Racial differences accounted for in beauty science [face only]

I have noted the Marquardt mask before and the frequent misconceptions about it. I glossed over one valid criticism because I couldn’t find the data on hand at the time and didn’t want to say ‘just trust me’. #dodgyAF
I’m not going to insult anyone because that’s for people who lack empirical proof. I never met someone who chose to be ugly and we cannot help what we are born.

I’m not going to make cross-comparisons because that would be mean and likely biased to certain ascribed values.
Instead, this is how they vary by pure mathematics from the universal template for the human species.

There are only female masks and examples here and I do admit there needs to be equal research on male beauty.
Please, believe I want this as much as the next woman.


Here are the European, Asian and African variations.

Try to claim ‘cultural standards’ now, chewing on humble pie.

European example, frontal/anterior view.

Description given, italics mine because ‘slightly’ on this scale is huge: “EUROPEAN VARIATION FROM RF MASK Slightly vertically thin upper and lower lips Flat eyebrow (very little arch) Slightly wider nose Lateral border of the face slightly wider than the Mask Possible: Narrow eyes, longer vertical chin, longer nose.”
For example comparison, here’s the Asian prototype. A blind man could feel the difference. Yellow fever is creepier than White fever because Asian women resemble children, with faces most like babies (see, bust size, band size is fairly objective) whereas European women tend to resemble teenagers.

Description given, italics mine: “ASIAN VARIATION FROM RF MASK Medial epicanthic fold Lateral epicanthic fold Lateral border of the face significantly wider than the Mask Eye brows slightly superior to that of the Mask with shorter tails Slightly wider nose and nostrils (nasal ala and nares extend laterally) Superiorly positioned nasal columella creating a longer upper lip.”

Note: there are differences and the legal contrivance of a portmanteau ‘Caucasian’ is a myth based on geography (see the MRH), there is as much distinctiveness as between, say, European and African. As with all Asians, if you split by the demographic of sex as well, there would be greatly reduced sexual dimorphism (the men and women look more alike than Europeans by the same token comparison). This explains the great lengths the cultures go to, to distinguish themselves (makeup and what I and others consider fake femininity).

Further note: nobody meets the universal human standard. Nobody. This isn’t a point of so-called white supremacy, but white raced-women tend to conform to more of it on average, by chance.

Bear in mind, facial beauty is a reliable indicator of Darwinian fitness (see The Mating Mind) and positively, quite strongly correlates to IQ. That’s right – hot people are smarter too. The smart thing to do in an age that despises intelligence is to hide it.

Why don’t I make more scholarly posts?

1. The data isn’t collected to parse. 2. The data is suppressed (publication bias, left in the metaphorical drawer). 3. It’s behind a paywall or similarly hidden from sharing, meaning you’d have to trust my word and discussion, being less reliable and a general waste of everyone’s time. 4. These posts are literally my least popular but the most true. C’est la vie, mon amis.

What am I forced to do? Post gifs for every occasion and go under-appreciated.

notyourtypebeautifulthoughtshide

The evolution of facial beauty, including the lips

They always study women for these things in general, it’s dumb.

Beauty is not sexy, sexy is not beauty. Sexy is Hollywood culture and porn, but I repeat myself. Beauty is sexual dimorphism (extremes into their own sex, not a cross-breed), fertility and evolution. ‘Male beauty’ standards would wound too many egos. At least they can go to the gym for below the neck stuff, and you’ve seen the butthurt on height when it’s linked to healthier babies from superior childhood nutrition and hormone balance, as well as genetics.

Many factors here.

http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/366/1571/1638

http://evolutionbioc334.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/evolution-of-lips.html

There is a hard limit on lip thickness based on the vermillion border and African lips need a masculine high-T jawline to hold the structure’s area size and weight, which neutralises the ‘gain’. They signal sexual maturity of the other lips, that is all. Jolie inherited hers from her father, and this is more common than via the mother, so it isn’t actually specific to women but men (like better nails and eyelashes, it’s unusual in women). A little plumper than her childhood ratio is an individual cue to fertility, not the supernormal exaggeration of cosmetic filler.

Women with a larger mouth require more filler to achieve the same fullness.

African lips also age terribly and sun burn worse. The wrinkles are aging and with tissue loss (aging), sagginess kicks in really quick (pillow lips, stretched natural skin container for artificial material).

Evolutionally, anyone who survived the Ice Age couldn’t lose more moisture than was absolutely necessary. As a mucous membrane, the lips require harsh upkeep and lose a lot of water as well as heat, to keep warm.

A small selection pressure.

marquardt_mask_small-lips-rosebud-mouth

This is the FEMME Marquardt beauty mask you never actually see, because they don’t use it.
The androgynous morphed male-female one is commonly used all over the place to brainwash us.
On the right is the same face by mathematics, with the angles smoothed into a skin-like surface using the neutral colour grey, as artistic midtone. THAT is the most objective female beauty standard.

Look at the area covered by that mouth. It’s a rosebud mouth, tiny BUT ALSO full.
Taut and youthful, but sexy, and not sagging.

