman on the right is much more desirable.
to have a complete study, we should also compare the waist and hips accross generations.
My bet is that up to the 60s, women throughout the world all used some sort of burqa, just like those Amish women today, it is burqa minus the veil, and that was standard. So there was no return for a woman to have a 0.65 waist to hip ratio. The husband would discover that only after marriage..
now that women can reveal more, men can also judge more. 2008 women can have slightly more masculine faces because they can show their more feminine hips. in 1940 the women’s beauty was judged based on the face only, so she should be as feminine as possible.
anyway, i still don’t see the masculinization of the woman on the left.
There is another explanation for the more “masculine” look of the modern women. If you look on the website that shows the women that the composites are made from, you will notice that at least 4 of the modern women are either metizo hispanic or Greek/Mediterranean ancestry. Women of these ethnic backgrounds tend to have more masculine facial features such as the heavier forebrow ridge and somewhat narrower, upturned eyes.
Firepower,
LOL. But actually, I do find the Woman on the right, who is most definitely White, to be very attractive. And yes, I’ve had a number of White lovers in the past, and may do so again in the future. Being a lover of variety as I am, you never know what kind of gal may get the attention of my roving eye. 😉
O
lovelysexybeauty –
” in the old days the actresses were usually very indian looking with indian features and today they tend to have more western features.”
Not all of them. Kajol Devgan is very popular and she is Indian-looking.
Firepower–
” I don’t find another man’s baggage sexually interesting.”
Well thank god you’re not into kids! Who asked you if you find single mothers attractive? I said if you want to mock my preferences in men, at least mock the correct preference (ie: go look at the dude or shut up).
Also, when I think of a catalog with the least “sexy” women, it’s Spiegel Catalog. I wonder if they still make it.
The girl on the left is making brazen hussy bedroom eyes while the gal on the right is demure. That’s what gets me is her “eye contact.”
As for deeper meaning, I would also suggest that it seems that the girls we consider attractive come from patriarchal societies (dads enforce virginity, etc., how we imagine it is (was) in Russia), hot girls are selected first and reproduce fastest. Ugly girls come from loose societies where promiscuity and low standards by men. Dandies (pretty boys) arise where females get selection privileges and all a guy can offer is his looks because wealth is just background noise.
The slut society should be producing ugly girls, not manly or feminine girls. How this affects what men find pretty may manifest itself as rewarding slutty entertainers (porn stars, Paris Hilton, Lindsay Lohan). I think we should look to what men modern ladies find attractive to see the effect of this culture on their selections. Maybe Michael Cera is a symptom (although the ladies still like Dan Craig)
I meant “the one on the left is pretty in a more conventional [and by that I mean in a convetional-contemporary way]” . . . .
I think your arguments are fairly sound, but the methodology of assembling the photos is too flawed to be of any value. There’s also too much going on in terms of changes to take away a specific conclusion.
I would say a big part of it is hairstyle and body fat. Take the girl on the right, lose 5-10 pounds and let her hair down, and it’s more even.
The slut society should be producing ugly girls, not manly or feminine girls.
well said
Some guy on the site cut the eyes, nose, and mouth and switched them. I think it turns “40s features/00s peripherals” into a total knockout.
http://i40.tinypic.com/2vv7spi.png
Anybody else notice that the composites’ noses are pretty much identical?
Lady Raine
Well thank god you’re not into kids!
Yep. come back in 18 years after you have another “oopsie!” – but this time, only if it’s a girl baby, or w/e you call those bawling bundles you leave out under the Fir tree during winter in the Appalachians.
The only good thing about single moms, is… their legal daughters.
Who asked you if you find single mothers attractive?
i’m preparing myself by warning you: your creepy forum stalking of Firepower will not get you the golden penis.
I said if you want to mock my preferences in men, at least mock the correct preference
why, i’d be glad to mock the current acquiescing, simpering, manscaped, metrosexual “yes ma’am” beta you’re currently slamming with your strap-on after he mincingly scrubs your floors and does your toenails like a good little bitchboy.
but, forget it: irony is as lost on you as it is on a girl who’s hot. nobody here worth a damn knows you fuck bikers.
they wouldn’t take your shit.
we all know you fuck betas and are proud of it.
so, no need to look at his combo emo/herb portrait.
Play the game your given, if change is happening adapt like the man you are.
I agree with G, I’ll swoop them both.
The left one gets nada but the dick.
The right one seems more prone to actually wanting a relationship. Her huge expressional eyes say it all.
collegeboy
The right one seems more prone to actually wanting a relationship. Her huge expressional eyes say it all.
lol, we seriously gotta get you away from the Harlequin Romance books
both women are pleasant looking but I voted for the woman on the left.
The woman on the right has eyes that look more innocent than the woman on the left.
Mike:
I saw that photo where that guy switched their eyes,nose, and lips. Now the one on the left is a real knockout for real!
this is an interesting topic and post, but the phenomenon is *entirely* media-driven cultural preference. i.e., the top 20 pinup/movie-star women in a given era will not be representative of the female population as a whole, will likley have come from all socioeconomic classes, genetic stock, and geographic regions and – most importantly – were selected by studio heads, modeling agencies, or whoever to excite male viewership based on prevailing norms of attractiveness. you could easily find 20 women today who look like the one on the right, and have found 20 in the 40s that looked like the one on the left – they just weren’t stars.
that’s the story- why men found (or media moguls believed) these differing types to be the most attractive. female social equlity and sexual empowerment is the answer, as well as the broader androgynization of sex roles and society in general since the 60s.
the purported science in the post — significant genetic change in the whole population in a span of 60 years, widespread heritability of masculine and feminine behavioral traits, single motherhood leading to dispersion of a “warrior gene”, high-carb diet and pill-laced urine in drinking water leading to hormone imbalances — is pure CRAP. WAY below the usual standards of this blog. sorry to have to say so.
firepower: I didn’t know what the fuck that was (I googled it), but given that you do, you must like reading romance novels.
I guess it keeps you balanced.
My taste on women asks for the girl in the right.
Reasons are yet to be found. Perhaps cause I’m into vintage, and that includes vintage ladies (pin ups deserve a glorious mention in this case).
Or maybe the Freudian BS “you mate your mother”. The girl in the right corner indeed share more facial features with my mother than the one in the left. Other samples however could prove this wrong (the “mate mother” idiot theory).
The girl in the left dont seem to have meat in her face. The girl in the right, in the other hand, looks evokes meat and bones (and not just oversized facial bones).
Is it just me? Something in some hidden corner of my libido asks for meat. Edible aesthetic.
When I look at the girl in the let I can almost smell “sticky lip gloss”, while the one in the right evokes me a scent of lavender in some strategic spots of her body – and fresh human skin for the rest. Sugestion: thighs.
Its clear to me that the whole thing is only partly like Roissy sugests: a masculinization case. A second factor is: just like silicone boobs and lipo suction, plastic perfection “aerodynamics” inspired invaded our libido like poorly functional meme.
At the expense of fertililty traits.
Its not a new idea that we are living in denial with our “inner ape” anyway.
Meat, flesh… I always confuse both.
Pardon my poor english: I’m portuguese speaking in fact.
The best thing about the one on the left? Predictable.
These ones are pretty much all the same. The way they talk, move, dress, fuck, act, react, etc.
Interchangeable parts.
After enough of these, you could just read your half of the script, and trust that the other half will go according to plan.
Like betting on the sun coming up in the east.
The one on the right could be a wholesome good girl** who saves her passion for intense relationships… or, she could be that dirty girl, fucking dirty boys on dirty floors in dirty ways, and getting away with it in spades because of her ostensible innocence.
Like betting on roulette, at least until you’ve calibrated her.
–
**Who still wants to be fucked like a little slut, of course. They all do.
collegeboy
firepower: I didn’t know what the fuck that was (I googled it), but given that you do, you must like reading romance novels.
I guess it keeps you balanced.
twas meant as a joke, but I guess if Mr. collij KiDz wants to rumble I’d better watch out.
any guy tenderly describing a pic with “Her huge expressional eyes saying it all” is going to make me weep with tender, heartfelt joyosity at the fluttering words. My own tears would distract me.
Now, when you describe a Buttercup – or even a pansy – you’ll positively destroy me.
@ mike: Agree. Much better than original right.
Firepower–
What the hell are you talking about? Who said anything about wanting your “golden penis”? I assure you there’s no such thing as a penis that “golden” to a woman.
Also, another 18 years? pfffft yeah I almost might be having another kid when I’m 46, lol!! I had one and I’m done…I’d rather die than have babies in my forties, that’s ridiculous.
I don’t know who I’m supposedly slamming a strap on into, but I’m not dating anyone at all, and when I AM I’m certainly not suggesting a strap on. Way to use something that very few women find to be a turn on….(except lesbians I guess)
This post is way off … scientifically it doesn’t make any sense, and seems to be a jumping off point for Roissy’s pet theories. The theories may make sense, but they don’t have anything to do with these two pictures.
The picture is really a shitty example. You want glaring contrast; I selected a bunch of nasty wart nosed harpies who were on “ask men’s top 100 hottest women.” Then I selected four ethereal beauties from the films of the past. Check them out if you are so inclined. It’s a great demonstration of our civilizational decay:
http://lupoleboucher.livejournal.com/67195.html
http://lupoleboucher.livejournal.com/90316.html
A really good resource for finding actual hot chicks is here:
http://www.femininebeauty.info/
The author (who seems to be a nut, but whatever) points out that, as soon as you leave the homosexual Hollyweird/NYC Fashion axis behind, female beauty is everywhere. Make a trip to Eastern Europe; they’re feminine, beautiful and don’t have Andre the Giant style jawlines and brow ridges. They also have high rates of illegitimate offspring, so it can’t be a masculinization process by natural selection. Eastern Europeans do eat a high fat and low soy diet: I would be more inclined to give healthy eating some credit. I would also give credit to the fact that it is a known fact: feeling dominant and masculine will boost a man or a woman’s testosterone levels. Eastern European women look feminine, in part, because they act feminine. Hollywood women look and act like gay men: and the pattern is self reinforcing.
I’ve been harping on this topic for almost a decade now. I’m pretty sure some of the more recent hollywood horrors are actually booting steroids and human growth hormones to burn off the hohos. Works like a charm, erm, except for the side effects. I’m also a mild Lamarckian, as I point out above. It is known that acting dominant in any situation will jack testosterone levels through the roof. In a woman’s body, this probably has cumulative effects you can see. Is it cause? Effect? I really think it’s a little of both. If you raise one twin to be a tomgirl softball player, and the other one to play with little dollies and shit, I bet you will find cumulative differences in their jawlines. I don’t have any direct evidence for this; it’s just a guess, but obviously something is going on here. Probably more important than this is womb environment. We know now that high testosterone levels in the womb makes boys with male minds: good at math and stuff. Too high, and it makes them autistic. Could the same thing which is causing the avalanche of autistic kids also be breeding masculinized women? I don’t know, but I bet these facts are related.
firepower the too-cool-for-Mr. collij KiDz :
Glad you like my way with words. The power of my wordplay compels you.
Lady Raine
Firepower–
What the hell are you talking about? Who said anything about wanting your “golden penis”? I assure you there’s no such thing as a penis that “golden” to a woman
never say never, Red – until you’ve touched its silky smoothness. Appreciated its firm, manly scent.
oh, and Mine doesn’t have barbs and fur like the ones you’re used to in them Mountains.
The woman on the right doesn’t really have a “fatter” face. She has an oval one. Because oval faces tend to have less prominent cheek bones as a result of their facial bone structure, esp. when photographed head-on and without shadows, they look less bony and so perhaps plumper. That may even be the reason why they became less popular in films and modelling.
In any case, the oval face was the standard of feminine beauty until the mid-20th century. You won’t find high-cheekboned, square-jawed beauties in either films or cheesecake photos until the late 1930s (Garbo, Hepburn, Bergman), which were actually a period of transition. FWIW, Grace Kelly had a square jaw too…
But the changes Roissy (and the original piece) notes are real, though I have no idea if they’re the result of women’s masculinization or men’s feminization or something quite unrelated.
Here’s a link to a pageful of 1940s sex symbols: http://forums.superiorpics.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Number/193653/site_id/1#import
Notice that the women tend to look rather more like the right-hand photo than the left-hand one.
collegeboy squealed:
firepower the too-cool-for-Mr. collij KiDz :
Glad you like my way with words. The power of my wordplay compels you.
You’re getting quite good – almost a level 9 Mage WoW good.
Of the two I would pick the one on the left because the one on the right is too soft and maternal.
But the left one is a bit flat and harsh.
Lady Raine – Firepower–Also, another 18 years? pfffft yeah I almost might be having another kid when I’m 46, lol!! I had one and I’m done…I’d rather die than have babies in my forties, that’s ridiculous.
No, he meant that you would have another kid soon and that when she turns 18 she would be a slutty whore for him and other men to use because that’s the way girls are who are born of single mothers with no dad around.
aliasclio:
Those chicks are similar bimbos to contemporary hot ass.
They didn’t win oscars back then, either – no more than Jessica Biel can ever win one.
take Veronica Lake, Hedy Lamarr, Rita Hayworth, Ava Gardner and other choice slices and meld them into a composite,
Maybe we’d have something honest to compare, instead of some 1940′s madonna hallucination who looks like she belongs as a painting on Good Housekeeping for WACS, July 1941
Come on… are guys serious when you say the girl in the right is a shitty example?
Firepower, seriously, as I said earlier, look at WWII bomber art, that shows what men wanted back then.
askjoe –
yep – i agree. i said so above
firepower the world of warcraft master, said:
You’re getting quite good – almost a level 9 Mage WoW good.!
Well, I’ll like to be more modest on my part, for such “dick-suckery” on your part, but i can’t.
Hold on. So on the one hand women choosing alpha men has led to women with lantern-like jaws, but on the other, women, because they don’t need the security provided by a man, are selecting more for dandies.
Which is it? Or are they selecting dandified alpha-looking men?
Here’s a case for the modern composite being the hottest. We’re dealing with one particular subset of humans here: performers and models. Modern day actresses and models have benefited from 60 extra years, or a couple of generations of attractive people mating. Their parents were likely involved in some industry, acting or something, that selected for looks. The movie industry in the 1940s was less developed. There may have been less opportunity and fewer combinations possible for good looking men to mate with good looking women.
This comparison would be similar in nature to comparing baseball players from the two eras. Many would incorrectly try to argue that ballplayers from the “golden era” of baseball, the 1920s-1950s or so are better than those today. Baseball players today have the benefit of all the learned knowledge of the game. They have fathers who were knowledgeable about the game, and that knowledge was passed on. The players of today, especially hitters, are stronger and better, even without steroids. There is no argument
right hand one is more beautiful and feminine – neil hit on it earlier when he said she appears more fertile. (the one on the left, by comparison, is more like an aerobics instructor.) in the biomechanics worldview, that should be the trump, the underlying fact that stimulates the subconscious attractors in males. she will be maternal when she gets older (the one on the left will not), but is njot really that way now.
@lupo – i agree totally with your top-ten list of hideous hollywood, and i agree with your point about the screen sirens of the golden age being vastly superior, but I don’t exactly understand your picks – except for Hedy Lamarr, easily one of the most beautiful women ever to appear in the movies. And maybe Veronica Lake. There are many other golden-age stars who could have been on that list as well. But, de gustibus non disputandem.
i always had a thing for Raquel Welch. (her looks, not talent …) Maybe because she was the sex-bomb of my childhood – i had fantasies of being a white blood cell for months after watching “Fantastic Voyage”. She was a Latin goddess, much more like the 40s look here than the 00s, and yet she was making movies in the 60s and 70s, when the Twiggys and Angelica Hustons and Liza Minnelllis came into the A-list. (OK, Liza is a legendary performer for reasons other than her looks.) She may have been a throwback-type to that earlier era, but there was still box-office room appeal for that type as things began to change.
screw the composite…take a look at the pictures of the women making up each composite.
olivia de havilland (sp?) is the hottest of the 1940s actresses; the rest aren’t very spectacular. the rest aren’t as good looking, facially, as *any* of the modern women.
we’re also overlooking the fact that women today are selected more for their bodies than their faces. marissa miller from the modern composite has a squarer jaw than 95% of men, yet she has a banging body. it is her body that has gotten her so much praise whereas the women on the 1940s composite had to operate *entirely* with their face.
in summary: each era works their moneymaker 1940s: face
2000s: 75% body, 25% face.
either way, the facial composite of the modern woman is more attractive.
what we need to do is a composite of the starring men and women from the top 10 grossing films of either era.
if roissy is correct, we’ll see converging facial features, more masculine looking women and more feminine looking men. this would fit the model of homosexual-run hollywood as the sexes are becoming more androgenized.
collegeboy lisped:
Well, I’ll like to be more modest on my part, for such “dick-suckery”
did you just learn “engrish?”
gotta tell ya so you fit in here in la’merica. your avatar is pretty gay – what with the artsy ‘pecking’ – but not as gay as your writing style.
chicks don’t dig asians – it’s the small cock thing.
oh, and return to describing your voluminous knowledge of Broadway Show Tunes. chicks like a gay friend like you they can talk to.
Willard Libby
Lady Raine – .
No, he meant that you would have another kid soon and that when she turns 18 she would be a slutty whore for him and other men to use because that’s the way girls are who are born of single mothers with no dad around.
shhhh – she’s so dumb, she’d never realize I was fucking her girl in the shower – as Ma unwittingly watched “Celebrity Dance-Off VIII”
“A ….. b… bl… blowjob, Curtis, is that what you really want? I heard the whispers, the rumors, but I never thought it could be true! All right, Curtis, I’ll give you a choice ….a blowjob …. or my love. That’s right, you can’t have both!”
Have a female voice say that in the transatlantic 1940′s accent.
the us men lost to italy 3-1 this afternoon. score another one for the dandies!
i have reason to believe that goldman sachs was responsible for the red card decision on ricardo clark. i am playing out thought experiments to determine their endgame.
@firepower, collegeboy – geez, knock it off already. what’s the point?
@chuck – those arguments don’t make any sense. first, most models/actresses come from all over – they haven’t usually been in show biz for generations and if they are, they aren’t always the best-looking ones (ex – Jennifer Aniston) – quite the opposite: they get their careers through family connections or nepotsim, not raw looks or talent.
second, the baseball argument…wtf? quite apart from the steroids factor, if sports skill is a thing that can be learned from the accumulated experience of past generations – what does that have to do with the attractiveness of women, which cannot be?
Clio:
The woman on the right doesn’t really have a “fatter” face. She has an oval one. Because oval faces tend to have less prominent cheek bones as a result of their facial bone structure, esp. when photographed head-on and without shadows, they look less bony and so perhaps plumper.
Well, that’s the thing. Without those bony prominences, i.e., “good” bone structure, the resulting areas need to be filled in with fatty goodness otherwise you are left with a gaunt looking woman like Jamie Lee Curtis.
For what it’s worth, I find myself attracted to both the soft, estrogenical femmes like Charlize Theron as well as those who look like they have golfballs for cheekbones which could cut glass, i.e., Kiera Knightly.
But neither of those types could compare to you, Clio.
That may even be the reason why they became less popular in films and modelling.
Bony prominences allow for the fine sculpting of a face, and hence, more individuality. Homogenously oval faces tend to blend into one another.
In any case, the oval face was the standard of feminine beauty until the mid-20th century. You won’t find high-cheekboned, square-jawed beauties in either films or cheesecake photos until the late 1930s (Garbo, Hepburn, Bergman), which were actually a period of transition. FWIW, Grace Kelly had a square jaw too…
Do you feel a special affinity for Grace, Clio?
Pupu agrees.
But the changes Roissy (and the original piece) notes are real, though I have no idea if they’re the result of women’s masculinization or men’s feminization or something quite unrelated.
Miscegenation if you ask me. Not that there’s anything wrong with it. (Sorry PA)
BTW, in case you weren’t aware, we are fast closing in on our one year anniversary Clio. Yes, that’s right, that moment when I made my very first appearance here on Roissy’s blog, that moment when our souls first intermingled.
Thanks to the way-back machine:
http://roissy.wordpress.com/2008/07/23/quote-of-the-hour/#comment-21255
But of course you knew. I jest because I know how you like to play the coy, oblivious muse to the onlookers. No worries, I shall have a warm hearth and fine wine awaiting that grand moment, mon amie.
In the meantime, sweets for the sweet:
maurice
@firepower, collegeboy – geez, knock it off already. what’s the point?
boy, you’re in a bad mood; your post attacks everybody. stay cool.
Can’t you see I’m saving this thread from the dregs of 769 weekend posts on interracial polyandry and / or Roosevelt’s secret agenda to undermine Polish Inter-dependence on something-or-other.
It can’t all be about Lady Raine. I want some too
Firepower–
Have you ever MET a woman? Celebrity Dance Offs? Harlequin Romance novels? I don’t like reality shows at all nor do I watch sitcoms. I like crime dramas, horror movies, and the Science Channel. Way to know women, buddy.
I’d like to see a similar comparison of men. I would expect to see a drift towards more feminine traits. Soon we’ll all be androgynous. There really isn’t that much need for the division of labor in a household anymore. Maybe eventually there won’t even be much of a need for a household…
maurice
@firepower, collegeboy – geez, knock it off already. what’s the point?
. beating up on collij girl is like…beating up on Sanjaya, or Richard Simmons. Or Katy Perry. No fun.
Oh, and it’s Mr. Firepower to you.
With a capital “F”
Firepower the small pecker:
Ever since Lady raine dumped your sorry ass for her gangsta, you’ve been shooting up shit with me, but thats normal for you, beta provider.
@tupac – how can you not win her e-love with a post like that? @alias – how can you resist? how about some healthy e-reciprocation for an alpha male who clearly views you as worthy of his best self…?
We all got it. Its “Mr High-Gauge Firepower In-My-Ass” with Capital F.
Now quit being a sissy and annoying the whole forum with pointless rants.
I dont have shit to do with your self importance issues. And I dont think I speak only for myself.
the us men lost to italy 3-1 this afternoon
what the hells Americans are doing in the confederations’ cup, anyway? I’d better have Mexico, where at least people know that the Cup is happening
check out the woman of Supercat’s affection in this video. She has one of the most girly faces of all times.
Lady raine to firepower You seem to have a strange fascination with bikers…. once again way to just make shit up.
Ladyraine, firepower has had to something strange for a bit of change. Bikers just so happened to be the group who were interested in his “product”.
Days of Broken Arrows
Hey, why am I getting moderated?! What did I do? 🙁
*slaps DOBA on the back*
Stop being a girl and man up DOBA. My comments get moderated all the time and I don’t cry about it.
Also the woman on the right does not have what hair stylists and make up artists would call an “oval” face. That is a “heart shaped” face as they call it. An oval face among hollywood hair is considered to be the most favorable because it can wear virtually any hairstyle (and make up).
Usually they break it down into “Oval, Square, Round, and Heartshaped.” This is what women are supposed to base their hair and makeup around for themselves and the women of the forties were known for the heart-shape (that is supposedly a cross between oval and round) not the oval.
The Square and Oval shapes are what you see on most Runway Models and such today, not the forties.
damn, i don’t know where collijgirl learned his engrish, but he needs to ask for a refund from Adult Ed.
Americans shouldn’t steal from ignorant immigrants.
oops sorry I meant heartshaped = oval + round (not square)
Neil felched
I dont have shit to do with your self importance issues. And I dont think I speak only for myself.
I don’t think you know how to write English, either. You need more ESL. Not just the “swearingous” words either.
By the way, I found Nicole Kidman in her prime extremely attractive.
@firepower – not in a bad mood, and not opposed to you or anyone personally – i just think that back-and-forth pointless insults just clutter the board and annoy everyone. at least they annoy me. but since i am only one of many here, and have no authority, i guess you will continue the flaming. unless by attempting to call you both on the annoying behavior i succeed in turning the crowd to my point of view. highly unlikely, i know. also, if it’s no fun, why do it …? finally, if i don’t capitalize roissy, i’m not going to capitalize firepower.
i do see your point about the long weekend thread – i skimmed through some of that and while it was off-topic for the blog, i am glad those threads appear – they’re part of the reason i show up here. you never know where the conversation is going to go, and it’s almost always interesting and on a consistently high plane. hence my disappointment with the empty flaming. substantive flaming – attacking someone (say, LR) for stupid or pointless posts – that’s a different story. have at it, by all means.
chic noir burped: Ladyraine, firepower has had to something strange for a bit of change.
mmkay. girl, you gots ta take yo fingas out dat Ben N’ Jerry’s before you type ghetto poetry lol. before long, your fingers are gonna be too fat to fit on the keyboard
too easy
firepower AKA “Chastity Bono”:
Listen Chaz, why don’t you just admit it to everyone who you truly are. I mean no real man will ever call himself, “firepower.”
Go back to fisting those feministing twats.
maurice said: i do see your point about the long weekend thread – i skimmed through some of that and while it was off-topic for the blog, i am glad those threads appear – they’re part of the reason i show up here.
i hear ya. i did predict (as you’ll note) way back at 2:10 pm it would be derailed, and subsequently I tried to get it back on track by discussing bomber nose art. big mistake.
alas, the single moms and beta providers are just waking for the midnight shift at the stamping plant and have fresh vigor.
I show up here to read roissy’s wisdom. That’s all.
This weekend’s gabfest [and today’s] are the main ones I’ve actually followed. The appalling, unedited blather must surely be a coat tailing ploy for nascent bloggers to promote their own blogs.
Most of what comes after his post is worthless – save for a select few contributors – and is best skipped.
Can’t you see I’m saving this thread from the dregs of 769 weekend posts on interracial polyandry and / or Roosevelt’s secret agenda to undermine Polish Inter-dependence on something-or-other.
It can’t all be about Lady Raine. I want some too
$.
Maurice- i always had a thing for Raquel Welch
Ha,
My man
*gives maurice some dap*
Do you have any idea the number of times I’ve thrown this woman’s name out there? No one else picked up the ball. Thank you my good man, I just knew I wasn’t the only one who found her attractive.
Chuck and more feminine looking men. this would fit the model of homosexual-run hollywood as the sexes are becoming more androgenized.
1.Will Smith
2.Leo Decaprio
3.Jessica Biel- her body fat is too low, makes her look manly. She look more masculine than her boyfriend Justin.
4. Demi Moore is very pretty but her mandable could cut a diamond and she has no hips.
Firepower chicks don’t dig aans – it’s the small block thing
Look whose talking. With a name like firepower for all the gay jokes you make around here. Go look your name up on urban dictionary. Flamer.
More from fiesty firepower mmkay. girl, you gots ta take yo fingas out dat Ben N’ Jerry’s before you type ghetto poetry lol. before long, your fingers are gonna be too fat to fit on the keyboard
but not fat as those fists you like to be rammed up your one way highway.
too easy
Yup didn’t crack the text book 🙂
Mr M understands me
he is my brother
Firepower,
You’re right in one thing, kid: I dont really know how to swear in English. Why should I, if I can swing a fist in an extreme case? Swear is a bit useless. With men, it only catalyses a fight, but then, you can cut to the chase, and your point will be made anyway.
With women, some of the most hurting options can be used with a straight face. Swearing wont get things done.
So, you’re right. I do not master English. I can speak english, italian and spanish only good enough to nail girls from any country that speak these languages. And as Brazil is flooded every year with tourists, you can only imagine how useful poliglossy can be. 😉
My best only comes in Portuguese.
All I can swear in english is:
“Brace theeself for I shall kill you now, you bloody son of a cripled courtesan!”
And then I yell “No quaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrteeeer!”
As the crowd brakes in laughter, I start the bloodshed.
;P
Always do that with a drunken irish accent for best effect.
Maurice–
Seriously, fuck you. If you think Firepower’s posts that are just random flaming are acceptable but mine are “just stupid” that shows your intellectual level as well. He’s having a slap fight and involved me when I wasn’t even addressing him.
If you’re going to send a minion to “flame” with me, you could at least encourage someone who makes logical sense.
@Mr M, firepower – i agree, i don’t read everything off-topic, but many times the comments are good and on-point. some very smart folks show up here, and i find it worthwhile to read those views in addition to roissy’s. i skipped 80% of the weekend post, however. kudos to you for the nose art post, but the flaming of hapless collegebot kinda counters that.
neil said: So, you’re right. I do not master English. I can speak english, italian and spanish only good enough to nail girls from any country that speak these languages.
your english is better than my portuguese.
if i spoke all those languages, I’d emigrate permanently and be rid of these bossy, hoggy, talktodahand, fat entitled American bitches.
you got it made. I myself, would move to Brazil
peace
Lady Raine – Firepower–Have you ever MET a woman? Celebrity Dance Offs? Harlequin Romance novels? I don’t like reality shows at all nor do I watch sitcoms. I like crime dramas, horror movies, and the Science Channel. Way to know women, buddy.
Well, you aren’t a normal woman. You are what is known as an outlier. Or weirdo.
And Bhetti the Arab dingbat likes those romance novels. She always brings them up on here for men to read.
Hedy Lamar and Raquel Welsh – two of the all time beauties.
In the two photos the problem I have is the one on the right just reminds me of my mother.
I could only have sex with the one on the left even though she’s far from ideal.
@LR – actually, i was posting *against* his flaming for stupid reasons – but supporting it when a poster deserves it. you usually do. not the slap fight thing, which is pointless, and the insults, which are uncalled for. that’s not my style at all. but your comments are usually so off-point and dumb that they cry out for rebuttal and retaliation. hence roissy’s attack on you the other week. none of us had ever seen anything like that before, so you should win some sort of prize for annoying him so much.
i read your posts when you first showed up, was taken aback by how people attacked you right off the bat, and tried to give you what i thought was good advice on what/how to interact with the regulars here. but i usually don’t read your comments any more. i’ll read the first comment you make to a given post to see what you have to say, but nothing after that. i’m sure you disagree with a lot of the guys here, probably including me, and that’s OK too – not everyone can agree on everything.
so i wasn’t “sending a minion” – my comment to firepower was just that pointless bitch-slapping is annoying to everyone, but bitch-slapping with a purpose – to savagely refute a dumb or annoying point – is highly satisfying and entertaining. and you provide the vast majority of those kinds of comments these days.
sorry i couldn’t be more encouraging.
“flaming hapless collegebot” lol.
I don’t suffer fools: I’m burnishing my intolerance of morons lately and developing a healthy hatred of idiots. I had a confrontational, Stanley Kowalski kind of weekend out and about. Much fun. I’d expound, but our host does a better job.
When I was a kid, I always laughed at the Mongoloid. Having suppressed it successfully as an adult, every once in a while I like to have a chuckle with the “retard voice” just to keep the juices flowing.
Strictly my gut-level reaction to all those PC Discovery Health Channel programs about 2-headed babies.
more on the ideal (composite) woman of yesteryear as illustrated by aircraft art, check out this one, it’s being co-opted into an anti-Obama poster, but dayam if these two fresh faced ladies aren’t still relevant to us allegedly estrogenated men.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_orkXxp0bhEA/Si8Fqc7ckPI/AAAAAAAATCs/d9T-yO65w9A/s1600-h/090609-hlthd-3-3.jpg
That is, if this originally came from a WWII poster.
Have tastes changed?
willard And Bhetti the Arab dingbat likes those romance novels. She always brings them up on here for men to read.
You are the most hateful idiot.
It’s impossible for me to judge which women is better, unless I see another part of each one.
And you all know what part.
Peter
Willard Libby,
As one who has learned a great deal of Women’s desires and sexuality from their erotica and romance novels, I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss them, if anything I strongly urge any Man who wishes to be a better lover and seducer to read some of it. I spoke of this on the Test Your Game thread, where I picked up on Style’s cue to read up on Women’s Erotica and Romance novels. One of them I read was The Story of O, although I’ve read others (Zane is very popular among Black Women).
I would like to kindly suggest you check it out before you poo poo it.
O
Back to the original topic, someone made a point on the bomber art.
The girls depicted on these are, undeniably, more round shaped than the current media standard. You can say that for the face, as much as for the tighs and ankles as well.
Back in the 40′s, excepting the pin ups, the female clothing already gave a good view of the feminine silhouette. We are not talking of Victorian England…
I hope to bring some perspective to the topic with this:
I’m born and living in Brazil. Why am I able to gather crucial information from this blog? Cause some things are the same everywhere. Culture is a small fraction of our behavior.
It is a country that references itself in American standards for pretty much a lot of things. Architecture, music, dominant cultures bring aesthetics altogether.
In the past ten years, I could observe the same phenomena that Roissy describes: round shaped women being substituted by angular ones.
But – its necessary to single out – its not a complete process down here. Some faces still look too strange in this transition. Keira Knightley, for an exemple, is a little to boyish to our standards.
You can argue: “well, latino women are from a different ethnic crowd”. Partially right: in the south region of Brazil, most of the population is caucasian (german, italian, polish, and castillan spanish). A phone list of my city would make you think you’re in Hundsrück rather than a Latin American country.
And yet, the very same Caucasians from here still dig the pin up body/face woman. They are everywhere: you have the square jaw ones, and the soft jaw ones, and the second is preferred.
I have no reason to assume that USA only got square jaw women. Its more reasonable for me to assume that, given I live in a place with very similar ethnicities, people look very similar in both places.
Therefore, someone is picking the girls with masculine features in the face for model representation in aesthetics. A lot of people with different features, a special type used to be more common. Now, another type. It means deliberate choice.
Why the shift?
a) Consumption need testosterone driven women. It pumps the economy. What would be more reasonable than to promote the image of manly women. “I have the dick cause I have the wallet” women?
b) Previously mentioned artificial living. We are nearly obsolete compared to the technology of our time. You can almost make nano robots, but you cannot age-back an age spotted flaccid neck skin. Such models like the girl in the left corner, reflect more an “aero dynamic” design, than raw sexuality itself. Out libido is probably contamined: perhaps downsized. If pornography sell so much today, its because theres less people having sex. Thinking more than doing: and thinking tends to over rationalize. What? libido.
c) Sexually is possible in very simple terms. Say, a 70% proportion of waist/hips already makes a woman palatable. Both girls have it in common, most likely. The left girl can be brought with no loss to attractiveness in its basic terms. The all around is about the aesthetic sense of our time. And this sense, I must agree, is somewhat androgynous, if you compare to this similar shift in the standards for males. Go back in time, and Leonardo Di Caprio could never beat Humphrey Bogart: but yet, by that time, guys with features all too soft already existed. They were not privileged.
I could not make it short, so… I hope it remained intelligible all the way.
askjoe:
sure, tastes have changed – not just for facial characteristics alone.
slimmer Body types are preferred.
There’s been a gradual slimming down over the decades, from Mae West to MM to Jessica Alba.
slimmer women are more ‘masculine’ while the plusher varieties are naturally, more fem.
the exception is the big ass – ala Jessica Biel and her ilk – as influenced by African/Hispanic culture as it achieves predominance.
“I have the dick cause I have the wallet”
Lady Rain, is that you???
Maurice–
Well then I guess you really don’t know whether my posts are stupid and dumb and off topic or not if you read one and then skim. Clearly what you consider dumb is not the same as me, but I call “dumb” the large percentage of whining and martyring I see and hear here more than anywhere else on earth.
The mindset here seems to be a lot of blaming, whining, and shrieking about the unfairness of the world….THAT’S stupid and I don’t believe in the blame game, so if you think that it’s “stupid” that I find the hysterical crying here ridiculous and point it out to people, then you are probably a crier as well.
I go along more with the dramatic change in diets and lifestyles as the primary cause of this masculinization effect. High-carb/low fat diets combined with the exercise-mania that is a by-product of the obesity caused from the high-carb/low-fat diets have altered the typical appearance of the typical American…men and women alike.
I’d be curious to see if anyone can find research that showed how the movie stars and pin up ladies of the 30′s – 50′s…how much exercise did they do to maintain their figures?
Somehow I doubt they had the personal trainers, yoga classes, spas and all the other things today’s celebrity women engage in to maintain their figures and looks today.
But the women of the bygone era, for the most part, ate real food…not processed, artificially manufactured garbage that is the SAD (Standard American Diet) of today. And they were not afraid of saturated fat, which is absolutely vital in maintaining physical health.
If you ran the same computer model to show the composite woman of today vs. the composite of yesteryear, but make it a decade later after this initial one, lady on the left would look like she’s approaching 45 while the one on the right would look like she’s in her early 30′s.
Lady Rain:
The mindset here seems to be a lot of blaming, whining, and shrieking about the unfairness of the world….THAT’S stupid and I don’t believe in the blame game
“Just take your Soma goddammit!!!!”
“But the women of the bygone era, for the most part, ate real food…not processed, artificially manufactured garbage that is the SAD (Standard American Diet) of today. And they were not afraid of saturated fat, which is absolutely vital in maintaining physical health.”
Two words: french women.
Tastes for some men have changed.
Clearly what you consider dumb is not the same as me, but I call “dumb” the large percentage of whining and martyring I see and hear here more than anywhere else on earth.
Ah yes….it’s so terrible, you can’t help but log on everyday and contribute your opinions incessantly, despite being told repeatedly that they’re not wanted.
I think Whiskey’s point has been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt.
Why can’t Lady Raine leave Roissy’s blog alone?
PRECISELY BECAUSE he’s the “biggest douche in the world.”
Two words: french women.
Which is to say, the so-called “French Paradox” is no paradox at all.
Lady Raine, I don’t think Right Woman has a heart-shaped face. Her forehead isn’t broad enough and her face is too long from temple to jawbone. A true heart-shape is broad at the forehead and temples, tapes sharply from the temple to the tip of the jawbone, and then tapers at an oblique angle to a short, pointed chin.
When slender, Christina Ricci has a heart-shaped face. Christie Brinkley has one. So, too, does Vanessa Paradis, Johnny Depp’s steady.
A square face is one in which the forehead is broad and straight at the temples, the face does not taper inward from temple to jaw-bone, and from jaw to chin doesn’t taper but simple forms a nearly horizontal line to the chin. Jessica Simpson has this type of face, tho’ her chin is more tapered than some. Chinese women tend to have very square faces depending on ethnic group. Other East Asian women tend to heart-shaped or round, I think.
And a round face is one in which the forehead is short and rounded by the shape of the hairline, the temples straight, the cheek line short and straight from temple to jaw but may round outward due to pads of fat, and the jaw tapers to a short chin, also rounded by a pad of fat. When I say “fat” I don’t mean from being overweight; this type of face always looks rounded even when the person is thin. Not many actresses or models have truly round faces because they usually have high foreheads. Round faces aren’t considered really beautiful, esp. today, so they don’t turn up much.
Fats doesn’t get you Fat as quick as carb.
So… yep, there is no paradox.
I agree on the French Ladies. I have never dieted and I hate exercise, but I eat whatever I want….I just do it in moderation. Some Americans don’t understand the world “moderation”.
Dave–
I already stated before, I like lots of things that get me fired up….Politics too. It’s sheer entertainment, I mean no one reads Roissy for the intellectual value (because there is none.)
Also, I could care less who wants my opinions, do you mistakenly think I have feelings, lol?
maurice:
@alias – how can you resist? how about some healthy e-reciprocation for an alpha male who clearly views you as worthy of his best self…?
As you can see, Maurice, chicks (even Clio) dig jerks, even Canadian ones. No doubt some stuffy, well to do businessman who affords her the illusion that his lifestyle in any way approximates the romantic landscapes of her youth. It doesn’t, of course. Even as I attempt to bridge the chasm between us, Clio still prefers to e-walk all over my finely constructed effusions of tenderness in favor of her silver-haired mountebank.
Fuck dat.
Bitches ain’t shit.
Clio–
I agree with you there. The round faces aren’t used much for especially the runway and movies. The heart shaped is pretty confusing all around. You’re right on Ricci and Brinkley definitely.
The women had softer looks because in order to be curvy you couldn’t be skinny and muscular (like you can now with big fake boobies) and men seem to forget that women lose and gain weight in their chest, face, and ass first. A voluptuous woman then isn’t the same as a “voluptuous” woman today.
Lady Raine,
I would have to disagree on the intellectual value of this venue. In my humble view it is one of the few of its kind that actually discusses the country’s current dating scene and related issues in so degree of depth beyond the usual superficial stuff you see out there. Now of course, many, and definitely including you for sure, often find themselves at odds w/Roissy’s views. But that’s another issue.
As for why you’re here, it seems clear to me that the venue meets your need for somewhat combative discourse, which is in itself quite a masculine trait. Hmm.
O
Nah Obs, from her femi-centric point of view, this place certainly doesn’t have intellectual value…
…It’s beyond her comprehension.
As for why you’re here, it seems clear to me that the venue meets your need for somewhat combative discourse, which is in itself quite a masculine trait. Hmm.
I have it on good authority that Lady Rain’s clit-dick wears boxing gloves.
I agree that genetics explains the shift (women because they can mate with Alphas and as Roissy points out, boys are born fighting and girls more masculine).
But it’s also useful to look at what’s “not there” in the 1930′s-50′s, and what’s “not there” now.
What wasn’t there from 1930-1959: Tea Leoni and Diane Lane. Both of whom play very often the “cheating woman” who liberates herself by screwing around on her husband. They’re generally playing “hard” career-woman types who put ambition and studly dominance on the side over their sad-sack husbands. Spanglish, Walk on the Moon, and Unfaithful all come to mind.
That role and type of actress just wasn’t there.
You also see NOW (but not then) the waify-ass kicker. Summer Glau, Sarah Michelle Gellar, Eliza Dushku, Angelina Jolie, Cameron Diaz, Lucy Liu, have all played these roles, some of them several times. THAT is a very masculinization of women fantasy, a woman who likes to blow things up instead of “girly” things like fashion and friends and feelings and romance.
The former cheating wife seems aimed foursquare at women, the waify ass-kicker at nerdy guys. Oddly enough, neither seems very profitable (Jolie’s Wanted really tanked) but Hollywood keeps on making them.
What’s missing NOW (but was present then): DONNA REED. The girl next door, “nice,” virginal, no high mileage on the odometer, no tons of exes, no huge baggage. The nice, friendly, faithful girl next door. This type just isn’t there now in Hollywood. Heck the closest Hollywood can come to the Girl Next Door is super-bimbo Megan Fox.
I don’t think guys stopped wanting the Girl Next Door. it’s just that Hollywood and the larger culture just can’t produce it anymore. Even Bettie Davis, women’s picture star, was in male/female screwball comedies like “the Bride Came COD” and had to appeal to men on occasion.
Nearly ever casting director in Hollywood is either gay or female. There are almost no straight male ones. That has seriously skewed casting in ways we are still understanding. Women have very little understanding of what men find attractive. Exhibit A: all those Nicole Kidman movies.
Picture on the left.
Sexier, but in a more tawdry way.
Picture on the right.
Also sexy, but with a certain sweetness.
I could fall in love with her. Easily. Stupidly. Beta drooling love.
Picture on the right.
Good for a coffeeshop bathroom fling, and nice arm candy. It would be hard for me to commit to her
Picture on the left.
I would want her to have my children, and place a perhaps dangerous degree of trust in her.
These are my gut reactions.
Tupac@
“I have it on good authority that Lady Rain’s clit-dick wears boxing gloves.”
Ouch, touche. That has to be the funniest statement I’ve read all week.
I have a headache from laughing.
And with that, off to some pool. Billiards makes life fun.
Actually, one last one
Clio@
Christina Ricci is only a few steps below the apotheosis of endearing femininity. She should be cloned. Multiple times.
That’s all.
[…] and kate winslet who are baby faced feminine beauties. on June 15, 2009 at 1:44 pm Kevin K … http://roissy.wordpress.com/2009/06/15/the-masculinization-of-the-western-white-female/ Daily […]
I hit the button for the one on the left, but I tell ya’…………………………………….the one on the right brings out the “white knightism” dormant in all of us guys. Those uber-feminine features scream out, “hold me and protect me, and be a good daddy to our children”, while the one on the left looks like a gal you’d pick up at a bar.
The one on the right Definitely looks like better mommy material, but I cant imagine her getting really freaky in the sack like I could easily imagine the one on the left doing.
I kinda wish I would have voted for the more feminine looking-one now that I really rest my eyes on them.
http://perezhilton.com/2009-06-15-mystery-works-his-magic-much-to-the-distress-of-women-all-over
Kamal:
Christina Ricci is only a few steps below the apotheosis of endearing femininity. She should be cloned. Multiple times.
So sure, are you?
http://www.smokeandthink.com/blog/wp-images/media/ohmmiunque/Christina%20Ricci.jpg
“A ….. b… bl… blowjob, Curtis, is that what you really want? I heard the whispers, the rumors, but I never thought it could be true! All right, Curtis, I’ll give you a choice ….a blowjob …. or my love. That’s right, you can’t have both!”
Clio, is that you???
@tupac -she answered LR’s dumb post about face shapes but not your declaration of e-love … ouch!! (to be fair to LR, she was responding to clio’s earlier dumb post about face shapes.) cold it be that your muse of history is not worthy of your noble passion? yeah, chix suk.
@kim – interesting, but i always figured the venn diagram intersection of roissy and perez hilton was zero ….
@obs on LR – spot on as usual.
maurice:
could it be that your muse of history is not worthy of your noble passion?
Well, she IS too old to begin the training…
@tupac – there’s training? what, do you want to be a ninja couple or something …?
there’s training? what, do you want to be a ninja couple or something …?
It’s a Jedi thing. She would just need to shut her overeducated trap long enough for me to fire some jizzbombs across the bow.
Are you kidding roissy? I s’pose a mass survey of women’s looks is called for. However I believe women are far more feminine nowadays. If you look at generally photos from the early 20th century you see a great many stocky women with solid manly faces and large jaws. Good hardworking farming women?
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.
“A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That’s the way your hard-core Commie works.”
I don’t agree genetics are the reason. 50 years is too little time to cause any kind of “genetic drift” one way or another. Also, the population of the US is very heterogeneous. Even among “whites” (just take a tour through Europe and you will see the differences among white women in the different countries).
The “change” is a matter of (1) food intake, and (2) magesine editors, fashion designers (ghey).
(1) Hollywood bitches today don’t eat enough and are generaly too thin. Hence the bonier facial features. Back then women ate and they eat good food, not junk and plastic.
What you are seeing is simply the result of more meat and potatoes in the woman’s diet.
(2) For the past 30 or so years the trend in the US mainstream magz has been for thinner and thinner women. The more extreme cases are found in runway models.
I can’t remember where I read this, but some female fad mag was telling women that the sight of exposed clavicle bones was sexy. WTF??????
So the trend of what is “sexy” is set on the skinnier side of the spectrum.
—> This seems to be changing now. I was speaking with a good friend of mine from Dominican Rep. and he was commenting how so many white girls now are growing butts.
gig:
“to have a complete study, we should also compare the waist and hips accross generations.”
There have been studies of this. During good times the women the media uses are more “Sex toy” like girl on the left. During harder times a more maternal, dependable looking woman is preferred.
Just as Sean Conneryish men are preferred by women in times of uncertainty, and Leonardo DiCaprios during the good times.
The Provider/Protector; Long term relationship preference versus The effeminate dandy and playmate.
It fluctuates as much as hemlines used too (which has now been replaced by belly exposure).
Whether that will still hold true, or go the way of the dress length is anyone’s guess.
@Tupac, re Ricci: Please don’t spoil my fond memories of Addams Family Values.
Ever notice that any post of Lady Paine’s that doesn’t contain the word “I” is extremely rare?
Grac –
I hear what your saying.
Unfortunately, makeup changes everything.
Which is why I prefer naturally colored Latina women.
What the hell is the deal with Christian Ricci? I never got it.
URGENT Note to Tupac:
Dude, “Madame George” is supposedly about a drag queen Van Morrison and his pals knew as teens.
I’m not sure why you’d dedicate this to Clio. If anything, go back to “Astral Weeks” and send her “Sweet Thing.”
I myself would dedicate ELO’s “Livin’ Thing” to Clio. Bonus point if anyone can guess why.
What the hell is the deal with Christian Ricci? I never got it.
She has a very appealing “alterna”-big-eyed appeal. Triangular face, etc. Couple that with the fact that she is often found in independent films and you got a modern day Fawcett for the indie crowd.
I got fooled too, until I saw her “raw” pics.
DOBA:
Dude, “Madame George” is supposedly about a drag queen Van Morrison and his pals knew as teens.
I’m not sure why you’d dedicate this to Clio.
Clio once stated that Madame George was her favorite V.M. song. I took mental note of it like the lickspittle beta I am.
If anything, go back to “Astral Weeks” and send her “Sweet Thing.”
Dude, I once told her that I actually PLAY and SING “I’ll Be Your Lover, Too” on guitar, but that didn’t please her. She said she only prefers Morrison from his early albums, so even my rareified indulgences were not enough for her.
Fuck that impossible-to-please shit.
Neil… Para escrevendo e sai esse blog imediatamente. Tchau.
Tupac,
I didn’t know Clio was into “Astral Weeks!” Ha — what a trip. Who knew?
I actually am not familiar with “I’ll Be Your Lover, Too.” I hate to say it but I also prefer the early Van. I assume that’s a later song.
“Sweet Thing” is easy to learn — it’s in E and has a cool F#Minor thing. I personally think Clio is worth learning a new song for, even if she’s hard to please.
“Sweet Thing” is easy to learn — it’s in E and has a cool F#Minor thing. I personally think Clio is worth learning a new song for, even if she’s hard to please
Beta.
I actually am not familiar with “I’ll Be Your Lover, Too.”
This is a horrible cover of it, but believe it or not it’s the best thing I could find on YouTube:
Whiskey–
Small correction: Diane Lane played a frustrated housewife, and not a hard-charging career woman, in both movies you referenced: to Liev Schreiber in A Walk on The Moon and to Richard Gere in Unfaithful.
Didn’t Wanted make something like $340 million worldwide?
again, I see lady raine’s post and all i hear is
mmm, ggg ahh, putitinme, mmmfffmff
cmon lady, keep your porn act out of the blog comments!
🙂
Whiskey,
Surely you jest: what about Cat On A Hot Tin Roof (Liz Taylor), A Streetcar Named Desire, etc, et al? There were scads of scandalous movies made back in the day. Liz Taylor and Marilyn Monroe and Jayne Mansfield made their names in Hollywood on the basis of such roles.
And this idea of the lack of girl next door roles? Look, the reality is the a lot of Men, LIKE SLUTS. Because they’re easier to get in the sack than the proverbial good girls. At least Roissy will Man Up and freely admit this, the problem is that he appears to be in the distinct minority.
I don’t deny the presence of Jews, Gays and Women in Hollywood making big decisions, but, as you said yourself, come Summertime, they all know what to make in order to make money, and that means, putting strong White Males in the lead and White Female eye candy like a Gwyneth Paltrow or something like that. Its hard to be both a businessman/woman, AND be an ideologue; you either wanna make money or you wanna make a point. The Summertime blocbusters, who are unapologetically aimed at White Boys and Men aged 13 to 40, says it all.
So I really don’t see your point at all.
Please explain?
O
Well, maurice, I was trying to keep to the subject raised by roissy. That’s why I talked about face-shapes.
Tupac is trying to tease me into a response. It’s usually wiser to ignore him; then he stops soon enough. But he seems to have the bit between his teeth now. What to do? Hmmm.
Tupac, hon, thanks for the (somewhat mixed) compliments, but I must continue to decline your attentions. My heart belongs to Another. As I’ve told you before. Cut it out, sweetie.
BTW, I can’t listen to the version of Madam George you posted because the sound component on my computer isn’t working just now.
Oh, and I’ve seen hideous photos of every famous beauty who ever posed for a camera. No one looks perfect in every picture. Sometimes you can even be photographed badly on a day when you look good in real life.
Maurice,
I just thought it was kind of funny and thought maybe others would too. Also, there was discussion of the masculinization of women leading to the feminization of men…and I guess you could say Mystery is an example of that. I’m not sure if you’re being sarcastic or sincere…so…if you were being sincere…then ignore the above justification for posting the link haha.
The composite face on the right clearly looks older. She looks like a more mature woman. Follow the crease to the left of her nose. Also, the left chin line looks older.
Also the mouth of the woman on the left is slightly open and that’s sexier.
As for what has changed to cause the differences:
1) The decline of the studio system. Women actresses need to be more entrepreneurial. They’ve got to negotiate complex deals for each movie and develop material. This helps women with more masculine mental traits.
2) The change in ethnic mix of the US population.
3) Criteria for choosing female models have changed. Is this due to a larger gay role in the fashion industry?
4) Has average age changed for stars? For models? I’m guessing for models it is younger. Look at all the 15 year old model girls who look like boys.
Clio:
Tupac is trying to tease me into a response. It’s usually wiser to ignore him
And why might that be, hmmmmm?
Randall Parker,
You mentioned the changing ethnic nature of the country, but the beauty standard remains clearly White, as shown in the pics above of both Women. Therefore I don’t see how Black or Hispanic people impact on the issues Roissy is speaking to here. Please explain?
O
Obsidian:
Take a look at the 2008 pool. Off-hand, Ambrosio’s a Brazilian of (supposedly) Italo-Polish descent; Eva Mendes is (apparently) Cuban; Alba has Mexican lineage through her father, and Kate Beckinsale’s got about an eighth Burmese in her. Also, that list included at the start Rihanna, who wouldn’t have made the list in the 1940s.
I’d be willing to bet that none of the 1940s actresses have anything more than a fraction of non-American stock, which I take to mean Western Europe. It’s arguable that the beauty standard is changing, or has been changed. Only Beckinsale would have had a shot at the big leagues back then.
Sestambi, you’re quite correct. Should not post and run. Lane was a housewife not career woman. Leoni usually plays the brittle careerists.
Obsidian — Gwyneth Paltrow is sexy? In what universe? She’s the definition of another problem in Hollywood: nepotism.
The problem is that Hollywood keeps trying to make money off of waify ass-kickers like Jolie in Boob Raider, or Wanted, or Summer Glau in Serenity, and so on. None of those “blockbuster aimed” movies make money. The first Boob Raider did OK, the second one terrible. In the meantime, there’s a huge lack of leading ladies that make sense for the hero to risk his life for. We are at the point where it takes a Frenchman (Luc Besson) to write an unapologetic defense of masculine and fatherly values, and the girl he’s rescuing is his daughter.
It seems like the “women’s picture” gals don’t migrate well over to male-oriented comedies or action dramas as they did in the 1930′s through 1950′s. You could have Bettie Davis, or Veronica Lake, or Hedy Lamarr, in screwball comedies, or a Lauren Bacall in an action-drama, and be a credible leading lady that you could figure the leading man would actually care about. Can you say the same about: Katherine Heigl, Nicole Kidman, Anne Hathaway?
Hathaway might be fine in say, “Devil Wears Prada” or “Rachel Getting Married.” Katie Holmes might be excellent in “Pieces of April.” But you can’t imagine either Steve Carrell or Christian Bale caring about either one in the Get Smart and Batman movies. Heck the second Batman movie with Bale had “retarded turtle” Maggie Gyllenhall as the leading lady, a woman who can’t generate any heat or light onscreen absent bondage scenes (cheap shock trick).
The Megan Fox character was clearly meant to be the Girl Next Door, in the Transformers movie, and she ends up like — “random hot Bimbo off Maxim” — same with Elisha Cuthbert, or Lindsay Lohan, or any of those girls.
What I’m talking about is INNOCENCE. There’s hardly any actress out there who can play that quality. Innocence is sexy. It’s nice. It means “for you and for you alone.” Not: “30 served. Next!” Monroe was no innocent, but her performances were mostly the hot stuff girl who was also innocent and sweet. She could at least perform it. This current crop (with maybe three exceptions) just can’t.
has it been shown anywhere that alpha men beget high T-level daughters? this is a central argument of roissy’s…
tupac@
Wow. My illusions are shattered.
Gee thanks.
Betcha can’t take Alba away from me though…
VG,
I don’t claim any expertise insofar as the beauty biz is concerned and will gladly defer to people like Chic Noir and Alias Clio, but it don’t take a fashionista to see that today’s standard of beauty remains along a solidly White continuum; the Women you mentioned are the other ethnicities really in name only. For all purposes, they are White.
In fact, on the other thread, Chic makes the point that virtually no darkskinned Black Women is cast in lead roles in films or tv; Jennifer Hudson’s winning an Oscar was much lauded because it was so rare for such an overtly Black looking Woman to win.
Lena Horne was around back in the 40s and again we can see that even she was closer to the White ideal of beauty, than say Hattie McDaniel, Elle Fitzgerald, etc.
So again, I’m not seeing this ever encroaching “ethnic” influence on the “manning” of White Women, something that I kind of recoil at, since it suggests that Black or Hispanic Women cannot be feminine. That has not been my direct experience, which s much more extensive than the vast majority of White Men here, including Roissy himself.
O
This talk about gay men in the fashion industry (or elsewhere) necessarily preferring masculine-looking women is silly. Many gay men idolize Marilyn Monroe, Audrey Hepburn, Betty Grable, and other similarly feminine stars of the past.
As for the rest of Roissy’s “thesis”, it has little evidence to back it up. The ideal looks established by models and actresses are arguably more masculine, but I don’t think this is generally true of the non-famous woman in the street, whether pretty or plain, thin or fat.
On the other hand, women are undeniably taller, bigger-boned, and, unfortunately, fatter than they were 60 years ago. I look at many vintage fashion websites, and the difference between a size 14 then and now is incredible. It’s not all because of fat, though. You’ll find far more clothes with shoulder widths of 13 inches (very narrow), or torso lengths of 15 inches, suggesting a much shorter, smaller-framed woman than that of today. As for shoe sizes, a 2.5 inch-wide foot is almost unknown today, but apparently it wasn’t uncommon in the 1940s.
Clio — Gay Men prefer waifs. Girls who might look like boys. They idolize Judy Garland. They prefer boyish, masculine models.
Off topic: A colleague of minegot married — and he took his wife’s last name. Not hyphenated; he took her last name. I thought it was bad enough that he married a fat chick. But he married her and took her last name.
WTF, over?
The woman on the left looks turned on. The woman on the right looks frightened and/or depressed.
maurice –
the purported science in the post — significant genetic change in the whole population in a span of 60 years, widespread heritability of masculine and feminine behavioral traits, single motherhood leading to dispersion of a “warrior gene”, high-carb diet and pill-laced urine in drinking water leading to hormone imbalances — is pure CRAP. WAY below the usual standards of this blog. sorry to have to say so.
I agree maurice.
After reading this from you and then reading through the blog post instead of skimming it, I realized my critique above on what Zendo said should have been addressed first to Roissy.
@Roissy said –
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?
Three generations since 1940 at most to be exact. The answer is NO. Absolutely impossible.
Not without a near extinction level sexual selection factor favoring the more masculine look, with a resulting GINORMOUS population bottleneck / reduction in intervening years under the weight of that much pressure. I mean any faintly feminine looking females couldn’t have had ANY children whatsoever. I mean NO babies even if FAINTLY feminine. Zero. Nada. (Even then the genes couldn’t sort nearly that fast, due to ancestor effects and so on.)
Like I said, impossible under the known facts. By a factor of I don’t know, 1000 to 1 or 10,000 to one or more, in estimating the plausibly operable selection coefficient.
If that is there is indeed ANY SELECTION PRESSURE AT ALL in that direction today and over the past few decades. It would have to operate not through a greater frequency of betas beating off to female action figures with a more masculine look in video game or comic book inspired movies, stills, or porn spoofs thereof, or even through those sluttier DC Amazonian attorney types sport fucking randoms more often, but rather through more actual child births to such women as opposed to more feminine looking ones.
Instead that is of the higher T and more masculine looking white women, you know, more often going childless or waiting too long to try to conceive to actually get the job done. As we in the real world are familiar with occurring more often with those types, than more feminine looking ones.
Rather ridiculous Roissy, isn’t it, this idea of a notable American genetic shift in a more masculine looking female direction, within three generations? Not one of your better brainstorms.
@doug
I can’t be too critical of this post. Linking to all the studies at once was a tad overwhelming for the reader, but the study regarding the out of wedlock childbirth rate was particularly illuminating to me.
And although this masculine/feminine beauty issue is a little odd to comprehend and doesn’t seem scientific (more someone else’s not well-developed opinions and observations), it does give inspiration for some good debate regarding beauty standards of the past and present… which plays a huge part in the overall theme of attraction.
Seeing this makes me realize that despite what (mostly) women like to think, as Obsidian posted a little above…
the standard of beauty is still Western.
I saw this post and immediately wondered where the more “ethnic” beauties of today were, like Alba, Diaz, Beyonce, Rihanna… these women are getting top respect and attention in the media and they’re missing from the representation.
But then one has to see that they don’t represent the majority features of their ethnic backgrounds. Says something about the media and beauty industry.
@doug – yeah, and i actually read the links too. the “warrior” gene is … wait for it .. located on the X chromosome. (toward the end of the article.) So a male child can only get it from his mother, and an alpha/violent father would only pass it to his daughter. The diet thing was only based on “indirect” evidence from women who already had elevated insulin. and the pill-urine thing was just ridiculous.
not to say there aren’t significant chemical influences on hormoes in our food and water – soy/estrogen, hormones in beef and milk causing female puberty to begin much earlier than it ever did in the past, etc. but those weren’t cited.
like i said – the trend is real, and it’s a good observation, but it’s 100% about media choice/preference for a certain type of look – not about science or genetics. not possible.
@aliasclio – well, why not? this isn’t the real world, you know. all we see of each other is our blog-comment personas. you can e-flirt with tupac, return his e-affections in this space for fun, sport and pleasure, and still have your real heart belong to Another. (if it’s a capital A, it must be serious….) you should be flattered by Tupac’s high-minded attention. it’s very far from e-catcalls, as I hope you see. Maybe I have no business being an e-yenta here, but it does make me happy to see this kind of thing going on… also, your faces comment was not dumb – i just wrote that to provoke a reaction – it worked!
@DOBA – a pro-life thing?
@kim – meant it in a tongue-in-cheek way. you’re good. by the way, your blog link is rather cryptic. no title, no personal info, just some pix from what appears to be an art-focused trip through europe. how about some backstory, so we can put some context to your comments?
@obs – in this case, the race argument doesn”t work. not only were there very few black stars in the 40s, and no sex sypbols except for maybe Lena Horne, but the point is to make a comparison across the decades based on a synthesis of types. mixing in those real black stars today (Halle Berry, Iman, Beyonce, Sanaa, whoever) would have resulted in a mixed-race composite – which, however beautiful the result may have been, would have made the comparison of physiognomies to the 40s stars on their feminine traits difficult to impossible.
on the other hand, why shouldn’t they have been in the mix? maybe the maxim readership is mostly white and so doesn’t include the hottest black or hispanic or asian women out there. a more modern compostie would indeed have a mixed-race aspect, and probably more beautiful and exotic as a result. so it would have been more representative for maxim to have included top chicks of color, but it would have not made the point in the same way.
Maurice,
Good job! You guessed it. “Livin’ Thing” is considered a pro-life song. Despite what Jeff Lynne says, a close reading of the lyrics seem to bear this out. Supposedly, he wrote this after a girlfriend aborted his baby.
The giveaway is in the background vocals that forewarn “Don’t you do it!” which has pretty much nothing to do with the main lyric as a love song. The mistake most people make is they read the lyric sheet, which doesn’t list the background vocals.
Obsidian said:
…putting strong White Males in the lead and White Female eye candy like a Gwyneth Paltrow …
lol – seriously dude, like wtf? I wouldn’t fuck her with Coldplay’s collective, one shared penis.
this post doesn’t make sense.
the “manly” woman wins 3:1. her “manliness” can be found only for those who already wanted to find it. the idea of such a genetic change in three generations only is, as others said, absurd. also, the masculinization of attractive girls is not the problem, but the masculinization of ugly and inteligent girls (i.e. feministX), who form the rank and file of the feminist movement. attractive girls, if anything, are free to be be ever more feminine, meaning more hipergamous, since they can. it is those who see hipergamy happening but can’t join the party or hold the alpha that are the problem
I really would like to know, and I hope quantcast willmake it possible, the average number of sexual partners of men who go to pure-blooded HBD blogs, like dienekes and gnxp.
Paltrow is an ugly talentless NY-upper east side rich jewish cunt whose Daddy (a producer) and “godfather” (“uncle” Steven Spielberg) and mother (actress Blyth Danner) bought her her oscar. She’s Paris Hilton without the class but a lot more self-importance.
And now she does some shitty meaningless “food/travel” show where she tools around Spain with fat-and-faggy Mario Battali and speaks shitty Spanish on camera to English=-speaking audiences (to prove how superior she is) while her personal fag hag fag Mario cooks for her pathetic ass.
And she also shits on America in foreign newspapers when she thinks no one is looking.
This from a cunt who couldn’t open a movie to save her life. And she’s not good looking at all.
another Alpha Idol has fallen, this time, Bruce Willis posing in eurogay ‘couture’ with his Salome wife. It’s said, testosterone levels start to fall after a certain age. the horror…the horror:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,526493,00.html?mrp
http://www.wmagazine.com/celebrities/2009/07/bruce_emma_willis_ss?mbid=synd_fox_news
I prefer the 40′s woman, but not for the reason Roissy says. The modern woman strikes me not as “mascuiline,” but as a parody of femininity. Her eyebrows look “thinned,” if not really thinner. Her jawline barely goes out at all, though it does have a bit of a hardened look to it. She looks overdone, fake, plastic.
And I bet she’s far more paranoid about removing ever speck of hair from everywhere that isn’t the top of her head.
Why is Lady Raine even allowed to post on this blog? Her inane quest for attention as her looks fade is sad and pathetic.
The fact that she exposes her son and family to public ridicule for her personal gratification is shameful.
You wimpering excuse for men who respond to her are weak.
P.S.–I do have to notice, though, that the 40s woman does better on the “high cheeckbones” indicator of femininity.
@lurker, firepower – i’m with you, paltrow is extremely annoying and overrated. she named her kid “apple” – that’s about as much as you need to know about her. in all her movie roles except “shakespeare in love” – a very smart but very annoying movie – she has played dumb doormats: se7en, talented mr ripley, even iron man. on the set of iron man 2, scar jo is getting all the male attention from the director, cast, crew, etc. – which apparently annoys gwyneth no end. to which i say – duh! you’re skinny, annoying, weird, and over the hill.
The claws come out on Paltrow!
In Paltrow’s defense, she did good (and looked good!) in Sky Captain, although admittedly her character was a self-absorbed pain in the neck. Perhaps that comes natural for her? She did OK in Iron Man as well, but was definitely second or third, behind Leslie Bibb and the stewardess(es) on Stark Air in terms of appearance. She’s probably best as a supporting actress as far as box office goes; I’m not sure she’s worth the top billing any more.
She’s not utterly hideous, courtesy of her mother, who was rather comely for the movie version of 1776; if Mrs. Martin threw herself at my feet, I certainly wouldn’t refuse. She’s too skinny for “eye candy”, though.
Her remarks against her country in foreign media are, however, unequivocally despicable.
@DOBA – well, i connected the dots form the title of the song to clio’s clear pro-life views on her blog. have never actually heard the song – so, it was a luckier guess than it may have seemed.
Virginia, she sucks as a actress; she emotes like a valley sorority girl (“oh my god, you guys, this Shakespeare dude is totally serious and smart”).
She’s not a good supporting actress; no one goes to movies because she’s in it, which is the judgement of box office. Compare her to actual female draws—Reese Witherspoon, Julia Roberts–and you see how pathetic her “stardom” really is.
Oh, and Sky Captain was all CGI all the time, so it wouldn’t be surprising for me if Paltrow were completely CGIed to be more attractive. Its the new airbrushing.
Hope her and her husbands private plane crashes and kills of these classic SWPL tools. With their stupid kid Pomegrante too.
I didn’t know Paltrow would elicit such a strong response, lol. And I’ve seen a few episodes of the Spanish cuisine show, she’s in it w/another Man and what appears to be a native Spanish actress? Not familiar w/who she is.
Anyway I was just tossing a name that I knew out there. To be frank as far as I’m concerned, Hollywood doesn’t feature Women I find attractive, and goes back to Chic’s earlier argument on the other thread, that the vast majority of Black and for that matter Hispanic Women aren’t represented in discussions of “beauty” because they don’t fit the WHITE (NOT “Western”) standard of what beauty is, which is shown in both the pics above-White, blonde-haired, blue-eyed, the end. I think such a notion is terribly limited.
It appears that if there is an “ethnic” thing happening on this score it comes from Asian females, no surprise there as they are often seen as honorary Whites (note the term “NAM” which explicitly leaves Asians out of discussing minority communities in the USA, instead focusing on African Americans and Hispanic peoples in particular).
Even in the case of current President Barack Obama, many pundits have observed that his Blackness is such that it doesn’t accost White sensibilities “too much”; his features speak to the lean, angular look of many East Africans, not of the more thicker West Africans, where the bulk and mass of African Americans come from.
When I look at Serena Williams I see beauty, not just in her skin color, but so too in her build. She doesn’t look masculine to me at all, though her sister Venus does. She’s no doubt very atheletic, but not mannish, to me.
Another example of what I find beautiful is the singer Angie Stone. Again, she has features that speak back to a West African heritage.
Now at this point, someone will invariably come out of the woodwork and bemoan what I find beautiful, please save it. Please note that I haven’t put anyone down for what they find hot, and in fact I chose the Woman on the right in the pics above. There’s no need to act sophmoric here. Only simply pointing out the realities of what is viewed as “beautiful” and what isn’t, and that is based on a Particular, Anglo, and White standard. Which again, I personally find terribly limited.
O
the links i posted above [awaiting moderation] show a sure masculinizing of women – to the point they topple a symbol like Bruce Willis.
when the links appear, note how the female has apparently taken over the male role of dominance
Whiskey: “Exhibit A: all those Nicole Kidman movies.”
Nearly fell out of my chair laughing. I’ve never understood the appeal of Nicole. She’s average at best. I figured the Tom Cruise angle helped explain it initially, then the “sympathy for the long-suffering wife of a crazy closeted gay man” angle helped explain it a bit when they divorced.
But it’s been a while now, and she’s STILL getting roles. She’s a middling actress at best, was never that hot to begin with, and has definitely crashed through the wall. But yet, the roles keep coming.
Maybe Steve Sailer is right – Hollywood, and humans in general, prefer to see male-female pairing where the woman is lighter-skinned (even if only slightly – you see this in black romance movies too, with the woman being coffee-with-cream color and the man noticeably darker).
NK is SO pale than even a pasty-assed Irishman can be safely paired with her. But still…she’s not hot. At all.
[…] I wrote up this post, Roissy made another post about the topic. I didn’t see enough in the post to want to rewrite this article, but […]
Kidman is cute, definitely; fair skin is definitely hot.
Most Hollywood people get their roles from who they know and their connections; hence why ScarJo, a crappy actress with a lumpy body and a plain face (but very large natural tatas) gets roles despite emoting like cardboard, or Kidman, or Paltrow the whore.
I’m reminded of the dearly departed Mitch Hedberg here:
“In Hollywood, its all about who you know, and I know Crackle.”
Obsidian –
WHITE (NOT “Western”) standard of what beauty is, which is shown in both the pics above-White, blonde-haired, blue-eyed, the end. I think such a notion is terribly limited.
[…]
When I look at Serena Williams I see beauty, not just in her skin color, but so too in her build.
So you agree with me that the natural order of things is for white guys to hit on Maria Sharapova and for black guys to hit on Serena Williams?
PA,
I don’t recall ever making the case otherwise; it is natural for one to feel some degree of affection for one’s own group.
I am not entirely sure I get where you’re driving at; please explain?
O
Maurice,
Here’s the video for “Livin’ Thing.” I have no idea how to embed video, but the link is below. I’m surprised you knew it was a supposedly a pro life song if you’d never heard it.
I grew up on this. Man, I’m getting old!
I am not entirely sure I get where you’re driving at; please explain?
Nothing, messing witcha.
But actually, you praised Serena’s beauty and decried the blonde/blue-eyed beauty standards… and so far, I’m with you.
But at the same time, lotsa brothas are very animated by those blonde/blue-eyed beauty standards, often at the cost of neglecting the charms of women like Serena.
Someone has gotta slap ‘em upside their heads for being so beholden to media industry’s white beauty standards. 🙂
I don’t like Gwyneth Paltrow’s acting or appearance but I don’t see why it’s necessary to bring her Jewishness into the matter, really. Yeah, yeah, I’m being politically correct (so sue me), but why is it relevant? You can make a case against her purely on her nepotistic rise to fame without bringing that in.
Nobody has ever shown that being Jewish was a special advantage for actresses, for goodness’ sake, however much the paranoid may worry about Jewishness in the studios and agencies.
The real problem with her looks is that, though she is pretty, she’s pretty in the style of the Most Popular Girl in School, an archetype that awakens reminiscent terror in those who were socially challenged in their teens, including me. I’ve seen photos of her before she got scrawny, bleached, straightened (hair), and plucked (brows) – and she was definitely more appealing then, as I think many men would agree.
p.s. She did open one movie – one of her first, too: Emma, back in the 1990s, which rested entirely on her. Many people didn’t like it, but I thought it was quite well done.
I had to look at each girl feature by feature to determine why I found the girl on the left more attractive in general. I covered 2/3rd of each face and looked at the mouth, nose and eyes individually.
I think the eyes on the right hand girl are more attractive when compared side by side. I think their noses are relatively equal. The chin on the right hand girl is smaller but not significantly so in my opinion.
To me it comes down to the mouth. Not only does the girl on the left have an open mouth (much more sexual) she has a wider mouth. I think this speaks to men (and likely women) at a gut level, not the head (ahem brain). I’m sure there is a sexual and maybe even biological reason for the attraction. Maybe cavemen were attracted to larger lipped women because they could take the heads off of…well anything dangerous.
@whiskey “What I’m talking about is INNOCENCE. There’s hardly any actress out there who can play that quality. Innocence is sexy.”
Halleluja. I call it “wholesomeness.” It ain’t always innocence per se, but it’s certainly related somehow to total body count. Hollyweird sluts probably couldn’t portray it if they tried, as they have no models to emulate.
@Chuck: “has it been shown anywhere that alpha men beget high T-level daughters? this is a central argument of roissy’s…”
Women’s T-levels come from their adrenal glands, and in cases of polycystic ovary syndrome. Men’s T-levels mostly come from their testicles. Spikes in free testosterone from social dominance come from the adrenals. I think these spikes are big enough to make physiological differences.
FWIIW, polycystic ovary syndrome is strongly correlated with being a fat cow, which is generally caused by eating too many carbs. So, yoyo dieting in women can be virilizing. This is also why fat chicks have moustaches. And it’s also in part why Eastern Europeans ain’t fat and are feminine.
Comparing physical features of women doesn’t have anything to do with the art of seduction. Big tits vs. small tits, Brown eyes vs. Blue…. who cares? Each individual has his own tastes in what he finds attractive. Believe it or not some guys have a penchant for fatties yet, they continually get shot down by said swamp hogs. What matters is how he approaches said interest and what he does in the first five minutes to increase his chances at carnal pleasure.
To infer that somehow masculine jawed women are the cause for the breakdown of western culture is foolish consistency at best.
Paltrow did one campy movie, abut airline stewardesses or something, where she looked allright. She wore alot of tight outfits (which gave her some curves), and had very feminine-trashy hair.
She looked pretty bangable in that flick, but mainly because she was playing up the “hard luck broad trying to get out of small town” via snug clothes and a demeanor that was submissive and attractive to men. (I.e., against the grain, and against her real-life persona – which is haughty and entitled.)
It’s sort of like the last time Julia Roberts looked any good – the Erin Brokovitch movie. Roberts still had decent T&A then, and played it up with the skanky outfits and heavy makeup. (Though Roberts’ character STILL had the snarky, man-disdaining vibe that the garrulous and pugnacious Lady Raine embodies so well).
Nowadays Roberts is going the way of Madonna.
@DOBA – well, if it’s ELO, i probably heard it on the radio during my own youth in the 70s. niether video nor audio came up on the above loink when i clicked it.
@aliasclio – well, good to know that women can find her annoying too, if for different reasons. actually there are a lot of jewish actors/actresses, proportionally more than in the general population, but they generally have to fit the template of being conventionally attractive. ex: wynona ryder (hurwitz), natalie portman (herschlag), etc. on the male side: richard gere, kirk and michael dougas, etc. wynona ryder comes from a hollywood family, but the rest did not.
scarjo is indeed talentless, but i wouldn’t call her lumpy or plain – her face is unusual in a way that the camera tends to like. luscious tatas are never harmful. julia roberts is the girl next door that whiskey said earlier does not exist any more. that’s the whole source of her appeal – except for her amazing smile, she’s never been particularly attractive. kidman did a deal with the devil – be tom cruise’s wife/beard and become a star. she did, and she did. she is also an unusual, striking type – beautiful in an unusual way that the camera captures and magnifies. she is now box-office poison, but i suspect one good role would turn that around. she’s been a big star for too long to be completely discarded. even kevin costner still shows up in movies – if anyone should have been railroaded out of LA for laughably bad ideas, movies, and performances, it’s him.
btw, to link this all back to the post – scarjo is clearly more like the woman on the right, and roberts/kidman/paltrow/etc. on the left.
I don’t see how its possible to hangout in a venue like this and make the case for “innocent” looking Women w/a straight face. Commonsense would dictate that the best chance for easy and quick sex is to found among the sluts not the so-called “innocent”. I think this is more of a kind of fetish on the part of many White guys that isn’t rooted in reality more than anything else.
O
Lupo–
FWIIW, polycystic ovary syndrome is strongly correlated with being a fat cow, which is generally caused by eating too many carbs. So, yoyo dieting in women can be virilizing. This is also why fat chicks have moustaches. And it’s also in part why Eastern Europeans ain’t fat and are feminine.
What do you know about the direction of causation and/or feedback loops?
Obsidian–
“As for why you’re here, it seems clear to me that the venue meets your need for somewhat combative discourse, which is in itself quite a masculine trait. Hmm”
I was referring to Roissy’s post themselves on the intellectual value, not the other posters here. I mean let’s face it, when it goes outside of the dating realm, most people seem to not understand his point (from what I’ve seen with this post for example).
You are correct in your statement though. Some of you gentlemen mistakenly think “women’s issues” or whatever get me fired up….there’s A LOT of issues that get me fired up and YES I love to debate and always have…it’s not because you’re guys, it’s because a lot of debated topics get posted here!
Uh, Lupo, I don’t know about that. I’ve seen quite a few Eastern European Women who were both, quite large and not very nice to look at. No dis to PA, but Poland’s got it’s fair share of em, so does Russia.
Also, PA, I never made the case that White weren’t or couldn’t be beautiful, nor that there are some Black Men who favor such a thing over “their own” Women; what I am challenging is the notion that there can only be “one” standard of beauty, which is the Anglo, White, blonde and blueyed standard. I say its “a” standard, but not “the” standard. Again, Hollywood or the wider media doesn’t feature most of the Women I would find beautiful at all, again citing Serena Williams and Angie Stone as examples.
O
Lady Raine,
While your love of spirited discourse is well documented, I cannot call it “debate” in the sense the word is commonly known and understood. You rarely if ever engage in objective fact finding and tend to ver off into purely subjective expression of your views, which is of course your right to do, but that isn’t debate; that’s just a rant.
For example, I have been making the case that there is in the USA a “standard” of beauty that has a very narrow definition-one that is White, Anglo-Western European, blond haired and blue eyed. I have gone further to say that my tastes in what I find beautiful rarely if ever gets featured in American media.
Now, that is my premise; for a “debate” to occur, you, for example would have to take the opposing view, that my proposition/observation is baseless, because you could cite objective evidence to the contrary.
See what I mean here?
Instead, what you do here is loudly state your opinions, which again is fine; its just that we need to be more precise in what you’re doing and why. You are not engaging in objective discourse; you are spoiling for a Crossfire-style shouting fest.
Which of course, has its place.
O
PA – So you agree with me that the natural order of things is for white guys to hit on Maria Sharapova and for black guys to hit on Serena Williams?
This White guys only like skinny girls theory is a comforting stereotype to some but evidence is all around that that is not true.
The media presentation of White female beauty is controlled disproportionately by fags and old women who find thin/boyish women more appealing and less threatening.
Black females are allowed to be fat without being constantly belittled about it.
And White beauty standards go well beyond blond and blue eyed. Again, this stereotype provides comfort to some people for whatever reason.
We all know black males are obsessed with White women regardless of what they admit.
Serena Williams looks a bit like a gorilla to me. But I know she dated at least one White man who found her attractive, at least for a little while.
And for whatever reason black males go ape, so to speak, at the thought of any White man taping that black “queen’s” ass.
Hum… I do like Nicole Kidman a lot. At a gut level, like someone said.
When I think of her, I think of her in the terms of her Moulin Rouge role. Coquettish, bratty eyes, Marilyn Monroe calculated clumsiness.
But we are speaking of “gut preference”, and my first choice is… Monica Belucci.
There is always space for a MILF. My favorite is this one, brazilian actress Leticia Sabatella:
http://paginasdevida.blogs.sapo.pt/114705.html
Did you ever think of a dangerous woman? One hint: one of the rare known facts about her personal life, is that she sweet talked two robbers into not robbing her. And didn’t need to shed one single tear to do that. No taunts as well.
Its not the same as sweet talking a cop into not giving you a ticket: a brazilian robber will likely cut your hand off to get your Rolex. They are not subtle.
Try to game her if you can. 😉
I do believe there is some keen relation with femininity and female cunning. High testosterone sluts often lack it. They too straight forward. Histrionic princesses too. The more feminine, the more sfumatto (flowie). Hormones DO influence your mentality. And certainly your skills.
” The smokiness of sfumato is Dionysian mistiness, the fog hanging over the chthonian swamp.” – Sexual Personae, p158 (Camille Paglia)
What happened to Peter’s GNP ban? He’s still doing it in every thread.
Obsidian is right, there certainly are fat and unattractive women in eastern Europe.
The thing you notice there, in contract with Coastal/Urban America, is that in countries like Poland, Slovakia or Lithuania, you will see LOTS of young, wholesome looking, modestly-yet-flatteringly dressed, demure, 7′s. And they know how to be coy, and speak with that sexy voice.
In the U.S., those same girls are either fat, coarse, loudmouthed, ballsy, slutty, or mannish.
Ethnic peculiarities aside, I don’t doubt that 50′s America looked much different than EE today, in terms of average quality of woman.
It’s not just Eastern Europe that has feminine women. My o m e g a friend Ace recently traveled to the southerh hemisphere for “business.”
Upon returning, he and I are walking thorugh a mall, behind a group of young girls. Who were talking brashly, chewing gum, cursing, and dragging those heavy rumps forward. He looks at them with disgust, and tells me in a low voice:
“Look at those vulgarians. A Latin American whore has more class than an average American girl.”
(in all fairness, you will see a lot of sweet and feminine girls in the U.S.; they are usually found outside of the larger metro areas, and more often than not, in Christian cummunities.)
Ethnic peculiarities aside, I don’t doubt that 50’s America looked much different than EE today, in terms of average quality of woman.
I meant to say “Ethnic peculiarities aside, I doubt that 50’s America looked much different than EE today, in terms of average quality of woman.”
As someone who has traveled and lived throughout Europe, I have to wonder at the obsession of European women and constant put-down of American women.
American women are very attractive and they have a unique, appealing and spirited attitude that differs from their European counterparts.
Yes, you go to particular places in Europe and you do see very beautiful women. But American women are exotic and pretty, as well, as we are a very diverse bunch racially.
I suppose everyone has their own particular fetish / nationality appeal (British men are absolutely attractive, for instance, and French men are very interesting), but the putdowns of American teens and young women here and the glorification of foreign women is astounding.
Spend enough time in one of these places and you will begin to see the negatives of these women very fast. Take into account that some of the fascination simply comes from the fact that they are simply exotic and of another nationality than your own.
“She did open one movie – one of her first, too: Emma, back in the 1990s, which rested entirely on her. ”
—Alicia, wrong. No one saw Emma in the theater. No one goes “ooh, its a Paltrow movie, we have to go see it!”
That is what “opening” a movie means: merely by your presence, the box office is likely to succeed.
Her Jewishness is relevant because the upper-east-side-Jew-bitch stereotype fits her perfectly: overinflated sense of self-worth and beauty, lecturing others on how to live, relying completely on Daddy to succeed in life, blowing up her personal life for public display and expecting it is more important than anyone elses, ridiculously sociopathic personal motivations, and securing fawning suckups to inflate her ego (Conan O’Brien, Mario Battali).
All she needs now is the 16th birthday nosejob and the fake tits and she’s completed the circle.
Classic upper east side Jew broad bitch.
Also, I know that a lot of men like to say that, for instance, Russian women are the holy grail of feminine appeal. However I have spent time abroad, and have had male Russian friends, met their girl friends from home, and have witnessed some of their very, well let’s say, non-feminine behavior. These women know how to drink like the best of men.
maurice:
@aliasclio – well, why not? this isn’t the real world, you know. all we see of each other is our blog-comment personas. you can e-flirt with tupac, return his e-affections in this space for fun, sport and pleasure, and still have your real heart belong to Another. (if it’s a capital A, it must be serious….)
Don’t let her fool you Maurice. She was putting on the ice-queen act with me long before she met her current beau. Her “heart belongs to another” spiel is just her current smokescreen.
What it comes down to, I’m afraid, is that I have been straight up LJBF’ed by a chick in her 40′s, and it’s like, seriously messing with my head.
I bet the guy she’s with now has tattoos and a BMX bike.
*grumble*
Her Jewishness is relevant because the upper-east-side-Jew-bitch stereotype fits her perfectly: overinflated sense of self-worth and beauty, lecturing others on how to live, relying completely on Daddy to succeed in life, blowing up her personal life for public display and expecting it is more important than anyone elses, ridiculously sociopathic personal motivations, and securing fawning suckups to inflate her ego (Conan O’Brien, Mario Battali).
Seems to me that there are and always have been many rich, “entitled” non-Jewish women about whom this might be said. I’m not just trading in exceptions here; that annoying quality of preachiness seems to be common to most North American women who grow up ultra-privileged and sheltered. Among actresses, Candice Bergen and Jane Fonda (of Norwegian and Dutch descent) both had a rather similar aura of privilege, good intentions, primness, and holier-than-thou – and stiffness as actresses, as if they were afraud to let their hair down. In fact, Paltrow is a better actress than either, I think, but also far less beautiful than either, both of whom were knock-outs in their youth.
@tupac – either that, or she looks down on Roissyworld as being unserious, full of unserious men, even for harmless e-companionship. Pretty far from the truth, btw, but judging from her blog she probably thinks she’s slumming here.
Obsidian/Mu: Of course there are fat chicks in Europe. But in America, they’re almost all fucking fat cows.
You can tease it out of the raw data if you are so inclined:
http://apps.who.int/bmi/index.jsp
Only 33% of American women fall into normal, and 3% “underweight.” -And these mind you are very broad categories. So, 64% of American women are fucking cows.
Compare to Estonia: 62% are in the normal range, 7% in “underweight” -this leaves only 31% fat bodies in Estonia; including young and old alike. Poland is a little worse than Estonia, but it’s still better than USA. Also, the distribution of fat is different, and the way it comes about. Eastern europeans exist in two states; hot, and babushka. Americans are just fat, and have enormous gut fat (wheras Eastern Europeans only grow gut fat when old).
And addressing your other point, Innocence and Wholesomeness is what you look for when you know you could pretty much bang any skank you meet. Skanks are nasty. They don’t respect themselves, they don’t respect other people. They’ll give you VD and steal your money if you give them half a chance. Innocent, wholesome women: they’ll actually fall in love with you. I used to “prefer” sluts, because it was easier for me. Now I look at that the way I look at clowns who claim they prefer fat chicks: weak sauce. Even the great rake Casanova preferred the wholesome and innocent, and stayed miles away from poisonous sluts.
@doug1 “What do you know about the direction of causation and/or feedback loops?”
It’s not something that concerns me, so I don’t know a lot about it. I noticed that a lot of the local chicks had problems with this, and that they were all fat and somewhat hirsute -they were also all liberals, hah. Not necessarily morbid obesity pillowing gutfat fat: more like, “big beefy butter arms” fat. When I googled to remember what ovarian cysts were called, I noticed they said something about feedback between estrogen, testosterone and insulin. I’m guessing “not being a disgusting fat body” is going to pretty much prevent the disease, though I could be wrong.
@aliasclio – don’t forget the mother of them all, Katharine Hepburn. Fonda went through her eurotrash wife period, her hippie-activist wife period, and southern Christian wife period, so discarded whatever upper-class patina she may have even rasied with. but she grew up in Hollywood as the child of a huge star herself. As did Candice Bergen. Only Kate was a bona-fide upper-class WASP, and even she came from an unusually free-spirited family background (communes, socialism, etc.)
how about showing tupac some e-love, eh? what harm could it cause? hasn’t he earned a little e-attention?
@Dreamer
“Take into account that some of the fascination simply comes from the fact that they are simply exotic and of another nationality than your own.”
I think you’re right.
Tupac Chopra said:
What it comes down to, I’m afraid, is that I have been straight up LJBF’ed by a chick in her 40’s, and it’s like, seriously messing with my head.
Kidding aside (which I’m sure you’re doing here), you actually touched on an important point — one that deserves a post by Roissy. The point is that older women seem more likely to reject you that younger women.
Out in the real world, I’m finding that twentysomethings just seem to love me around, yet women in their forties constantly rebuff me, even just for conversation.
It’s completely illogical as to why a still-single woman who is aging would be pickier than a hottie just out of college. But I find this again and again. One of them got so annoying and argumentative I had to dump her as a Facebook friend. I couldn’t even stand reading their posts, much less being with them (90 percent of these posts were shaming “unworthy” men that had the audacity to talk to Her Highness).
I once read somehwre that as women age and become more powerful in the business world, their standards for men get higher and higher. Where did I read this? Roosh’s blog? It’s worth exploring. I personally think if a woman doens’t have a kid to take care of my thirty, personality defects start to emerge. (There’s an unintentional point in Lady Raine’s favor.)
Willard,
What I said about the American standard of beauty is indeed accurate; Marilyn Monroe has been dead now coming up on a half a century, and she is still regarded as one of if not thee sexiest Women America’s eve had. There’s no such thing as a “brunette” or “redheaded” bombshell, and so on. The Barbie stereotype is what’s “in” in America, and has been for many decades.
Your personal comments wrt Serena Williams aside, yes, she has been known to date at least one White Man (which in itself blows away the theory among some White Men, that White Men are simply incapable of being sexually turned on by Serena-types), and, since I think its safe to say that I know more Black Men on a first name basis than you, I have yet to encounter an embittered Black Man who feels some kind of way that a Sista decided to romantically crossover. Quite frankly Willard, the majority of Brothas couldn’t give a damn who a few Black Women choose to date.
What I said about the narrow perception of American beauty holds.
Oh, and as for “fat” Black Women, well, many Black Men like a Woman with some meat on their bones, present company included; yet, I personally do not like a beachball type. I like a zaftig woman w/a rather waspish waistline, buxom in front and ample from behind. But even if you don’t agree w/my tastes, there’s really no intelligent reason to put it down. Live and let live, hmm?
Oh, and I dug up some facts for you on the other thread. Black and White Women have roughly the same lifespans. The issue isn’t a matter of “wellness”, its a matter of who ages more gracefully. On that score, Sistas win, hands down.
O
Russian women are the holy grail of feminine appeal
http:// russianwomen.wordpress.com
this site, even though the author himself seems to be oblivious to that, makes the point that the stereotype of Russian women as highly feminine is true at least for the countryside
A Latin American whore has more class than an average American girl
the Latin American whore is being paid to ignore betaness. The American whore, adjusted by income and by the relative higher number of betas that prosperity engenders, would ask much more. having lived in England, I can at say from personal experience that southern England has extremely unfeminine girls, and I speak of natives only
@DOBA – i think you hit it in your last para: since women are hypergamous and seek men of higher status, as their own status rises, men less prominent or powerful than themselves cannot excite or interest them. think of how it works in fairy tales, a proxy for the accumulated narrative wisdom of the human race: the cleaning girl can marry the handsome prince (snow white), but the princess never ends up with the stable boy. these american women who think they are princesses are only looking for princes of higher status or kings (alphas). nothing new here – but i think the answer to your question shows up literally every week on this blog.
@aeofe, dreamer – it’s not as simple as that. anglo-american feminism is of a completely different type than continental feminism, or southern/eastern european feminism, so there’s a whole set of cultural differences, especially regarding relations between the sexes, that cannot be chalked up to “exoticism”. i’ll let others provide specifics if they want, but as you both read here often you could probably list them as well as anyone.
maurice:
how about showing tupac some e-love, eh? what harm could it cause? hasn’t he earned a little e-attention?
Good god man. I appreciate the assist, but I am not a charity case!
And to Clio:
DOBA:
90 percent of these posts were shaming “unworthy” men that had the audacity to talk to Her Highness
Did the woman in question have the initials “A.C” by any chance?
DBA,
Roissy has indeed posted on the issues you spoke of above; the post is called “Settling”. To briefly sum up Roissy’s points, not only does today’s Modern Woman have an artifically inflated sense of their worth on the dating market, but they also have less of a need to have sex like we Men do; the two together combine for a Woman being choosier and choosier, particularly as she ages, to the point where a growing number of Women are alone.
I personally think there’s a great deal of merit in Roissy’s observations. The reason why older Women like Clio tend to rebuff more Men now than in the past is simply because, they can afford to. Of course, the tradeoff is living a very large chunk of life alone, or at the very least, w/o a gentleman’s company in her life.
O
I think Nicole Kidman is by far the hottest of the listed stars, but then, I have a pretty strong pale preference. It doesn’t make sense to run the comparison on the same list for me, since if blondes are included, someone like Monica Bellucci is 5-6 at best.
Dreamer –
You personally have been seeming to be largely in the feminine sweetheart camp, as opposed to the hard feminist camp, as we tend to divide things crudely, first pass, around here.
American women are very attractive and they have a unique, appealing and spirited attitude that differs from their European counterparts.
Yes, you go to particular places in Europe and you do see very beautiful women. But American women are exotic and pretty, as well, as we are a very diverse bunch racially.
I suppose everyone has their own particular fetish / nationality appeal (British men are absolutely attractive, for instance, and French men are very interesting), but the putdowns of American teens and young women here and the glorification of foreign women is astounding.
We can’t stand feminism around here Dreamer. Viscerally can’t stand it. Can’t stand the effects it’s had most of all on American women, as the place where feminism is most strident and first appeared in its strong forms (some corners of Scandanavia aside). This is not theoretical. It’s proceeding from the actual to back trace the root causes.
Aside from teaching game theory and some mechanics, this place is also about gender realism and anti-feminism, or has become that including the later as it’s gone along. (It was always clearly about a gender realist / evo psych view of game, and how they inform each other.) Over time, often not so much time, men who spend some time here tend to have feelings of ephifany about a number of things, and not only about how game really does work and is part of what naturals naturally do. They tend to have ephiphanies also about the wrechage that unbridled and largely unopposed feminism has wrought all over the place, for families, many women, and most men.
Even those of us who’ve made out swimmingly under this feminist dispensation still see these social issues and the evils of an ideology so at odds with underlying biological and psychological realities.
Can we also add a ban on Obsidian bringing out the “which race ages better” argument in every thread?
To combine the James Bond/White men only like pin thin women discussion I present to you Pierce Brosnan and Keely Shaye Smith.
Nobody should base White men’s preferences in women solely on the modeling industry or the female actresses selected by gay guys and old women.
The preference of White men for White women’s body types is not as narrow as what the media and loud mouths would have you believe. No doubt for a large number thin is in.
Part of the White and Asian value placed on thinner women is related to the view that fat women = low class. Black females have almost always been considered low class so there is less pressure on them.
For White and Asian women staying pin thin is a way of showing that you are part of the elite and that you are not sliding back down among the peasants and proles.
@tupac – got it, will stand down. i always enjoyed that movie – i didn’t get the link to play, though.
@Dreamer “Take into account that some of the fascination simply comes from the fact that they are simply exotic and of another nationality than your own”
Exactly none of it comes from “exoticness.” Which is why I don’t find Portuguese women to be at all hot -the only boner I got in Portugal was inflicted on me by a Brazilian. Portuguese women are very pleasant though, and if I had to be shackled to an ugly chick for life, a Portuguese wouldn’t be a horrible choice. I don’t like women from any of the Anglosphere, though they all count as exotic. Don’t think much of West Africans either -though I’m a big fan of women from the Horn of Africa. Japanese: mostly no -they pretty blubbery and sallow faced these days. Koreans: ja, jawol. I actively dislike most Swedes and almost all West Germans, wheras I have a fondness for Norwegians and Lithuanians (who are guilt free Germans). If it was all “exoticness” I’d be “anyplace but here,” but there are plenty of unfeminine nations I want nothing to do with.
I’m no expert but I have to believe that Photoshop can make these modern actresses look like Greek gods.
The starlets from older eras didn’t have the benefit of Photoshop to enhance looks to godly heights.
So- its not really fair to compare the two.
The left one looks somewhat better, but I’d still want the one on the right more, mostly because of the doe eyes.
But hottest women contest winners and best actresses aren’t chosen on the same basis. You could use Miss America pictures — those go way back, and I’ve seen online galleries of all winners. Wouldn’t be hard to do.
To get enough faces for a composite, you could take only the winners and go 5 or 10 years at a stretch. Or you could take the top-5 ranking women for a given year and go year-by-year.
Actually, Playboy playmates of the month might be even easier. Compose all of them from a given year (that’s 12), and do year-by-year.
Impresionistically, the ones from roughly 1963 to 1969 / ’70 will look the best. Not just because they were so young back then.
I actively dislike most Swedes and almost all West Germans, wheras I have a fondness for Norwegians and Lithuanians (who are guilt free Germans).
If we threw a bunch of pictures of Swedes and Norwegians at you, what are the odds that you’d even identify them consistently?
all – here’s a great and relevant piece from today’s WSJ. if it doesn’t click through, paste it into a google browser and click on the link that comes up – that sometimes gets around the wall. (or put “More Amour” in the search box.)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124512198451517941.html
our own abelard and heloise make an appearance! seems like quite a book. I wonder whether roissy would have anything to say on the subject – he’s generally postitive on the power of genuine love and courtship.
Duke,
You have mischaracterized my statements and positions and intentions. I have never, ever, suggested that one race is “better” than another, only that there are differing ideas and notions of beauty, insofar as this particular discussion goes.
And of course, if there were such a ban imposed on me, there would also have to be a similar ban on all HBD-related discourse in this forum, yes? I mean, if the goal is to be consistent.
Luckily, Roissy isn’t inclined toward such banal censorious ways.
Willard, I must disagree with your characterization of “big Black Women=low class” argument. Oprah Winfrey is arguably the richest self-made Woman in the world, and her struggles w/her weight are well known. Regardless of what any of us may think of her, “low class” wouldn’t be one of the terms that come to mind.
The same can be said of Quen Latifah, and others. The issue is what certain Men find beautiful, and I am truly fascinated by White guys just simply cannot accept that theirs is not the only way of doing things. The constant putdowns and the like chage nothing, and only makes you look and sound more sophmoric by the hour.
Please stop. Accept that there is a wide range of beauty in this world, even if it aint for you. Live, and let live.
And love.
O
think of how it works in fairy tales, a proxy for the accumulated narrative wisdom of the human race: the cleaning girl can marry the handsome prince (snow white), but the princess never ends up with the stable boy.
You haven’t read enough fairy tales, Maurice. This is actually one of my hobbies, so forgive me if I point out that the “unexpected luck of [poor] widows’ sons” in fairy tales is enough of a trope that it’s mentioned in *The Hobbit* as a kind of joke. There are famous fairy tales in which the youngest son of a widow wins the hand of the princess (e.g. The Princess Who Lived on a Glass Hill; http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/ptn/ptn23.htm). But most of them haven’t been made into Disney movies.
There are also famous fairy tales in which a princess rescues a young man who appears to be of low birth, or worse yet an animal (Beauty and The Beast, The Frog Prince, The Black Bull of Norway), and only turns out to be a prince after she rescues him. Hey, even the Shrek movies are about an ogre who gets to marry a princess (who also turns out to be an ogre).
p.s. Snow White is not a “cleaning girl”; she’s the daughter of a king and a princess in her own right, but displaced by a jealous stepmother. Cinderella, on the other hand, is a cleaning girl – but again, displaced by a jealous stepmother who wants her own daughters to be noticed.
@clio – point taken, and you are probably right to call me on my spotty knowledge. but i can quibble with your examples. Shrek is not an actual fairy tale, but a postmodern parody/deconstruction of one. on beauty and the beast – well, the beast being a prince is the happy ending that restores the natural order of things, isn’t it? it would be a very different story if she lived happily ever after with a beast. maybe the ur-point for little girls is that all men, even crude-seeming ones, have a prince inside.
as to the other example and ones like it – are they really famous if they can only be found on obscure websites? compared to snow white or cinderella, or the brothers grimm, that are universally known? tolkien was a philologist who knew his lore, so he could wink at such things, but the rest of us are more familiar with the examples that are, well, more familiar. more widely known and recognized as plausible narrative archetypes. and they are more widely known *because* they are plausible, not the other way around.
@duke, others – i’m with obs here. his posts can focus on race (but often do not) because that’s part of his life experience. but he is easily one of the best and most perceptive commenters here. there was a post earlier in which roissy said he opted not to censor anyone, basically. let a thousand flowers bloom. so do what i do – if a thread annoys you, skip over it.
but the princess never ends up with the stable boy.
Does “The Princess Bride” count?
Famous? Yes, many of these were really famous, though less so now than they once were, and of course fame means something different in the Internet age. Anyway, to reiterate, many tales of low-born boys who captured a princess were to be found in the Andrew Lang *Fairy Books*, at one time the most common fairy-tale books in the English-speaking world.
The story of Shrek is actually lightly based on an old folk-tale of a knight who rescues a princess (i.e. she is of higher rank than he is) who is under a spell of uglification. She asks him if he wants her to be ugly during the day or night; he says, during the day, so that he can at least possess her beauty all for his own. She gets very angry at this and demands that he allow her to be ugly at night, beautiful during the day, when it will matter most for her as she goes about her daily duties. He is convinced by this argument and agrees; and she is at once transformed into a beauty forever – no more worry about day and night. I think this appears in Mallory but am not certain.
chuck:
has it been shown anywhere that alpha men beget high T-level daughters? this is a central argument of roissy’s…
yeah, one way to advance or refute my argument would be to measure T levels and androgen receptors in american women over generations.
if i’m right that women are masculinizing, then we should see higher serum T and/or more androgen receptors in recently born cohorts of women.
@clio – so your argument is that princess-orphan tales were once as common and well-known as prince-cinderella ones, but that the modern age (19th-c. editorial bias, children’s book collections, hollywood, disney) have skewed the awareness in favor of the latter? if so, what’s the cause, in your view? or do you think that people generally do recognize the narrative archetypes in equal measure, and i’m wrong to think that the awareness is different ….?
Dreamer –
To be clear, a great many American women who think of themselves as “not particularly feminist” are in fact “post feminist” and were like their male cohorts raised in a throughly feminist enfused mass media and educational culture where little boys pulling a cute girls pigtails in class or at recess is a suspendable offense if repeated, to pick a trivial but telling example of how things are so different today.
“Non feminist” American women if they are in general agreement with overall mainstream culture are thoroughly feminist indoctrinated, as are the emasculated boys they grew up with. (The bulk were emasculated, some for various reasons escaped that feminist driven cultural intention.)
Oh the post feminist minded call it not “emasculated” but rather “sensitized” and “in touch with their feminine side” and “believing that women are fully equal (read equal in male things that matter and overall clearly superior)”.
Girls brought up in Eastern Europe and Latin America (and Asia) were not brought up under this mindset. Girls brought up in Medieterranean macho countries such as Spain and Italy, and also in France, were brought up in a whole lot less of this mindset.
That, and being WAY less fat, is what all these places have in common as producing FAR more attractive females, for any man who has been even partially deprogrammed from feminist propaganda, and has actually gone and looked, or even been in us enclaves of such foreign girls and looked.
Mu wrote To briefly sum up Roissy’s points, not only does today’s Modern Woman have an artifically inflated sense of their worth on the dating market, but they also have less of a need to have sex like we Men do; the two together combine for a Woman being choosier and choosier, particularly as she ages, to the point where a growing number of Women are alone.
So you have come to see what I tried to explain to you(bold) some time ago is true now? That’s good.
IIRC, you wrote that women want it as often or “as bad as” men do, they only reason we hold off was:
1. “slut label ”
2. We know some poor man is so desperate for a piece that he will do anything.
The starlets from older eras didn’t have the benefit of Photoshop to enhance looks to godly heights.
Retouching photos has a long, long pre-Photoshop history.
Anyway, I’m generally not impressed by “it’s all Photoshop” arguments. In candid photos from parties, red carpets etc, hot celebrities look pretty much as hot as they ever do. There, while they are well dressed and made up, they aren’t usually retouched.
Clio:
She asks him if he wants her to be ugly during the day or night; he says, during the day, so that he can at least possess her beauty all for his own. She gets very angry at this and demands that he allow her to be ugly at night, beautiful during the day, when it will matter most for her as she goes about her daily duties…
…among other men.
Even in fairy tales, female hypergamy is alive and well.
Aliasclio
Lurker:Her [Paltrow’s] Jewishness is relevant because the upper-east-side-Jew-bitch stereotype fits her perfectly
Seems to me that there are and always have been many rich, “entitled” non-Jewish women about whom this might be said. I’m not just trading in exceptions here; that annoying quality of preachiness seems to be common to most North American women who grow up ultra-privileged and sheltered. Among actresses, Candice Bergen and Jane Fonda (of Norwegian and Dutch descent) both had a rather similar aura of privilege, good intentions, primness, and holier-than-thou – and stiffness as actresses, as if they were afraud to let their hair down. In fact, Paltrow is a better actress than either, I think
First, as an aside I’ll say it’s news to me that Gweneth Paltrow is Jewish, and quite a surprise as well. Half Jewish, I’d guess? She doesn’t look at all Jewish, and doesn’t act particularly Jewish. I’ve got nothing if not a complex, experienced, and nuanced idea of what those two things mean, in their diversity. But it’s entirely an aside.
I’d say all your observations are apt Clio, as far as they go.
HOWEVER, i hereby submit that there is no subethnicity of females to even remotely compare to American Jewish girls brought up in upper middle class circumstances or above, to grossly overestimate their own beauty as Jewish girls, whether full blown princesses in their spoiled brattiness or not. They almost universally think they’re one point higher than they are, and two or even three points overestimation is common.
Further they will FREQUENTLY argue the point with anyone who will listen, and many who won’t, and the rest of the time reference it frequently as an absolute given.
“If we threw a bunch of pictures of Swedes and Norwegians at you, what are the odds that you’d even identify them consistently?”
What difference does it make? I can identify them in person by attitude. Swedes are fembot snobs. The Norwegians I have known never are.
@maurice
Looks very interesting and it sounds very relevant to discussions here. From the introduction I read it resonantes with me, that’s for sure. The feminist movement had some good features (i.e. expection of female satisfaction) but trying to equalize genders is ridiculous. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again – men are made to rule and women are made to love (their ruler). It’s wiring.
Never underestimate how sissy the “mediterranian macho mindset” can get sometimes.
There is a law in Spain – yes, a LAW – saying that husband and wife MUST face the same amount of household chores.
The Achiles Heel in the Iberic masculinity is the very catholic influence. A meme called “Marianism”.
According to this, women share the same moral and spiritual illumination as The Virgin.
The most ideal “macho”, is the most candid toward women: like a Jesus, and good son toward his Mother.
In such places, feminism never really needed to go Secular, since a religious basis is provided. In fact, Marxism have its own tentacles inside catholicism: its called “Liberation Theory”.
What makes possible such monsters like “Catholic Feminists”. The secular-marxist feminist were never really popular in Latin America and Iberia, since it would not be a good deal to exterminate Marianism.
If you want to see a shocking scene, ask a catholic priest to be explained about Luke 20:34-35. He will rush into apostasy without even noticing.
“She asks him if he wants her to be ugly during the day or night”
The version I’m familiar with he first says during the night (for the reason you mentioned) and she asks if he wants to expose her to the cruelty of the other women in the court who’ll taunt her for her appearance. He then says during the day and she asks if he really wants her to be ugly when they’re alone together. He then says she should decide for herself at which point the spell of uglification is broken. That may be a feminist retelling but the symmetry works out better.
aliasclio–
There are also famous fairy tales in which a princess rescues a young man who appears to be of low birth, or worse yet an animal (Beauty and The Beast, The Frog Prince, The Black Bull of Norway), and only turns out to be a prince after she rescues him.
Yeah, BUT even in those cases he turns out to be a prince on his own bat. I.e. maybe her rescuing him frees him up to discover that he’s really a prince on his own, or helps him get over some false and socially constructed road block, but she doesn’t teach him all that’s necessary to be a prince and train him up for the role. When they get into the details of what being a prince means, it’s either natural highest or very very high status (by the conventions of the society, e.g. actual discovered birthright), or great manly ability, e.g. the knightly arts.
At least that’s the case in any fairy or folk tale I’ve ever encountered, whether or not I can recall their names.
In contrast, the prince or his helpers (sister, whatever) can train the cleaning or other girl of low station up to all the arts and manners of being a lady. What the discovered girl of low station needs as her one essential quality, and it is absolutely essential, is true physical beauty. That might be hidden again by some impediment that’s pealed away, typically bad clothes, dirt and maybe bad hair, but that’s usually it. You rarely if ever seen folk tales where a girl’s ugly face is radically transformed into a beautiful one after she’s found by the prince, and therefore is made fully suitable. She has to have the essential for her side of the equation: beauty and generally youth. Often also character. Usually at least average and often above it (but rarely brilliant) intelligence. Street smarts often.
@ Maurice and Clio:
Best use of cunning and shaming in fairy tales:
http://www.andersen.sdu.dk/vaerk/hersholt/TheSwineherd_e.html
HOWEVER, i hereby submit that there is no subethnicity of females to even remotely compare to American Jewish girls brought up in upper middle class circumstances or above, to grossly overestimate their own beauty as Jewish girls, whether full blown princesses in their spoiled brattiness or not.
Doug1, I have to take this on your word alone, because, being a woman, I only encounter other women on this subject when they are in full cry about their insecurities regarding their looks. In other words, when I talk to other women about the whole Beauty business, I only hear their anxieties about their imperfect thighs, weight, noses, age, etcetera. Women sound and feel different about themselves when they are among men, because the sexual eagerness of men provides us with a (temporary) boost to our egos. Among ourselves, however, the fears that a prettier woman might best us always seem to trump that kind of self-confidence.
That’s why feminists keep insisting that no woman can afford to base her self-esteem on her appearance. “I’ve been a babe, and I’ve been a sister,” said one feminist columnist; “and let me tell you, sister lasts longer.”
So no, I don’t think Jewish women are more prone to overestimate their appearance than other women. If they sound that way, it’s probably the result of a bit of whistling in the dark rather than genuine conviction.
Only “10s” – the Candice Bergens of the world (or if you want a Jewish example, Lauren Bacall) – are so certain of their own beauty that they can forget about the competition altogether.
aliasclio
because, being a woman, I only encounter other women on this subject when they are in full cry about their insecurities regarding their looks.
This might be about group bonding. It might be a human form of primate grooming. With each woman grooming the other (raising the other women’s status by lowering her own).
In her own mind she might be thinking that she does not need to ask the mirror on the wall who is the fairest because, of course, it is her.
Dreamer –
Oh, the rest of the Anglosphere is almost as bad as the US, with Canada and Britain very close, and Australia and New Zealand less so, far as I can tell. We’re big time influential in those parts, and Britain as well has co-evolved the hyper feminist thing. The style may be a bit less strident in Britain but I’m not at all sure the effect is so different.
Thanks Maurice.
I think the real problem that a lot of guys here don’t want to admit, is that my very presence here shoots a heck of a lot of holes right through so many of their smug theories. I challenge them on the merits of said theories, and by my presence. That is very uncomfortable for some here to take.
Since this is a discussion about beauty, ie sexual attraction, I recall the many backs and forths on the question of whether Black Women in America – who look a lot closer to Oprah (West African) than to Iman (East African) were indeed sexually desirable to White Men. One would think that such a notion wouldn’t even be up for serious debate, since “race mixing” often took place at the point of a gun or lash on the part of many a Slave Master. This is recounted dramatically in the early 70s film Goodbye To Uncle Tom, directed by an Italian. It has a scene where the Slavers’ wives are all sitting around discussing why their hubbies would slip out of bed late at night and head on down to the slave quarters-and less than a year later, light skined babies would start showing up.
Such instances clearly show that yes, Black Women are sexually attractive enough for a (literal) roll in the hay. But for some reason, many White Males in this forum are very unsettled by these historical facts.
Moreover, I’ve noticed how unnerved quite a few White Males are when I or anyone else speaks in admiring tones about the beauty of Black Women-they immediately launch into what Apeman calls “humor”, needing to cast every last single Black Woman in America as a fat Aunt Jememiah stereotype, etc. Its as if its blasphemy to even suggest that some of us don’t chomp at the bit of the Barbie Beauty Standard.
As a lifelong student of human behavior this tendency is fascinating to me more than anything else, and begs examination. Instead of merely focusing on that which they like, why must White Males to whom this applies, feel they must do all they can to denigrate, putdown, make fun of, the likes and interests of others?
Finally, I’ve found that White Males like to discuss “HBD” so long as they can do so w/o a “holla back” from the very “NAMs” they excoriate. It all comes off as a kind of elaborate sham designed to allow for what in many cases is simply rank bigotry and out and out racism to flourish, under the rubric of “science” and in the name of, ironically enough, “keeping it real”.
A bigger conceit, is difficult to find.
The Obsidian
Right, but it’s competition with other women for 5-10%, maybe 20% of the men. 60% of the men have no chance, are eliminated from consideration right off the bat. This dynamic is probably responsible for the intermarriage rate of 50% among Jewish-American men.
Let that sink in. 50% of American Jewish men could not find a woman of their own religion/culture/ethnicity to marry, in an r/c/e that enforces endogamy more than any other except Japan-born Japanese.
The Princess gets what she wants: the Cat instead of the Beta Male Family Man, because, by definition, not every woman can have an Alpha.
aliasclio, acting dumb:
“So no, I don’t think Jewish women are more prone to overestimate their appearance than other women.”
Right. And black women act feminine (ducks Obsidian).
Anyone who’s spent anytime on the UES of NYC can spot Paltrow’s UES holier-than-thou Jewish Daddy’s-girl attitude a mile away.
And she SUCKS as an actress. Daddy bought her that oscar, no question about it.
Candace Bergen ran away from her beauty stereotype in Murphy Brown. Even though she’s a left wing bitch, she gets props for acting like a man and using her skills to get ahead.
Fonda is an exception, not a rule. Go to Long Island for some true JAPpy bitches as well.
Lurker,
Please explain what you mean by “acting feminine”?
I need clarification. Thanks.
O
maurice
@clio – so your argument is that princess-orphan tales were once as common and well-known as prince-cinderella ones, but that the modern age (19th-c. editorial bias, children’s book collections, hollywood, disney) have skewed the awareness in favor of the latter? if so, what’s the cause, in your view? or do you think that people generally do recognize the narrative archetypes in equal measure, and i’m wrong to think that the awareness is different ….?
I would be absolutely shocked if that were the case. Incredulous is probably a better word.
In fact I wouldn’t believe the first feminist scholar who “unearthed” this truth. I’d want wide confirmation including from non feminist men, it runs so counter to all fairy and folk tales I’ve ever heard.
Obsidian,
Great points, but what is “HBD”?
She wore alot of tight outfits (which gave her some curves), and had very feminine-trashy hair.
I’ve yet to understand how that stuff can be feminine and sexy, and conflict with one’s middle class upbringing. OTOH, to some, it reeks of easy sex, and for others, it’s the chance to be the super white knight, and for few, both. Admittedly, if you’re lower class with few skills, it’s pretty much the only way to get out of that world.
@obs – living in DC, i do see a lot of overweight and unattractive black women, but there also many – and not the halle berry types but the west-african-feature types you describe – that i’d hop in the sack with in a heartbeat. this is where i disagree with roissy, actually – he thinks beauty is objective and quantifable, i think it’s fluid, subjective, and highly dependent on family and personal history.
i think the guys who flame and bait you here are not doing it out of racism (although there have been a handful of those). sometimes, as with GNP for apes, they do it just for the pleasure of seeing you take the bait. (example: Lurker above) so, probably best to ignore those, if they have no substance. but in a lot of other cases they don’t see race comparisons, issues, attraction, history of black america, etc. as relevent to the subject of the blog, so they get exasperated. i disagree – a lot of the stuff you write on those subjects is extremely perceptive and on-point – especially the declining role of men in the wider society, attractors for black women, etc. and i also like the stuff you write on society in general. but if you framed your posts closer to women, seduction, attraction, etc. you’d get a lot less of the race accusations.
tood is right – you should think about setting up your own blog. i’d be there.
Obsidian –
Finally, I’ve found that White Males like to discuss “HBD” so long as they can do so w/o a “holla back” from the very “NAMs” they excoriate. It all comes off as a kind of elaborate sham designed to allow for what in many cases is simply rank bigotry and out and out racism to flourish, under the rubric of “science” and in the name of, ironically enough, “keeping it real”.
A bigger conceit, is difficult to find.
You like to speak in crude generalities about white men, and often or usually do after starting out in a narrower, smooth and polite or very polite fashion, while taking great if always smooth umbrage over most generalizations about black men and women, and certainly about any as crude as you offer here.
Here you a treating those who have discussed HBD and the scientific realities of racial and genetic differences (both of which and much more are encompassed within the fundamental and deeply biological concept of Human Bio Diversity), including those who are close to the science or overviews and close popularizations of the science, as all or mostly old school racists looking for better clothes.
Yet you offer no demonstration that that’s usually true, or even reference to the originators of the ideas or those who are working most interestingly with them. It’s all just Obsidian propaganda and dismissal.
@doug – yeah, i agree. i was just asking clio to justify that kind of equivalence. if it’s a hobby of hers, she probably knows more about it than i do, but like you, i’d need some serious evidence and convincing to believe that the princess-stable boy happy ending is anywhere near as widespread as the prince-cinderella one. it might seem like a dopey topic but it’s actually quite relevant – accepted, universal stories that have existed through the generations tell us a lot about human nature.
The slave-boy-who-turns-out-to-be-a-prince plot appears in C.S. Lewis’ The Horse and His Boy. The male-foundling-who-is-actually-of-higher-class-so-he-can-now-marry-the-girl plot also appears in Fielding and Dickens.
mauice –
this is where i disagree with roissy, actually – he thinks beauty is objective and quantifable, i think it’s fluid, subjective, and highly dependent on family and personal history.
I think it’s about 2/3 what Roissy claims and about 1/3 what you are offering as also highly relevant.
As well I think that just as most men have one hotness threshold for a girl they’d proudly call their girlfriend, another for a girl they’d casually fuck and be willing that their friends found out about it, and the lowest for a girl they’d do when parched if noone ever learned of the deed, so too they have status thesholds they require. The highest will be for a wife and mother of their children, and then down a similar line.
Status in women in other words does matter for men with some status themselves, e.g. went to an elite university and have a commensurate job, much more than Roissy opines. (He’ll allow he makes some difference in a wife. I’d say it makes a difference in a gf you’re associated with too, and at least SOME difference in the girls you’re seen by those that know you usually going after to bang.
maurice@
“as to the other example and ones like it – are they really famous if they can only be found on obscure websites? “
Clio already answered this, but they were famous in their time. Sometimes more famous then the better known tales today. And this does matter.
The theme Clio discusses is also a heavy subtext pervading through the 1001 Arabian Nights as well. The tale of Maruf the Cobler, being my favorite, illustrates it well.
It also illustrates some truths about Gender, sexuality, and male Ambition. I recommend reading it with a careful eye.
What is well known to us, today, is a subset of themes tropes and tales once well known to people, througha process of selection dictated by formal and informal influencers upon the public’s mindset through education, and communications media.
Thursday –
The slave-boy-who-turns-out-to-be-a-prince plot appears in C.S. Lewis’ The Horse and His Boy. The male-foundling-who-is-actually-of-higher-class-so-he-can-now-marry-the-girl plot also appears in Fielding and Dickens.
In both those cases:
1) the girl didn’t turn him into a Prince he wasn’t already; at most she helped him discover his hidden but true nature; and
2) the girl didn’t end up with a man who’s only virtue was being a hunk and hot in bed; he also had hidden princely status and/or extraordinary manly abilities operative in the world of men.
doug@
The hypergamy is operative in fairy tales even when dealing with men of low birth, for it is their potential as men, not the accidents of lower class birth, that is generally emphasised in such tails.
This is the case largely in the Arabian Nights, the theme pops up constantly. Often a man has to pretend to a higher station than is his, but through an inner transformation ends up inheriting that station as a matter of right. A basic case of
“fake it until you make it”
Since the hero’s nobility was innate whilst his enemy’s socially conditioned, his nobility persists through multiple circumstances and flowers in the end. The hypergamous princess simply recognizes him for what he really is, inside.
And not the box that society conditions him into.
And that is a theme that many men who seek to become better with women can really resonate with.
@thursday, doug, kamal – what doug said. i wasn’t denying the existence of cobbler-princess tales, just their relative prevalence among fairy-tale story lines. the cinderella story is way more predominant.
note that clio did not provide an answer … hmm…
@kamal – interesting, because social mobility was often severely limited in traditional societies, including traditional european society. not always, though – as time wore on and economies because more modern, there was more scope for that kind of thing.
maurice:
this is where i disagree with roissy, actually – he thinks beauty is objective and quantifable, i think it’s fluid, subjective, and highly dependent on family and personal history.
i’m waiting with delicious anticipation for that first playboy centerfold featuring a woman looking like janet reno.
Doug,
I couldn’t disagree w/your comments more. I and other Black members of this forum have never challenged the basic premise of HBD (in case Kalliope is reading along, that means Human Bio-Diversity); what we’ve challenged are the motivations of those White Males (and no, all White Males aren’t interested in HBD) who seem to have such a vested interest in banging the HBD drum. Well, of course they do-they are often the disaffected group who feels they’ve been gipped out of their rightful places as masters of the universe, usurped by a lesser form of humanity by dint of political correct agendas, and not by raw merit-neverminding the very real fact that “raw merit” has never been a sole, and in some cases a criterion at all, in deciding who got on and who didn’t.
And what kind of “propoganda” have I engaged in? I’d like to see some choice, select quotes of mine demonstrating this.
As for my “smooth” way of doing things, as you put it, yes, given the choice, I’d much rather discuss things in a civil and respectful manner. But because I understand that the world doesn’t always respond to such things, I can if the need arises for it, get extremely ruthless, vicious and nasty. This usually happens because those whom I interact with choose it to be that way. Not I.
I have on many occasions taken the concerns of White Males seriously-the overweight issue wrt White Women being one of them. I can’t do anything about it, but I want them to know that a Man’s needs to see a pretty form, however he may define it, is indeed very important.
And let’s keep something else in mind, Doug-there have been HBD discussions, if I can use that word, going on here since before I came along. The only difference between then and now, is that they simply cannot go on w/o someone from among the groups of scorn saying something about it.
O
This is a case of the photo quality and the way that the photo has been created influencing many things.
The photo on the left has obviously had more faces averaged into it, resulting in a less feminine face due to the greater averaging. This averaging also causes less overall “contrast.”
Contrast is another key here. The photo on the left has lower contrast than the photo on the right. Experiment has shown that in the exact same face photo (gender ambiguous), simply increasing the contrast causes people to perceive the face as female, and decreasing the contrast causes people to perceive the face as male.
See: http://illusioncontest.neuralcorrelate.com/2009/the-illusion-of-sex/
The photo on the right appears to be less immediately attractive to many viewers because less photos have been averaged into it. The face is indeed less perfectly symmetrical. The face also has a smaller forehead and larger chin.
Although undetectable to the naked eye, simply put a ruler to the face and you will see that it is slightly lopsided, or tilted to the left. Put it another way, the left side of the face is not as much of a mirror image of the right side of the face.
I’ll post some modifications to show what larger eyes and darker eye makeup, larger and darker lips, higher contrast and more perfect symmetry can do for the “modern” version of the photo composite.
@roissy – that would be in playtransvestite, i guess. i’m still waiting for the “rank these girls” post in which they are all 9s, not chosen in advance to fit in a clear slot. the results would probably be all over the map because AT THAT LEVEL, subjectivity and personal preference predominate. didn’t mean to suggest that there’s no such thing as objective beauty – only that it’s a little more complicated than that.
http://i42.tinypic.com/vo8ok6.jpg
From left to the right:
Pic 1 & 2: Originals
Pic 3: #1 with the eyes from #2
Pic 4: #1 with the eyes from #2, perfectly symmetrical from left to right, lower contrast
Pic 5: #1 with the eyes and lips from #2, perfectly symmetrical from left to right, high contrast with the illusion of “red” lipstick
Left is sexier. But you’ll fall in love with the one on the right. She’ll stick in your mind.
When crossed by feminine beauty of that magnitude, I feel an intense urge to spend my life with such a girl. fading romanticism, perhaps… it soon passes.
here’s an example – http://galleries.pichunter.com/krawl/235/2351466/index.html (NSFW)
fwiw, these women are never in porn – this is a first.
I remember reading fairy tales similar to those clio describes. Precise details are fuzzy but usually the hero is the youngest son who gets the short shrift in terms of inheritance and has to go out in the world and ends up making good and acquiring a princess at the end (though the princess is not usually a major character in the story).
Typically IIRC he proves himself to a male authority figure whose family he marries into at the end, often being given the choice of the authority figure’s daughters. Usually his choice is one who has helped him (or who can solve a riddle he gives them).
Last comment of the night, take of it what you will.
“.. they do it just for the pleasure of seeing you take the bait…”
Seriously.
On another note, genetics is simply one factor, a strong causal factor, focusing on it exclusively can lead one to ignore the multitude of other factors that can exert significant influences on human behavior.
Biological Diversity, Biological Determinism, a fine line divides the two.
I have learned that I profit more when ignore other’s perceptions of what I should be, and am, and cultivate with will and determination my idea perceptions of what I not only can be, but actually am, buried.
We all suffer a handicap, or two. And all have a strength, or two. On a forum full of men trying hard to overcome their conditioned or innate handicaps, and cultivating certain strengths as counterweights to enable their greater success at love, and at life in general, those who have tasted the sweet wine of even partial self victory and mastery know that others’ perceptions of who and what they are, and can be, may be overcome with determination and sheer will.
This in itself is a selective factor.
Not everyone is born with discipline or a strong will, but both may be artificially cultivated, while coming far more naturally to others than to some. The one who suffers certain handicaps irrespective of their origins (nature, nurture, genetics, social conditioning, or a more complicated mix of this all) and who focuses on his self, and it’s molding, just might outstrip others who are born with certain gentle gifts but simply rely on them.
This was my father’s experience in a ruthlessly competitive medical school, and a lesson he taught me ruthlessly. Almost beat into me actually.
Something it took over a decade for me to understand. He was a smart man, far above average in intelligence. And well disciplined. But there were others who were smarter. And still others equaling him in intelligence. He had a friend, an absurdly bright Jewish Medical Student, the man mastered material that it took most others days to even comprehend.
One day he was playing basketball with my dad and listening to him complain about how easily some other students got the material. The guy told my dad to stop worrying, and not bother believing what others SAID about their ease in learning. He boasted that he knew for a fact that he (the Jewish kid) was one of the most intelligent students in their program and even he got stumped on many things, and most of the other students worked a lot harder at getting things than they publically let on.
Cultivating an aura of ease was simply a good offensive technique to unsettle others. Other students were competitive threats and cultivating the perception of genteel ease in a field that is notoriously difficult can have a certain “psych out” factor. So my father decided to simply shut up and out do everyone else in discipline. Where others studied 7 hours, my father studied 16 hours. Where others relaxed, my father focused. Where others went out my father stayed home with his newly born son and new wife. He achieved great things and became an extremely competent doctor.
He raised the bar of performance in some places he worked at. He impressed many people, it embarrasses me around town because some years after he died people I’d never expect asks me if I’m related to him when they hear my surname. It makes it very difficult to slip up around town, who wants the guilt of pissing on a good name?
Discipline and intensity. The man continued to jog 6-7 miles a day until he died. He spent entire nights in contemplation and meditative vigils. He constantly learned new things in his field, where others simply scraped by, he was relentless on himself and taught me one lesson that I will never forget. I’m a bad son, by comparison, but the older I get the easier discipline and focus becomes.
I know believe this: that a man’s meaning is the sum of his aspirations. That you can measure a man’s worth by how high he aspires to. That our flesh as inherited from our forefathers and mothers is our legacy, forms the rough stone of our being, but forms generous limits between which we can slouch into mediocrity or choose to – if we will – carve, chiseled, into something legendary if we so choose.
Most men choose to die in mediocrity, and most choose to let the perceptions others have of their limitations define them. Few even bother to change fundamental things in their lives.
Reading this forum between the lines, one thing that stands out is the American belief in self-improvement. That a man can indeed make himself into something more than what he currently appears to be.
We have the power to become ourselves, ideally, or to remain ourselves, in mediocrity.
It is a choice, choose wisely.
This is what many discourses regarding Human Biological Determinism, or rather Human Biological Diversity, miss. While others argue angels on pen heads I choose to learn something new, practice something new, and expand myself.
It’s a choice. The women I meet are welcome to recognize my potential and stick around, or gravitate towards pretty shiny things. And as I increasingly become shiner I find myself barely caring.
Life is your bitch gentlemen, just bend her over, ride her and tryto stop bitching about things while you’re at it.
That’s all.
hope2
That was rather groovy.
Good night.
Doug1 — Amanda Bynes, Michelle Trachtenberg, and Sarah Michelle Gellar, all Jewish, don’t have an “entitled” vibe and are known for their easy-going ways on/off the set.
The entitled vibe is not an ethnic one but a class one. All three of the above actresses lived a mostly middle class life through their teens, were subject to teasing to hazing by peers in their teens (for their child acting roles), and were first-generation actresses. Paltrow on the other hand grew up rich and spoiled.
To the extent that Jews share an upper class, yuppie lifestyle, they’ll be as subject to those ills (entitlement, self-love, over-estimation of personal qualities) as anyone else. Paltrow is the daughter of a classic Hollywood Alpha, the late director Bruce Paltrow. Gellar, Trachtenberg, and Bynes fathers seem high beta at best. It may be that Alpha fathers also produce entitled daughters.
Obsidian –
This mistyping is important to correct in my last above to you for the meaning:
Here you a treating those who have discussed HBD and the scientific realities of racial and gender differences (both of which and much more are encompassed within the fundamental and deeply biological concept of Human Bio Diversity)
maurice:
that would be in playtransvestite, i guess.
not quite. for women who actually look like trannies, i redirect you to DA’s taste in porn.
but if playboy bothers you, the SI swimsuit issue, leading hollywood actresses, and those girls the GIs painted on the sides of warplanes will work to prove my point just as well.
i’m still waiting for the “rank these girls” post in which they are all 9s, not chosen in advance to fit in a clear slot. the results would probably be all over the map because AT THAT LEVEL, subjectivity and personal preference predominate.
we have established that there never has been and never will be a janet reno lookalike centerfold, so on this you agree with me that beauty has an objective basis. what you are now arguing is the subjectivity of beauty *within* the much smaller subset of objectively beautiful women. for that, personal taste for trivial and relatively unimportant facial differences emerges, like the preference for brunettes or blondes. but it’s akin to two nerds arguing the merits of top of the line cpus from intel and amd. the general public would be happy with the performance of either powerful cpu, even if one nerd prefers the overclocking ability of amd and the other nerd perfers the bus speed of intel.
in truth, both nerds would hardly notice the difference if you swapped their favorite cpus for another high end cpu.
didn’t mean to suggest that there’s no such thing as objective beauty – only that it’s a little more complicated than that.
actually, there is a growing body of scientific evidence that female beauty is objective and that this universal “beauty formula” resides in the brain. month-old infants gaze longer at beautiful women than they do at less attractive women.
Maurice,
Roissy and I have had words in the question of beauty in the recent past; other members may recall our “Scarlett” debate. Not Scarlett Johannsen the actresss, but Scarlett the Puerto Rican exotic dancer and model. Take a look for yourself and you tell me if she’s beautiful or not:
http://www.scarlettsworld.com/
Roissy tried to argue that aside from her obviously ample behind being “abnormal”, that she had facial features that were “mannish” to which I vociferously disagreed. My position was the countless numbers of Black and Hispanic Men find her to be the bomb.
But you decide.
I’m largely on board w/you, while recognizing some points Roissy has made-yes, its true that clearer, lighter skin, larger eyes, youth and a smaller waist/wider hips are universals. Beyond this though, like you said, things kinda go all over the place.
Holla back.
O
Whiskey–
all Jewish, don’t have an “entitled” vibe and are known for their easy-going ways on/off the set.
The entitled vibe is not an ethnic one but a class one.
You, unlike Clio, entirely missed the contrasting point I was making to Alia Clio.
I agreed with her about the entitlement vibe being an America class thing, or having special elements in upper upper middle and upper class American women, and that that wasn’t especially Jewish, which is just the point you’re making.
I said in contrast, the degree of overestimation of looks among Jewish girls from these same classes generally speaking easily exceeds that of other American ethnicities from the same classes. (As a rule I’d say that upper and upper upper middle class Jewish girls are considerably less attractive than upper class American girls from most other white ethnicities — but they don’t think so — but Jewish men do, and will says so among themselves and clear friendlies. )
It’s a particularly exaggerated privileged Jewish female thing. Clio said in rejoinder if so, then only in an overcompensating sort of way, and well that may well be true.
Obsidian – Willard, I must disagree with your characterization of “big Black Women=low class” argument.
I wrote – “Part of the White and Asian value placed on thinner women is related to the view that fat women = low class. Black females have almost always been considered low class so there is less pressure on them.
I stand by that.
Oprah Winfrey is arguably the richest self-made Woman in the world, and her struggles w/her weight are well known. Regardless of what any of us may think of her, “low class” wouldn’t be one of the terms that come to mind.
I don’t know what point you were trying to make other than your usual need to be wrong.
Oprah struggles to lose weight not gain it because she wants to conform to the standards I mentioned. Oprah doesn’t want to be perceived as a “Fat Mammy”, although in some ways that’s what she is to so many White female airheads who watch her show. She doesn’t want to be seen as the stereotypical heavyset, low class negro woman of American history.
Why? Because she at least partly accepts the view that fat women=low class. It’s viewed as a trait associated with lack of self control and lack of discipline.
Women don’t usually get fat because they are trying to hard.
Oprah has a lot of insecurities despite having more money than she could ever spend.
And again, this idea that White men only want skinny White women is a myth. Reality contradicts it regardless of the number of skinny White women held up as an ideal by the media.
@doug (and aoefe)
You make so many interesting points regarding feminism. Your second post addressed to me clarified it well (you’re so smart about these things, some of what you said went a bit over my head:) ). I completely understand that, from your POV, a man is generally more attracted to healthy (or even thinner) women, who aren’t programmed with all of the negative feminist beliefs of equality and so forth, and point to certain Euro. nations as having this type of culture.
I can see how feminism would be unsettling, it’s unsettling to me. I have recognized how more power for women = negative effects in society.
Thanks for labeling me in the sweetheart rather than hard camp; I believe in women’s rights, but I believe strongly that men are women are not equal – they’re different.
Aoefe– interesting point– women are made to love their rulers (men) — Exactly. For me, this is ideal…
Feminism upsets this balance, which creates many negative outcomes in our society.
There’s positive feminine values and negative feminine values… if only there was a more moderate movement, or a scaling back of the radicalism to restore some order and the balance.
As a woman, I seek out a man who fits the “ruler” and leader image, but in my generation, many guys have been programmed to feminine views… making it hard for traditional types of girls.
Alternatively, this is why I’ve found foreign men (European, Middle-Eastern, even Carribbean) particularly appealing – they don’t submit to these feminist values and aren’t afraid to take control (even to what some feminists might call inappropriate measures).
Game is needed to restore that balance… thank goodness for Roissyesque blogs… and men like doug. There’s still hope for girls like me.
Oh, gosh, please excuse the length of that post! Not intentional.
OK, I stand corrected on the entitled thing. As for the looks thing, while my data size sample is small, nearly all the Jewish girls I’ve known have been extremely insecure about their looks. [From my perspective, without reason.]
Perhaps this is because they were far more assimilated, and around the usual aerobicized fit young twenty somethings. Competition quite high.
Doug,
Again, I don’t recall any Black member of this forum challenging the premise of HBD, and I for one am certainly not questioning it per se; again, the question is, what are the motivations behind pushing so very hard for the idea that Blacks just aren’t as smart as Whites? To ask the question is to answer it-because those who do push so hard for this want to “prove” that Black people on a whole should not be allowed to take away the rightful places of prestige and importance from more deserving and qualified Whites. Even if such things were true, please notice there is virtually no discussion of what is to be done for citizens of lesser ability. That isn’t by accident: when a group of people are deemed inherently “less than” the last thing you want to do is to actually look out for them, indeed, you have strong reason to believe that they are not a part of you in any way whatsoever.
O
That face switch pic was pretty interesting — suddenly the left side was super hot. I first voted for the latina-composite, because, I thought, of her eyes … but the real attractiveness of the left side seems to come from the facial outline. Triangular faces, girls, that’s what men really want.
Beauty and the Beast and all those other fairy tales are much more insideous.
They encourage the girl to seek the beast (the man that is a complete asshole) and that with her love she can transform him into a Prince.
It encourages the woman (that believes she’s a princess and just about every woman does) to chase after the alpha with the mindset that she is unique can change him (control him) and be happy.
maurice
I think beauty is objective while sexual attraction is more fluid. However, sexual attraction is layered on top of beauty (symmetry etc.). That is an objectively more beautiful face is more likely to be widely perceived as sexually attractive. However, taste will decide which of the more beautiful faces will be attractive.
Hope
That was interesting. Thank you.
Dreamer said: “Oh, gosh, please excuse the length of that post!”
That is OK, sometimes us men just have to let our women talk. 🙂
@default
So kind of you to let us women talk! *cheeky grin
Willard,
Once again your comments belie a need to push an “anti” agenda rather than foster any real understanding.
First off, the “thin=higher class” notion is a very recent one in human history; only a few centuries ago, a blink of an eye in evolutionary terms, ample Women like Oprah were considered “higher class” because they could afford a life of ease, comfort and leisure-IN WHITE EUROPE. That’s the first point.
The second point is that you have no idea why Oprah wanted to lose weight, you are at best speculating based on your as per usual racist knuckledragging notions. According to her, her weight troubles were connected to the traumas she experienced as a child and younger adult, not because she wanted to avoid the appearance of “low class” Black Womanhood. And in any event she has decided to kick the whole dieting thing to the curb, and many millions of White Women seem to hold a similar view. More and more “size (or if you prefer, “fat”) acceptance” movements are appearing on the American social landscape all the time. I hear the mythical Eastern European lands chockfull of thin, beautiful Women are quite nice this time of year. You should book a one way ticket.
Again: the overweight Black Woman is a well known stereotype, promulgated by White Males. One has to ask why that was so. Could it be to throw folks off the trail of the possibility that such Women were being sought out for sexual copulation in the heat and dark of the night behind the Master’s big house?
Hmm…
O
@aoefe, default
lol
Obsidian, thanks for clearing the air of racist and/or narrow-minded viewpoints. You should have your own blog, too.
Dreamer, aoefe
Yeah. I am still working on my asshole game, so sometimes nice stuff like that slips out.
Doug1,
I think you just have it in for Jewish women because of the bad experience you had w/your wife.
My experiences with Jewish women have been the opposite: I find them more intellectual than other women and less hung up on looks and shallow BS.
Maybe we’re talking about two different types of Jewish women — the JAPs vs. the brainiacs. But I do know that with Jewish women, I can discuss actual topics and concepts and be my real self, as opposed to the way it is with white women, where I have to behave like a Beastie Boy and bellow about “football” or “rasslin’” whatever the fuck it is Dumb White Fat Fucks like today.
That’s saying something.
First of all….all hard working women SHOULD have a “princess” attitude. If they’ve proved their worth, they deserve the best. Period.
The saddest thing I have read here is that nearly every single male poster here ripped American women up and down….every color, every age, every type…fat or skinny you ALL just basically stated that you hate everything about American women. You say feminists complain??? Read back through these last 20 comments or so and see how you sound! It’s some of YOU who are never satisfied and have a “Prince complex”.
You wonder why American women would rather be alone than be with you guys??? Your attitude about us is why. And your general lack of respect for women in your own country….it’s sad and THAT is why we “hate” you.
Aoefe–
“I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again – men are made to rule and women are made to love (their ruler). It’s wiring.”
lmao! oh my! That is one of the most shocking things I have ever read! Seriously, I can honestly say I’ve never felt that way so I think there’s no doubt my “wiring” is faulty!
Imagine listening to this with a commentary track by Roissy:
http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/20405
Lady Raine informed us that:
First of all….all hard working women SHOULD have a “princess” attitude… blah blah
Well perhaps her employer should treat her as a “princess”. Her hard work has nothing to do with her attractiveness to a man.
All posters here do not hate all women, just a certain subset. Feminine woman are not hated here (or in the real world). This is not difficult: Men like feminine women, women like masculine men. Given that the majority of the posters here are men, we tend to focus on what men want.
And yes, you wiring has probably shorted. You probably should call a repairman to fix that.
Default–
Umm no, I have never heard a woman say something like that, was my point…it was just plain old shocking…there’s something faulty in anyone’s mind who “lives to serve” ANYONE whether it’s a woman or a man! It cracks me up that most people don’t seem to want companions/best friends. They want a slave to control and “train” (on both sides of the gender). See you can say whatever you want about me, but when I AM in a LTR I don’t ever think about ways to train and control them. That means that they aren’t someone that I really love.
It sickens me that so many men here chastize me for “not being feminine” when that’s straight up bullshit, just because I work hard? Please. It’s femininity you want, it’s slavery/submissiveness and I find that to be really low and depraved. These men don’t want a REAL LTR that takes friendship, they want a really long lifetime date with a hot slave. The women aren’t much better….they want a dad figure that takes care of their lazy asses while they pop out babies and get fat. ugh…it’s not ME that needs the repairman.
I wouldn’t settle for anything less than an honest man (now that I’m older and wiser in my choices) and most women who are choosy wouldn’t either. I don’t get how you guys acting like controlling jerks is going to get you anywhere in the dating world. Then you’re as bad as Feminists.
Obsidian–
Well, of course they do-they are often the disaffected group who feels they’ve been gipped out of their rightful places as masters of the universe, usurped by a lesser form of humanity by dint of political correct agendas, and not by raw merit-neverminding the very real fact that “raw merit” has never been a sole, and in some cases a criterion at all, in deciding who got on and who didn’t.
Euros and Euro derrived peoples didn’t apply to any central authority for what they achivied and obtained in Europe and America Obsidian. The UN didn’t give it to them; the EU didn’t give it to them; and the US Federal Government didn’t give it to them. Instead they created all these institutions themselves, with no necessary or really effective help form anyone else.
Nobody, absolutely nobody, gave white men what they achieved in Europe and the US. Instead they built it and they took it. Built and conquored. (And no, dumb directed labor ain’t squat for building anything. It’s cheap and always available to every civilization.)
Further, they haven’t lost much to anyone yet in an actual competition, except by their own notions of social equity / (forcedly more equal outcomes) and magnanamous altruism, that at first a great many whites including white men agreed with, and still many do. But disaffection is growing Obsidian.
Italicized to keep a bit as an aside or footnote: (This isn’t an American story, but even the decolonization movement and Euro retreat from almost all of their colonies by the early 1970s is a very mixed bag. First many or most of these which weren’t white settler colonies were unprofitable to rule, if not to trade with. The trading and investment continued, where profitable. Those ties between former colony and European country remain strong in most cases, including commerically. India may have been a large exception and profitable even to govern, but it was a close run thing from the British government’s point of view, if not that of many individual Brit and Brit companies.
Further the decolonization movement was virtually entirely, in the form which gave it any real force and lead to action post WWII, fueled by Western originated ideology, somewhere between Marxism and American self determinism and democratic political freedom, both entirely Western (white man) ideas.
So it was a combination of the exhaustion of European society proper, if not its American offshoot, following WWI and then soon after WWII, combined with the unprofitability of ruling colonies if not trading with and investing in them, and Western ideologies adopted by Western educated colonial native elites, that lead to decolonization, not any true defeat of Euro cultures by other ones.)
It is true that the Japanese have come on strong since WWII in competing with Euro origin countries and peoples, though they’ve slowed to parallel growth since 1990. The Chinese are also now coming on strong, as have been some of their offshoot small Asian tiger societies such as Singapore and Taiwan. But they haven’t overtaken yet.
Euro origin or if you prefer white men have only been knocked down in our society Obsidian by their own willingness to follow their own leaders and be magnanimous to other races and genders, both in internal treatment reform and affirmative action, and in allowing massive immigraton of different racial and cultural groups groups. Much of this has been good.
There is such a thing as too much leaning over backwards in altruism though. True, this board is not suffused with white male altruism by and large, but this board is a reaction to the perception of things having gone too far, principally on the feminism front, but that leads to related thoughts and areas, since as you point out for example, affirmative action is common to both how PC now treats women as well as blacks.
The kinds of applications of affirmative action which Sotomayor sanctioned in the extreme affirmative action Ricci case with the fire department in New Haven Connecticut are definitely too much and too far.
Way too much and too far.
By the way guys, write (email) your Senator about not voting to confirm Sotomayor over her extreme affirmative action stands. She never saw any AA application she didn’t like. (She’s also not hyper qualified, but not terrible there either, if one accepts affirmative action degrees and positions as being as good as ones without.)
I know believe this: that a man’s meaning is the sum of his aspirations. That you can measure a man’s worth by how high he aspires to. That our flesh as inherited from our forefathers and mothers is our legacy, forms the rough stone of our being, but forms generous limits between which we can slouch into mediocrity or choose to – if we will – carve, chiseled, into something legendary if we so choose.
Most men choose to die in mediocrity, and most choose to let the perceptions others have of their limitations define them. Few even bother to change fundamental things in their lives.
Reading this forum between the lines, one thing that stands out is the American belief in self-improvement. That a man can indeed make himself into something more than what he currently appears to be.
We have the power to become ourselves, ideally, or to remain ourselves, in mediocrity.
It is a choice, choose wisely.
This is what many discourses regarding Human Biological Determinism, or rather Human Biological Diversity, miss. While others argue angels on pen heads I choose to learn something new, practice something new, and expand myself.
It’s a choice. The women I meet are welcome to recognize my potential and stick around, or gravitate towards pretty shiny things. And as I increasingly become shiner I find myself barely caring.
Life is your bitch gentlemen, just bend her over, ride her and try to stop bitching about things while you’re at it.
That’s all.
Well stated, Kamal.
LR – “Umm no, I have never heard a woman say something like that, was my point…it was just plain old shocking…there’s something faulty in anyone’s mind who “lives to serve” ANYONE whether it’s a woman or a man!”
Lady Raine I think you need a very strong minded man to take you firmly in hand. Perhaps even a sound spanking. How’s that for shocking!!
Aoefe–
I wasn’t being a smart ass, I was being genuine that I’d pass out if a guy just TOLD me what to do for no good reason or tried to make decisions for me. I’ve been running my own household since I was 18. It’s always been “mine” in every respect so that IS a huge shock to me to hear that.
It’s that I’d rather never date again if the dating world comes down to a game of control and is that shallow.
I don’t agree with the woman controlling the man, either….but to WANT the person you supposedly love to be submissive to you is just morally wrong in every way.
Lady Raine said:
Umm no, I have never heard a woman say something like that…
It is not difficult, however it is subtle. A relationship between a man and a women will tend to work better when the man is the more dominant partner. This is not a master and slave arrangement. It is just that in the relationship the man leads and the woman follows, just like dancing.
This dynamic is hard on less dominant men or more dominant women. He cannot find a women willing to be led, she cannot find a man worthy of following. You say you will not settle anything less than an honest man. However, even if honest you will probably quickly lose romantic interest if he is less dominant (i.e., weak or submissive). Most women will choose a man who is more dominant, that is a man who is prepared to lead.
I admire your independence. I do not, and I doubt many other men here, take issue with your hard work. If I wanted a CNC machinist you would likely make a good worker. But this is not an employment blog. Your skills as a machinist make no difference to your attractiveness as a mate. And attractiveness of and finding female mates is what we focus on here.
Dreamer –
Oh, gosh, please excuse the length of that post! Not intentional.
Don’t be silly. It was delightful.
Default–
My point wasn’t skills or anything like that, but if you skim and read through a lot of the description of their ideal woman she’d literally have to be ageless, a sex kitten, AND a hard working mother and submissive wife?! Shit, I’d even place an order for one of those!
I just meant that I don’t like a man to be submissive to me in anyway, he’s supposed to be my best friend….you have to respect your best friend. What a lot of the guys are describing here is a mindless sexbot. It’s really rather unfair to openly “hate” women who don’t fall into that….because that’s just about ALL of them.
Lady Raine
but to WANT the person you supposedly love to be submissive to you is just morally wrong in every way.
I know you are not a romantic but think of it more of wanting her to fall into his protective embrace.
For her it is a case of been able to relax in a safe and protected place.
You are probably more independent and more dominant than average. That does not mean it is bad choice for the majority of women.
LR – “supposedly love to be submissive to you is just morally wrong in every way.”
I don’t think it has anything to do with morality. The power dynamic needs to be mutual not coerced. I believe in my heart of hearts that it is natural for women to be submissive to men. The current climate doesn’t allow for women to be open about their real need. Oh and for the record submissive has NOTHING to do with doormat.
Someone earlier(Kamal or Obsid) said there’s no such thing as an Alpha Female. That’s not true at all. Alpha Females don’t have a place in Game Theory, maybe…but there are indeed Alpha Females. They’re simply described as Leader type personalities. Some women are just this way and it seems some men don’t realize that they aren’t intentionally refusing to act submissive/feminine…it’s just how they are.
Punishing people for not falling into one genre of a gender is crap. That’s the “hate” factor I don’t understand. I mean seriously….what more pointless war is there than a Male Vs. Female battle where there can never be a winner without everyone losing?
LR “I was being genuine that I’d pass out if a guy just TOLD me what to do for no good reason ”
If you’re with someone who would tell you to do something for “no good reason” , then you’re with the wrong person.
Default–
Ah, but you see how some men automatically assume a woman that is naturally more dominant is literally “domineering”. That is something that’s a “control” thing (the domineering of men) while being naturally dominant isn’t based on the “control” factor. I hope that made sense.
Basically men assume if you’re naturally dominant you want to dominate THEM and automatically pass us off as being “disdainful” of femininity. That is totally untrue and gets me fired up.
Aoefe–
Well that was sort of my point. It has to be mutual, you’re right. But it seems some people want to dislike any woman who ISNT naturally submissive.
@LR
I run a company and known as a strong leader and yet have no doubt about my submissive nature. Am I submissive to every man I meet? No. Am I known as a woman you may not want to cross in business? Yes. Those answers are not in conflict with my internal drive/need for a dominant partner. I’m super aware of what I seek, not everyone has that figured out. This blog confirms in many ways what I believe to be true about men and women.
interesting, aoefe… your rebuttals to LR are basically reading my mind.
the idea of a woman submitting to a man is about honor and requires mental soundness on the part of the woman.
it’s actually the inverse of being a mindless sex toy or kitten…
a woman gives power to a man who has deserved it. you don’t mindlessly do whatever any guy that shows interest in you, tells you to do. you seek someone who has your best interests at heart, wants to protect and guide you, treat you chivalrously… in exchange for your giving him a certain level of respect, power, and deference.
it astounds me how some women can ask for total respect and equality, etc., without having earned it. it needs to be earned – in how we dress, how we carry ourselves, our morality…
relationship-wise, men need to earn your attention and interest, and in turn for their genuine steady pursuits/interest you need to give your devotion and (to a certain extent) compliance/obedience…
you choose wisely who this guy will be, and you make a commitment to that. and this takes thought.
it’s not simply dating one guy for a week or two, and doing whatever he says. it’s finding a special person you admire, and following his lead because he’s proven he’s capable of being followed and loving you at the same time.
and it’s quite a romantic concept, in my eyes
@Dreamer
Like minded. 🙂
Lady Raine
Basically men assume if you’re naturally dominant you want to dominate THEM and automatically pass us off as being “disdainful” of femininity.
Well it appears less feminine and thus will be less attractive to men. This is the same thing that happens submissive (beta?) men. They are disdained for their natural state. Unfortunately in the dating world they will both be out of luck (submissive men fare far worse).
As a dominant personality, you do want to dominate (lead, have your own way). That is your natural state and there is nothing wrong with it. However, most men will see it as less attractive. Few relationships are perfectly equal; someone will tend to lead. Either you lead or he leads.
In the cosmic sense this is all so unfair, but it is how it works out. Submissive guys go dateless (or get dumped/cheated on), dominant women piss off the men in their life.
Default–
Well that’s the point. I don’t bother anyone or use men for things so its more than a little irritating when someone automatically assumes you have an ulterior motive.
I haven’t noticed it to cause problems dating….like I said, I just attract almost ALL Army guys. Specifically Army for some reason too.
I’ve been the “military girlfriend” more than a few times and it’s perfect for me because there’s lots and lots of solitude (which is what I can’t stand to miss out on by ever living with a partner). Also I don’t like romance much either. I like a silent hug over an emotional display. It’s not as hard as it used to be to find a “strong silent” type of man.
Lady Raine–
I don’t agree with the woman controlling the man, either….but to WANT the person you supposedly love to be submissive to you is just morally wrong in every way.
It’s not morally wrong in the slightest, and no civilization in history has thought so, expect hyper feminist portions of our own today for the first time anywhere ever.
I not only want women who are in love with me or highly attracted to me to be submissive to me, they both most definitely are. That’s not to say I do or want to totally control women who feel that way, or that I feel no strong pulls in their direction as well. That’s not to say I want door mats or anything close. I want and for the most part have had highly intelligent, pushing and pulling, fun active women.
That is to say that female ultimate submission is the essence of all or by far most of all great sex between men and women, and to some extent most really strong loving relationships as well. At the same time most really strong relationships are also close and nearly equal partnerships, where each partner sometimes leads, at least on a provisional or temporary basis, or in certain areas.
I realize however that you are an outlier Lady Raine.
So is current day American feminism. I guarantee you, not only is it extremely unusual in the historical record, it also won’t last in anything like it’s current form.
Aoefe–
I think you assume I mean that I think it’s wrong to BE submissive. That’s not what I’m trying to say. If you are naturally a submissive person there’s nothing wrong with that….however there are women like me who are not naturally submissive….it’s not that I want to “rebel”….I just genuinely have always been “the planner” or “the organizer” even in personal life.
What I was trying to say is that its shitty that some men will have a “disdain” for women who are NOT naturally submissive, thinking that those women are just “against” them somehow.
Doug–
See? there’s an example. Some women like me are just that way. It has nothing to do with feminism. I was a tiny dictator from the moment I was born. Even when I didn’t WANT to be the leader I got stuck with it. It’s not because I want to control men or society or whatever….it’s just my nature and to act as if there is something “wrong” with a woman who is NOT submissive is like hating a woman just for being Black.
I don’t want to control my partner. If I desired that I’d question how much I really care about them and what they want. Therefore if I had a partner that wanted to be in charge all the time, I’d assume he didn’t respect me on a friend/partner level.
Also keep in mind, I was raised in a very strict, very sheltered home and my mother was the compete opposite of “feminist” so it’s not like I “learned” it. My dad treated me as the son because he’s a logical man and he and I relate. Don’t make everything about feminism. Some of us were tomboys on the inside and girly on the outside and it has nothing to do with feminism politics bullshit.
Lady Raine
I’ve been the “military girlfriend” more than a few times and
it’s perfect for me because there’s lots and lots of solitude
…
It’s not as hard as it used to be to find a “strong silent” type of man.
I salute you for your service to the country. 🙂
I am glad to see that the strong silent type has not completely fallen out of fashion.
[just for you: A strong silent type]
Ask Bhetti (when she returns) about romance. It really is not that bad I am told.
Lady Raine
What I was trying to say is that its shitty that some men will have a “disdain” for women who are NOT naturally submissive, thinking that those women are just “against” them somehow.
This is the same problem “beta” men face. They face total disdain for nothing other than some natural characteristic.
Default–
I try, but romance tends to make me really uncomfortable. lol…it’s the truth.
Oh I loved sending giant boxes of random bullshit for the soldiers…I’d get people at my company and such to donate things to send to his guys…that’s why those “less emotional” women like me are needed. Military wives and girlfriends can’t be flimsy, fainting, ultra sensitive types. So be a little grateful for us! 🙂
Lady Raine said: “…So be a little grateful for us!”
Alright. Thanks!
[and (just to annoy you) <3 <3 <3]
Good work.
everything annoys me, lol
Dreamer–
a woman gives power to a man who has deserved it. you don’t mindlessly do whatever any guy that shows interest in you, tells you to do. you seek someone who has your best interests at heart, wants to protect and guide you, treat you chivalrously… in exchange for your giving him a certain level of respect, power, and deference.
Perfect.
Lady Raine–
Some women like me are just that way. It has nothing to do with feminism. I was a tiny dictator from the moment I was born. Even when I didn’t WANT to be the leader I got stuck with it. It’s not because I want to control men or society or whatever….it’s just my nature
Your way of being has been enormously empowered by feminism even if in your case you would have been a dominant personality including in your relationships with men (at least somewhat — it’s why you prefer significantly younger guys even though you’re only 28). But lets leave that aside. I’m not demonizing that in you – really. (If you can remember me apart from the crowd, I never have and have said so, and also recognized it in you first and clearest.)
The thing is LR, and I hope you can appreciate this, a relatively few women who feel dominant as you do, many but by no means all of whom were predominantly or entirely lesbians (as I understand you are not) have been at the core of pushing and guiding the feminist movement from the get go, and under the logical extension of Marxist inspired but US Declaration of Independence legitimized (and misunderstood) “all men are created equal”, taken it very, very far indeed.
Women even get affirmative action to help them in displacing men from the world of work, while retaining and extending their primacy through feminism in domestic and divorce law, from who gets the children almost always unless she’s provably undeniably an unfit mother, to massive divorce theft WITH the children after she’s massively cheated in feminist pushed no fault of women divorce law (with the economics always now decided as it sometimes was traditionally if it was all his fault), and so on.
Women are now clearly favored in our society. Yes, human beings naturally want male leadership, because of human nature, but American feminism does everything it can in more and more areas, relentlessly, to overcome that, using often lies and misrepresentation and the female majority with racial minorities alliances to get what they want.
All lead by a small or even tiny percentage of dominance inclined women, many of them lesbians.
By yourself I have no problem with your sexuality Lady Raine. Seen as the type that wrought American (as opposed to e.g. French or Polish) brand feminism upon us though, I do have a problem.
@LR – “I just genuinely have always been “the planner” or “the organizer” even in personal life.”
Submissive and ‘planner’ are not mutually exclusive. I’m super organized and don’t find that related in any way to submissiveness. I’m wondering if you’re getting the concept I’m referring to. For me my partner will take the lead, the reigns and if need be the final decision point. This does not mean I can’t plan or organize, in fact I think it would be a real benefit to a man. I think Dreamer said it all very nicely above.
Call me crazy but I think with the right dude even you Ms. Lady Raine would enjoy the benefits of not being in the lead. I’ve been wrong before so I won’t place money on it however.
Lady Raine – What I was trying to say is that its shitty that some men will have a “disdain” for women who are NOT naturally submissive, thinking that those women are just “against” them somehow.
To me submissive women are a burden and it’s Beta males not Alphas or neo-Alpha fringe oddballs like me who want them.
If I want a submissive women who expects me to lead her and make all her decisions for her I’ll get a female dog.
Don’t make everything about feminism. Some of us were tomboys on the inside and girly on the outside and it has nothing to do with feminism politics bullshit.
This is why I was criticizing the Lady Raine haters earlier. I’m not saying you should like her just that she is not the stereotypical left wing feminist. She’s just an independent, relatively selfish tomboy/girly type.
Your characterization of her was way off. Even though you still probably wouldn’t like who she really is either.
Obsidian – Again: the overweight Black Woman is a well known stereotype, promulgated by White Males.
Yes, of course White men are to blame. In fact no doubt White men are to blame for black health problems due to excess eating because of course White men have invented and developed most of the modern medicine and food science and modern grocery stores and fast food restaurants that negros can’t get enough of.
This leads to blacks eating like pigs, becoming overweight and then depending on modern White Western science and medicine to cure their diet related ills.
In Africa black folks lived shorter, less well nourished lives. The White man spoiled all that.
One has to ask why that was so.
Why is there a fat black woman stereotype? OK, let’s all pretend not to know the obvious answer.
To me submissive women are a burden and it’s Beta males not Alphas or neo-Alpha fringe oddballs like me who want them.
In rhetoric one learns that statements starting with “to me” or “in my opinion” are usually prefaced with those words because they’re, well, wrong.
This is one of those.
See below.
If I want a submissive women who expects me to lead her and make all her decisions for her I’ll get a female dog.
Right and wrong.
Right:
NO ONE wants a woman who’s totally submissive TO EVERYONE. i.e., no one wants a total doormat who will do whatever ANYONE tells her to do.
Wrong:
Alpha males want submission, but they want to EARN submission from a feisty, headstrong woman who isn’t necessarily submissive in the rest of her life.
These women make the best mothers and wives. Subordinate in the relationship – because the man is enough of a MAN to EARN that respect and submission – but moral, strong, and opinionated enough to make good mothers.
@Epoxytocin No. 87
“These women make the best mothers and wives. Subordinate in the relationship – because the man is enough of a MAN to EARN that respect and submission – but moral, strong, and opinionated enough to make good mothers.”
Exactly!
This is what many discourses regarding Human Biological Determinism, or rather Human Biological Diversity, miss. While others argue angels on pen heads I choose to learn something new, practice something new, and expand myself.
That’s admittedly the problem here. If your IQ is low, there isn’t much that one can learn or practice, hence why HBD is rather deterministic in terms of its outlook. IQ is the great controlling factor, and if you have a low IQ, short of a lottery win or a lawsuit, you’re unlikely to become a millionaire.
A relationship between a man and a women will tend to work better when the man is the more dominant partner.
For those of us who grew up in the modern era, it reeks of a certain degree of boorish behaviour, and for some of us, when we see such relationships play out, we only see arguments and frustrated spouses instead of consensus and mutually led planning.
Your skills as a machinist make no difference to your attractiveness as a mate.
Her higher income makes her more attractive since she’s less likely to prod me for money to pay for her stuff.
but if you skim and read through a lot of the description of their ideal woman she’d literally have to be ageless, a sex kitten, AND a hard working mother and submissive wife?
I’d understand the ageless part since it seems much easier to be sexually attracted to your wife if she’s an ageless sex kitten. The problem is that as she ages, she becomes less attractive, and no amount of sex kitten behaviour can cover up potential beauty issues caused by aging. Even if you don’t cheat on her or choose to divorce her to find alternative sexual outlets, it can drive a man into celibacy.
I believe in my heart of hearts that it is natural for women to be submissive to men.
And such a concept pokes away at the souls of some beta males because there’s nothing more useless than a submissive woman who relies on a man for everything. Plus, having a submissive around requires this pesky concept called responsibility that some of us don’t want anymore due to the lack of benefits.
I run a company and known as a strong leader and yet have no doubt about my submissive nature.
Yet, how do you rectify such divergent personality traits together? One would suspect that one would bleed into the other at one point?
@ Epoxytocin No. 87
“Alpha males want submission, but they want to EARN submission from a feisty, headstrong woman who isn’t necessarily submissive in the rest of her life.”
“…because the man is enough of a MAN to EARN that respect and submission…”
Mmmhmm. I love you.
Question for Dave Alex & Lady Raine:
*two very different people, right?*
Have you ever been in Love?
Observation: Dave Alex is roughly three years Lady Raine’s junior. Too bad he’s Black; perhaps in an alternate universe, thered be a chance they would go out.
But seriously-I see all these words from you both, so defensive you both are. As you both are trying to justify your very reason for being, for existing.
And I get the distinct sense that neither of you are very happy. We know Dave Alex isn’t. And we can reliably expect Lady Raine to fight like the proverbial devil to prove that she is indeed happy!-lol.
Have either of you two ever been in Love before? If you have, would you mind sharing that experience w/me, please?
Thanks.
O
@DA
“And such a concept pokes away at the souls of some beta males because there’s nothing more useless than a submissive woman who relies on a man for everything.”
Submissive women do not rely on a man for everything, they are not doormats and are very capable of making decisions. A healthy relationship dynamic is very possible and would include discussion, even disagreement. The point I’m making is that rather than a fight for control and power, the couple has decided in advance whose decision is final. This is a couple dynamic not a living life dynamic, it’s not expected and would be ridiculous for a woman to behave submissively to everyone. Respect is at the heart of it, and it goes both ways my friend. It does take a certain kind of guy to admit he wants ownership of another’s life and then do a good job of it. In fact his ownership would demand the woman would provide for the family as he sees fit and may include working out of the home. I see no benefit in anybody having a relationship based on total dependance, how boring and life sucking.
DA said “Yet, how do you rectify such divergent personality traits together? One would suspect that one would bleed into the other at one point?”
Good question and one I’ve had to think about. I’m a people pleaser to some degree, but…big BUT, I don’t do it at the expense of the greater good. I run a company and I do a damn good job of it, you could say I suppose I’m subservient to the companies needs. I would ensure my decisions and need to please would benefit the company, not necessarily the people who work under me. I don’t need to please them if they’ll hurt the companies reputation and/or growth. This could easily be translated to a partner – my need to please would be for his/our/families benefit and not for anyone else’s. In summary they are not divergent peronality traits, they do bleed into each other.
I’m not sure I made sense, this is day 10 of working on average 16 hour days. This blog is about the only leisure time I’ve been getting, good for escape I suppose. My project four years in the making comes to its end on Thursday and I can see life at the end of the tunnel. Hmmmm I suppose too much info and too late at night.
Signing off.
Lady Rain@
Like many people you misunderstand nuances, tend towards broad generalizations, and do not challenge yourself to try to see the world through the eyes of others.
You see submissiveness as = slavery, it is not so.
You see dominance as domineering, again this is not so.
it isn’t even that nuanced, some people are naturally more submissive, others are naturally more dominant, for someone who is more submissive an exchange of their personal power for love is something desirable.
S&M takes this to an extreme, but this is really at the basis of most heterosexual relationships. The notion of a LTR being a friendship between two completely equal people is quite recent in history, and frankly to many, most probably, people emotionally unsatisfying.
All Sexuality revolves around dominance and submissiveness, polarity. You have a cartoon of dominance as domineering and abusiveness, its really something different. Just like you indicate that sexually you don’t really like beta men, they don’t do it for you. Why? Can you intellectualize this? Maybe, maybe not, butyou can perceive it in your sexuality. A beta male is a submissive male, such men turn you off. Why?
An honest question, what is the longest sustained LTR that you’ve been in?
As many have said, some politely (and i’ve tried) and others not so, a)stop painting all of the forum’s denizens with the same brush, and b)recognize that you are a statistical outlier when it comes to female tastes.
This isn’t an insult at all, it is an observation. You aren’t that classically feminine in many ways. It doesn’t mean that you are manlike, or that you are not a woman. But you don’t have a very feminine essence, you by your own admission are not very romantic, are not very emotional, your sexuality appears more masculine than most women. your preoccupation with a certain mode of equitable sexual relations while unconsciously seeking certain power dynamics in your own relationships, from what you’ve told of them, point this out.
Look at lesbian relationships, there is always one more dominant partner, one who’s a bitmore “top” than the other. The same with male homosexual relationships.
This is because the nature of sexual tension is the unification of complementary opposites. Exact Same or equivillant doesn’t attract same in eros.
As for the trashing of American women, this seems to get to you, you seem sensitive to it. May I ask why?
Lady Rain@
One thing that you might want to do is to step back and read, read, between the lines and notice subtleties and nuances in the discourse here. Notice the differences between irony, sarcasm, hyperbole, and exaggeration, and then focus on the subtexts of what is being said.
Many men and many women alike are highly dissastisfied by a certain model of sexual relating that you identify with, even if you do not see yourself as a feminist, but that is rooted in some aspects of 20th century feminist ideas. They have tried them, and found misery in their sex lives.
Reactions to an extreme may tend to be extreme before they settle down into a balanced state, but it would be good if you tied to read, and understand, what people are actually saying without projecting your own prejudices upon it, and without seeing things as “sick”.
Be open, and try to understand people on their own level, and you may learn something new and surprising. You don’t have to, but wouldn’t you rather challenge yourself?
Have you ever been in Love?
David Alexander has never been in love.
perhaps in an alternate universe, thered be a chance they would go out.
She lives nearly 100 miles away, she’s not Catholic, she’s flat chested and has no nails to compensate, and she has a kid.
aoefe hitting the nail upon the head with a mallet wrote@
“Submissive women do not rely on a man for everything, they are not doormats and are very capable of making decisions. A healthy relationship dynamic is very possible and would include discussion, even disagreement.”
Aoefe, you understand some things so very well. You just summed up, in a nutshell, the realization that there are degrees of submissiveness and dominance, many people are hosting a caricature of the idea. I don’t understand why Lady Rain doesn’t get it.
Submission, either in a romantic sense, or in an erotic sense, and dominance, in both, can be, and often are, deeply fulfilling to certain people. Many people. There is a difference between a healthy type of erotic surrender and being someone’s tissue. Between a healthy romantic and emotional dominance, and being an abusive power mad douche bag.
People are often defined by fear.
In a world in which most people are too afraid to truly let go, too afraid to trust, who literally have to drug themselves in a stupor just to be able to relax, to let go, naturally these ideas will be misunderstood. I’ve known girls who could literally only relax if they were high. Being high on good weed gave them permission to relax in ways they just couldn’t when not stoned.
But this, to me, is a sad thing. There are depths of your own mind and soul that you cannot know unless you know how to allow to really surrender.
There are depths of both eroticism and tender romantic love as that are closed from people until they learn to be able to surrender, to let go, to be open, and to remain open.
Good Lovers are not best buddies, this does not mean that they are not friends, but it is not the type of friendship that some people thing.
Best buddies may indeed fuck, in a lukewarm and tepid way, and even get off with a little spasm, a twitch, but they cannot truly surrender in heart rending passion, they cannot truly let go and ride literal waves of pleasure and bliss, they cannot allow themselves to be ridden past a certain point, before closing in fear.
The deepest type of love requires a certain mutual vulnerability and openness. A certain type of passivity on one, and a certain type of activity on another, and a mutual exchange of power and raw emotion. It’s not just about physical techniques, tweaking a clit, pumping a cock, it is about fucking someone, and being fucked in turn, with one’s whole being and presence.
Few are worthy of receiving it. And few are worthy of possessing it to give. Without deeper love, even on just a carnal level, this can be amazing. But with a real deeper live it can be life altering.
This is why so many are so often broken beings in love. Few have ever been truly heartrendingly fucked past all limits.
Lady Rain@
Consider the idea that what you see as sex may feel nice and good, but may be more of a nice carnal physical gymnastics. The way you sound, when you do approach sex it’s more of a physical carnal thing.
Consider the idea, however, that there is a depth of sexuality that would amaze you, enthrall you beyond your comprehension, turn your entire body mind and soul into a harp throbbing with passion desire and wanton bliss. And that there is a level of erotic surrender so deep that it frightens you to approach, to consider letting go, to consider truly surrendering. But that if you allowed yourself to, if you approached it as it was meant to be approached, your life could be altered in ways beyond words. But to experience it you have to be open to, and trusting of, a lover in a surrender that is deeper than any surrender you have ever experienced
To have an open heart, surrendered, vulnerable, is frightening. To be this utterly wide open while your lover is pinning your arms down, ravishing you so deep that your very cervix feels each and every throbbing thrust, while you are so turned on that the mound of your sex is engorged and swollen more full than you ever even imagined, your cunt is so wet that you can hear it literally slosh with each and every thrust, and your spasms are literally sucking in the seed being poured inside of you, is something so viscerally and emotionally powerful and frightening to some women, that they have to close down and shut off.
But like everything in life, someone who has experienced something knows its taste, and all others know only its surface.
Everyone’s got their own life and their own destiny. Some women concerned about giving away their power in erotic surrender never have a chance to truly experience a certain type of fulfillment. I have learned, in my short life to date, that the only women truly afraid of experiencing this depth of intimacy, are still willing if they love deeply. If the wounds and scars on their hearts have not closed it fully, or if society’s social poison hasn’t taken full root.
Every woman is different, just as every man is, but there are certain common things. I think that you cling onto ideas of masculinity, femininity, and sexuality conditioned by your childhood and experiences with your parents. Part of growing up is surrendering to the reality of who and what we are most deeply, beneath society’s crap. To go through life with mediocre, sport fun fucks and sexual gymnastics, and to not truly have your heart soul and sex opened beyond opening by a lover is kinda sad.
Really LR, you don’t realize how deeply you are short changing yourself.
Dave Alex,
For one who’s never experienced Love himself firsthand, you sure do seem to be able to talk about it a lot. I mean wrt “gold diggers” and the like, itself a huge exaggeration in our world today.
Anyway, thanks for replying.
O
DA@
“And such a concept pokes away at the souls of some beta males because there’s nothing more useless than a submissive woman who relies on a man for everything. “
David.
Try not to be so fucking incorrigible.
You’ve never even fucked a truly submissive woman, much less than made love to her the way she truly deserves. There is a type of woman who is competent, intelligent, directed, clear eyed, and challenging, but who is able to surrender to a man of her choosing, in ways so deep it would probably frighten the hell out of you. you thinks in terms of economics. This is mundane and mediocre, it places value on a person by what she could earn whereas there are much deeper and more valid measures of value.
The most submissive women I’ve ever dated did not rely on me for micromanaging everything in their lives.
You don’t understand because you are tryin not to understand.
Fucking incorrigible dude…..
And with that, good night.
The 1940s composite is stupid because it relies on best actresses, not hottest women. To win best actress does not require physical beauty.
Seriously. Grace Kelly and Ingrid Bergman, case closed. Hell look at Gene Tierney, much better than Catherine Zeta Jones.
@ lovelysexybeauty: askmen.com might as well be renamed ask gaymen.com. Any sample taken from there is probably skewed.
Also halle berry is over rated and Kate Winslet is average.
@ KevinK: If I like petite feminine women does that mean my genes must be very masculine and searching for their opposite?
@Kamal
“aoefe hitting the nail upon the head with a mallet wrote”
Thank you for reading what I wrote. I admire your writing and thoughtful approach to all topics.
Obsidian,
Here’s another typical racist viewpoint. The one that is shared by Willard Libby
__________________________
Angry White Men… or is it Black Women?
May 19, 2009 by guywhite
One of the claims repeated by the Left, especially in universities, is the anger of the white men over losing white women to blacks.
I’ve mentioned before that the quality of women who date blacks isn’t particularly high. Other than an occasional hippy trying to upset her parents, these normally are women who are very low-class or not physically desirable. (Lisa Lamponelli: “As you know, I date blacks. Not by choice, I just haven’t lost enough weight to get a white guy.”)
But this is a subjective judgment that blacks will never admit to. There is, however, a simple mathematical way of counting and proving that it is not the white men who are mad, but black women.
Blacks are a minority. Outnumbered by more than 5 to 1 by whites, intermarriage between white women and black men means that black women are losing 5 times more potential mates than white men.
If 10% of white women marry black men, the majority of black women will have lost their partner, while 90% of white men will still have a white woman. Even if 4-5% of white women marry black men, the loss of potential husbands for black women is devastatingly large.
But wait, there’s more…
White women who marry blacks are “replaced” by Asian women who prefer whites. Steve Sailer recently discussed an article that said that while black and white women show a strong preference for their own race (men don’t show a strong preference), Asian women do not.
The result from a purely math viewpoint is that Asians make up for the lost white women. I am not suggesting that it’s better or just as good or whatever. The point merely is that white men, on the whole, do not suffer from a woman shortage. (One of the topics I’ve been meaning to address for a while now, which I will delay to let some of the passions from the immigration debate cool off, is that some men use anti-feminism to attack women in general because they individually can’t get a woman or have wife problems, and choose to blame it on “The Women”.)
Some white men don’t want Asian women. But some do. Overall, the number of available women for white men is roughly what is needed.
Now look at black women. They don’t get any “replacements” and the toll that white woman-black man relationships take is 5+ times higher.
As a matter of simple math, black women lack partners. A black woman could do everything right and still wind up with no spouse.
But wait, there’s more…
The law of supply and demand dictates than when supply drops and demand remains stable, the price of the commodity increases. You may say that we, white men, shouldn’t date Asian women. But it’s nice to have the option so that there are enough women for all the men and avoid a disequilibrium that results in one side being much more “valuable” than the other.
Black women are faced with that very disequilibrium. There’s much more demand for black men than there’s supply, and black men know it. Anyone who knows the law of supply and demand realizes that it means that black men can abuse black women. This abuse need not necessarily be in the form of beatings – it could be abandoning the mother of your child, sleeping with women for whom you are unwilling to do anything and from whom you will steal.
Black women are facing a penis shortage, for a lack of better term. They can’t “trap their man” and force him to “buy the cow” because they know that another woman will be willing to take him just for the sex, or just to have a child with someone.
Black men, thus, need not be fathers, husbands or even boyfriends. This naturally upsets women who want a husband and a father for their children.
But wait, there’s more …
There are a lot of studies that show that women are feel worse about themselves after one-night stands (while men feel better). This is not “just our society”. There’s a reason behind it.
Everyone’s unconscious goal in life is to reproduce. Men don’t carry children and can, therefore, have children with many women. If you share your genes with a woman who has bad genes, it’s not a problem because you can move on to another. Ultimately, the more women you impregnate, the higher the odds of your genes surviving.
But a woman has to carry a child and is limited by that. If she has a child from a father with bad genes, she is stuck with that child and the odds of her genes surviving aren’t great.
If a woman sleeps around, she’s risking the survival of her DNA.
Furthermore, men will stick with a woman if they believe it ultimately helps them. If she has good genes (and is a good life partner), it makes sense to “invest” more into her children than to move on to the next woman who may have inferior genes.
Thus, when you have a one-night stand with a woman, you are basically saying, “you aren’t worth it; I’m better off spreading my seed to a bunch of broads like you than to invest in you because you are kinda crappy.”
Since a woman doesn’t have the option to “spread her seed”, she doesn’t make the same statement to the man. Instead, she says, “you are so great, I am willing to have my limited number of offspring with you even though you won’t help me keep them alive.” That’s quite a compliment, if you ask me.
None of this is done consciously. But that is how things work. You can deny this (only if you know nothing about psychology and the unconscious), but you can’t deny that not having a man and having to sleep around is not something that raises women’s self-esteem.
The math works in such way that black women are forced to compete for the scarce black men. This competition is necessarily degrading. But they can’t blame the very black men they are trying to attract (though they do plenty of that too).
So they have to blame whites, the women in particular. They sit there mad.
Mad that they have nobody to have sex with, nobody to take care of their children, nobody to pay the bills, nobody to put a nail in the wall or change a tire.
And so they get mad.
We white men aren’t the ones going mad from sexual frustration, as liberals claim. We have enough potential partners.
Instead, it is black women who lack potential partners and have to tolerate degradation as a result.
The professors are right in their general theory. They are just wrong about the target.
And another one:
Birth of a Nation in the 21 Century
April 16, 2009 by guywhite
In 1915, Birth of a Nation was released. The movie dealt with pre and post Civil War South, but one of the more anger-provoking aspects of it is the rape of white women by black men, provoking the righteous ire of of the Klan.
The film was extremely controversial and riots broke out in Boston, Philadelphia and other major cities. Chicago, Denver, Kansas City, Minneapolis, Pittsburgh and St. Louis refused to allow the film to open. NAACP protested the movie and conducted “public education campaigns” against it.
Fast forward 94 years to 2009.
Obsessed is a movie about an aggressive white women desperately trying to have sex with a black man, with complete abandon, without caring if he wants anything more from her than sex.
When she doesn’t get it, the extremely attractive blond, blue eyed, light skinned woman – played by Ali Larter – goes on a crazy rampage against the man and his family, provoking the righteous ire of a black woman trying to defend her man.
The black man just wants to be left alone to love his wife, but the blond just won’t leave him alone.
There’s no particular reason why the man and his family have to be black. There’s no particular reason why the woman has to be white. No reason other than to re-create Birth of a Nation – in reverse, of course.
The message here is that white women are out to “steal” black men, as black women always claims, and will go to extreme length to do so. White women, the blond, blue-eyed, skinny white bitches are a threat to the black family and the real cause of its destruction.
It’s not that Laquisha is a whore who can’t keep track of her many “baby daddies”. It’s that the white bitch stole her man. Black women are victims.
The claim that white women want black men is hard to maintain. For one, whites outnumber blacks by a ratio of more than 5 to 1. So each black man constitutes a 5 times greater percentage of the black community. We can lose only a tiny percentage of our women (1-3%), while they will lose a huge percentage of their men.
Thus, it’s a statistical fact that 5 times as many blacks, per capita, are dating whites than the reverse.
This is compounded by the fact that black men that they “lose” are usually the most desirable ones: athletes, musicians, professionals, or at least “players” who are good at picking up women.
White women that we lose are those we don’t care about: the obese, those with extremely low self-esteem, illiterate low-IQ white trash, etc.
As Lisa Lampanelli once said, “I date blacks. Not by choice, I just haven’t lost enough weight to get a white guy.”
On another occasion, she remarked, “my problem is, I can’t get a good-looking white guy anymore, I just don’t have the looks to get that. I can get hot blacks…”
Lampanelli’s problem is a combination of weight issues (which is not so bad actually… not good, but I’ve seen worse) and extremely low self-esteem.
She’s a joke that everyone in her business gets to abuse.
Realizing that she’ll have a hard time competing with women based on her looks, she decided to pretend like she completely doesn’t care about it and just wants to be one of the guys. It’s fairly transparent, though, at least to me.
Those are the kinds of women that black men usually get. It’s a stereotype that you must weigh 300 pounds to date a black guy, but stereotypes don’t arise out of nothing – they are true 80% of the time.
No doubt there are some pretty white women dating blacks, but that’s rare and the black guy is usually the best of the best among blacks (although this too has rare exceptions, usually because the girl is rebelling against parents or trying to prove her leftist credential to hippie friends).
The dominant majority of interracial couples involve a desirable black man and a piece of trash white woman.
This is a typical interracial couple, a decent-looking black man and a woman who could easily be an offensive linesman in the NFL if she could actually move (her face is ok, but look at her body, especially considering her young age):
In the book Why Black Men Love White Women, the (black female) author complains that even though she and her friends don’t mind black men dating white women, they are extremely upset that black men are proud to date even ugly, disgusting-looking whites.
Chris Rock echoed her, complaining that his friends act like they won the lottery when they go out with white women, even if they are cross-eyed, have a limp and look retarded. Why is that better, wondered Rock, than his attractive black wife?
Whatever the reason may be, black men do generally prefer white women. White women, on the other hand, date blacks usually only out of desperation (with a small minority doing it to rebel or prove their liberal bona fides).
This naturally upsets black women. Being told that you are not desirable to the people of your own race, even if you are smarter, thinner, more feminine must be a big blow to black women.
But never fear, political correctness is here. It’s always here.
Nobody can say what I just wrote out loud. Honestly, I wouldn’t say so normally either. There’s no reason for me to degrade black women. I spent the whole day today with a very pleasant, proper, intelligent Caribbean woman in her 60s and I have no reason to make her or any other black woman feel bad.
But The Birth of a Nation of the 21 century needs to be answered.
The movie is a complete fraud on every level. Beautiful white women don’t throw themselves at black men (and if they do, black men don’t reject them in horror).
The goal is defame white women, to blame interracial dating on them.
Once again, damned if you do, damned if you don’t. Date blacks and you are stealing “their” (black women’s) men; don’t date blacks and you are racist. This catch-22 is ever-present in all white interactions with blacks, no matter what you do.
The message coming at us from all sides is always the same: whites are a threat, whites destroy black families, whites prevent blacks from getting educated, whites rob blacks of economic opportunities. Always evil, always terrible, always scheming.
In less than a century, this country made a 180 degree turn. The only difference is that in 1915, Birth of a Nation provoked public protests and even riots with many cities preventing its screening.
Today, no response to “Obsessed” is even possible. We just sit here and take it.
The Human Rights Watch report on American prisons entitled “No Escape” included several stories of white rape victims saying that they chose not to move because it would hurt less and would decrease the odds of getting an STD if they stayed perfectly still while being raped.
In politics and social life, we again remain perfectly still. It will hurt less getting raped that way.
Kamal–
“Aoefe, you understand some things so very well. You just summed up, in a nutshell, the realization that there are degrees of submissiveness and dominance, many people are hosting a caricature of the idea. I don’t understand why Lady Rain doesn’t get it.”
See that right there is what I’ve been referring to. You speak to me as if I’m actively fighting AGAINST the urge to be submissive, you think I don’t “understand” why some women are this way. I do. It’s just not “natural” for me! I highly doubt I am the only woman who prefers to live alone and have HER space.
Some of your words are a little chastising in the way “why is she fighting her natural urge to be submissive” that’s the thing. I’m not. And being chastised or outright insulted (like some of the others here) for just being who I am is what I find to be really contradictory and stereotypical.
Yes I have definitely been in love. I had a fairy-tale like story where the first guy I had ever slept with (and me for him) when I was a young teenager came “looking for me” nearly ten years later. Long story, short….we got back together and were in a serious relationship for about 3 years. It was difficult because he was deployed in Afganistan for over a year and a half straight. He was a ranger and a staff sergeant so he was ALWAYS in direct combat.
Anyhow I never fell “out” of love with him, I just ended our relationship because he tended to offer me “choices” in the form of ultimatums and I never ever answer to those and don’t believe in using them on a partner, so that was a dealbreaker for me. We are still good friends though.
Willard you hit the nail on the head as usual (these guys are giving me too much credit in thinking my independence has a hidden agenda).
Dave I appreciate you being diplomatic and realizing not every woman who isn’t the “norm” is actively fighting AGAINST men.
I do understand that but I don’t think all Alphas want a submissive woman (even when it is earned) because if that were the case, that would mean I’ve dated only Betas which I definitely know isn’t true.
lol…that reminds me of one guy I dated who was a little TOO “strong and silent”. I swear we were seeing each other for six months before I even knew his middle name. The funny part is we also worked side by side at the same job. He was a welder at the last shop I worked at.
Lady Raine,
The reason why I asked were you ever in Love before, is because when I read your words, I get a great deal of anger therein; which is completely different when I actually read your own blog. I find that interesting, because it suggests to me that this venue makes you very angry, the opposite of love.
One can quibble over the style or even motivations of this blog’s founder, but the blog itself is about dating and even yes, love. To that extent I again find your comments interesting, as they are often anything but wrt the latter, and combative about the former.
Roissy has suggested, and Kamal seems to agree, as do I, that you fit a certain type of Woman who is more masculine in the way you approach relationships and sex. I would say love, but, please forgive me for saying this, you don’t strike me as a particularly loving person. That’s not against the law, and I have no interest in excoriating you as others here seem to do. Just making observations based on your own testimony and background, as well as reading your posts here.
Please allow me to ask: what is it you hope to achieve here? To what end? You seem to expend a tremendous amount of energy defending and justifying yourself. Why?
O
Obsid–
Well I just try to answer questions honestly when someone asks. It’s a fair part of any discussion. Actually no it’s not anger at all…it’s more an unwanted reinforcement of my decision to not date at all, lol. While it’s funny, it’s true too.
It’s not true that I’m not loving. I suppose that depends on what you consider “love” to be. As for loyalty and honesty I offer that freely. I have never ever cheated and never would. While I’m not a nurturer of people in general, the people I care deeply for like family and a LTR are a different story. It won’t be in the form of poetry and tears of joy, but it’s a much more solid burning flame (even if not as fancy on the romance level).
I take everyone’s opinions into consideration and that’s why I’m here. You can’t learn about yourself without learning about other humans. Even the ones you disagree with.
You mistakenly take my surface abrasiveness for anger. This is why I don’t talk on the phone or do the IM thing….I’m much less abrasive in person (evidently) because people realize my tone is just “no sugar coating” bluntness, rarely anger. I actually don’t even raise my voice and yell more than a great once in awhile.
Lady Raine,
If introspection and learning about yourself through the mirror of others is what you seek, then it might do you well to consider the strikingly similar observations of you from among the multitude here; Kamal, myself and others have seen the same things exhibited by you: are we all wrong? If you “sound” angry to so many of us, and you sound “unloving” again, to so many of us, it might be time to take a look within, instead of defensively lashing out.
Look Lady Raine, it profits me nothing to to you out to the woodshed over how you live your life. But as this place obviously fulfills a need in you, wouldn’t be better to really seek to get the most out of it?
O
Well I certainly hope not! No one here knows how I “live my life”!! I’ve always had a plan for life and so far it’s gone how I wanted it to. Had a child at my personally selected “best” age of 23 (both physically and financially) and it has continued to work out, so little input from others will actually change my “lifestyle” so to speak, but it doesn’t upset me when someone criticizes or offers random input either. Watching how humans interact with me and each other is sort of like watching a movie (in the way of interest and entertainment level). Talking to people is the same for me.
Lady Raine,
You’re still not getting it;
IF A BUNCH OF PEOPLE, WHO DO NOT KNOW EACH OTHER, SEES THE SAME OR SIMILAR TRAITS/FLAWS IN YOU VIA YOUR PRESENTATION, ISN’T THAT AN INVITATION FOR YOU TO CONSIDER THE POSSIBILITY THAT WHO YOU ARE, & WHAT YOU PRESENT AND HOW ITS RECEIVED, NEEDS A BIT OF WORK?
O
Obsidian–
That is exactly what I was referring to! No one who knows me “in real life” aka in person has EVER accused me of coming across angry/nasty. It’s only here, on the internet or over the phone that I communicate poorly. THAT is why it doesn’t concern me. I am aware of how I come across but in the long run it doesn’t matter because only people who have never met me complain about it.
Obsidian–
Roissy has suggested, and Kamal seems to agree, as do I, that you fit a certain type of Woman who is more masculine in the way you approach relationships and sex.
I was the first to say so, in very clear terms, referencing a highly elevated testosterone level, and did so in an analytical as opposed to insulting way — thank you very much. LR also acknowledged that I was largely right, in response.
Doug–
Things that are a clear analysis are fine with me and you’ll never see me deny or lie about something that is true about me (like what you and some others said). I pretty much LIVE a man’s life too, so that makes it even more so (ie: living alone and single by choice, avoiding committing, being the sole financial provider, being head of my household, etc.)
I like things this way for me and I don’t “walk all over” anyone to continue my lifestyle as it is. It’s just that I prefer to have “many acquaintances” in life as opposed to “tons of super-close friends/bfs”. I don’t like people actively involved in my personal life and that’s why marriage and LTR’s are often SO pointless for me (and for the person dating me too!) They take away all my option to have my own space and solitude so I just disregard marriage and such altogether.
chic noir grunted:
Firepower chicks don’t dig aans – it’s the small block thing
Look whose talking. With a name like firepower for all the gay jokes you make around here. Go look your name up on urban dictionary. Flamer.
More from fiesty firepower mmkay. girl, you gots ta take yo fingas out dat Ben N’ Jerry’s before you type ghetto poetry lol. before long, your fingers are gonna be too fat to fit on the keyboard
but not fat as those fists you like to be rammed up your one way highway.
too easy
Yup didn’t crack the text book
you need your Cialis scrip refilled to tamp down that extra testosterone. i luvs mah name on TUD, babygurl.
Firepower think it’s hella cool.
oh, and it’s called TUD btw…wouldn’t want you to appear like some 30-ish Oprah-ite trying to act cool by misusing slang.
hey fluffy…are you trying to promote your bloggie – to snare “The Gay” audience and up your blog hits? oh, you sneaky thing.
[…] offensive style to make his points, Roissy is one commentator that has tackled this topic. Eg The Masculinization Of The Western White Female Roissy in DC The Self-Made Beta Roissy in DC I think it is clear that over the lifetime of a man his status can […]
””””””’Lady Raine
Default–
Umm no, I have never heard a woman say something like that, was my point…it was just plain old shocking…there’s something faulty in anyone’s mind who “lives to serve” ANYONE whether it’s a woman or a man! ””””””””’
You do serve your master the company you work for don’t you.
This is what has become shocking in the modern world.
Anyone notice the different groups they picked? With today’s women, they picked the “hottest”, and with yesteryear’s women, they picked “oscar winners”.
Since when is winning an Oscar a sign of sexual desirability?
In other words, pick up some of the pinups from the 40s, and see how those women looked.
Take a look here: http://moviemaidens.com/
or here: http://www.skylighters.org/pinupviewer/index.html
Which ones do you prefer now? 😉
[…] seems that culture can tweak our preferences to a very large extent. Roissy has written about how men have come to prefer more masculine looking women over the last 60 or so years. He hypothesizes that the causes are […]
[…] seems that culture can tweak our preferences to a very large extent. Roissy has written about how men have come to prefer more masculine looking women over the last 60 or so years. He hypothesizes that the causes are […]
The old actress on the right’s face is symetrical whereas the contemporary woman’s face is not. You can hold something up in the middle of the faces and see.
I have noticed that asymetrical faces seem to be all the rage – Paris Hilton just one example.
This is due to the feminization of men. Studies show that the more masculine the man, the more he’ll be attracted to feminine features. The less masculine the man, the more he’ll be attracted to male features.
The one on the left clearly has smaller eyes, more prominent jaw, stronger browline, more angular cheekbones, etc. It’s amazing to me that 75% of pollees find that to be more attractive than the other.
Hey very nice blog!!….I’m an instant fan, I have bookmarked you and I’ll be checking back on a regular….See ya
I’m Out! 🙂
Another example : here’s a famous french journalist
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_6u4AwCKABGc/Sq4f8q7shzI/AAAAAAAAE_o/ZbJqRiwJwJg/s400/20090911-ITELE013.jpg
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_6u4AwCKABGc/SrNKN983lCI/AAAAAAAAFNI/0KYWtEDCnCM/s400/20090917-itele-021.jpg
Her name is Celine Bousquet !
I prefer the woman’s face on the right.
The one on the left has a more negroid quality to it.
It is almost comical and is selected because it accentuates certain unnatural characteristics.
The eyebrows are artificially shaped.
The eyes are not fully opened suggesting she is malnurished.
The nose flairs more like a negroid.
And the upper lip is awkwardly thick.
She has a very thin, slightly sickly look.
Her body is most likely angular, anorexically thin, with many bones showing.
The woman’s face on the right has a more Caucasion quality to it.
The eyebrows, although intentionally shaped, have a more natural look.
The eyes are fully open.
She appears healthy and vibrant.
The nose and lips stay proportional to the face.
Her body is probably fit and slender but with softer curves instead of bony angles.
[…] The sometimes disgusting, but always fascinating, Roissy speculates about the answer in this blog post (“The Masculinization Of The Western White Female”), which has 422 comments. He […]