Area covered is genetic, based on the width of the mouth opening, fullness by side profile is hormonal. Note the pronounced Cupid’s bow.

Science doesn’t give a fuck about your feelings.

Examples from Old Hollywood

merle-oberon-1933-oval-face

vivien_young-hair-up

hedy-lamarr-young

grace-kelly-doll-angle

grace-kelly-beauty

Maximum area for beauty

Beauty is pretty objective and makes you a better person

http://jonathanstray.com/papers/Langlois.pdf

Common maxims about beauty suggest that attractiveness is not important in life. In contrast, both fitness-related evolutionary theory and socialization theory suggest that attractiveness influences development and interaction. In 11 meta-analyses, the authors evaluate these contradictory claims, demonstrating that (a) raters agree about who is and is not attractive, both within and across cultures; (b) attractive children and adults are judged more positively than unattractive children and adults, even by those who know them; (c) attractive children and adults are treated more positively than unattractive children and adults, even by those who know them; and (d) attractive children and adults exhibit more positive behaviors and traits than unattractive children and adults. Results are used to evaluate social and fitness-related evolutionary theories and the veracity of maxims about beauty.

D is the kicker. Natural outer genetic beauty appears to match prosocial, heavily culturally-informed behaviours aka inner beauty.

Beautiful people also have higher IQs, suggesting greater overall fitness.

See my link about The Mating Mind. Contrary to popular belief, Darwin accounts for intelligence as part of the package of attractiveness.

Link: Does race-mixing increase physical attractiveness?

https://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/893/

“Leroi and Razib need to understand that in so far as physical attractiveness related to a genetic constitution associated with better canalization of development and developmental stability is concerned, mixed-race individuals are expected to be, on average, worse off than individuals with little other-race genetic admixture.  Razib may mention hybrid vigor (offspring better than parents, overall, on average) and ignore the possibility of what appears to be more likely—which I will elaborate on in the future: outbreeding depression (offspring worse than parents, overall, on average).”

Give that man a cookie. Good read. Quite detailed, not long enough.

Imho, this woman has retained her Anglo-features, a better study would be to look at her genome (and others of mixed race) and see which % they inherited from each of their parents, and of these, how many dominant features from the races considered lower on the general attractiveness scales (to put it PC for once).

Although Indian features are easy to spot in profile (mostly in the nasal projection and an inverted bridge curve). The women can be quite beautiful if they have a small nose e.g. Aishwarya Rai, with Nord-European coloration of the eyes but typical puffy ‘pillow’ lips.
Actually, it’s quite funny to trace the European coloration by hair color. It works very well as a predictor. Southern Europe is largely black-dark brown with a smoother thicker texture, mid-Europeans, as England for example, have medium-light brown with a fine wave texture, and the uppermost Nordic countries have the highest percentages of blonde, with medium thickness and often curls. Although there is a scatter of darker blondes in England, for instance, and redheads are exactly where you would expect, in Ireland, mid-European level. The isolation of Ireland preserved their recession and many papers have predicted the redhead will die out in a century or two.

Certainly, white people have the most visual variation in colour of any race, since we hit the entire scale. I’ve noted the rare mixed race women who are truly beautiful (most, contrary to media stereotype, have an unnatural combination of features bordering on creepy/uncanny valley), they mute the more dominant features of the less pleasing parentage within a distinctly European bone structure (I’m trying to be polite). Pics or it doesn’t happen, right?

The stunning Vanessa Williams proves my point more than words ever could.

However, such women are the exception of the mixed, incredibly rare, not the rule. Hollywood has tried to pass these creatures off as the norm. And it’s unfair to hold them to a single race’s standard, I think the movement to have a mixed classification in its own right is the …fair move (sorry).

This woman puts it better.
https://nicolamarven.wordpress.com/2014/04/11/mixed-race-people-are-not-beautiful/

All this makes me physically cringe from the screen.  What are they doing?  Don’t they realise the damage they’re causing by perpetuating this beautiful little brown baby bullshit? Oh! What lovely end-products of interracial social cohesion!  It’s as bad as a Channel 4 programme I once saw made by an anxious middle-class Asian mother.  She was eager to prove that the product of her marriage with a white English man would not be inferior, and so went around to scientists and researchers getting them to say stupid things about how mixed-race people might be smarter or have more symmetrical faces.  What a load of mul(atto) poo.  It’s as bad as phrenology.  It’s actually – ironically – racist.  And yes, of course you can be racist against mixed-race people.  The thing is though, we’re unlikely to have a cohesive voice to shout back at you but, brilliantly, because we’re as mixed-up as your teenage daughter’s underwear drawer, you can’t get out of it.  There’s no “Oh but I can’t be racist against them because I’m X or Y or have Z as a friend” crap.  Bad luck loser, we’re EVERYTHING.  There’s no hiding. Time to confront your own messed-up xenomania.

I like this woman. She’s honest.

We’re not products.  We’re people.  And some people are ugly.  Some people are really ugly. Some black people are ugly, some white people are ugly, some frickin Filipineseafrojafaican people are ugly.  Why should the racial mixing suddenly make people beautiful?  What is beautiful anyway?  It’s got nothing to do with race.  Saying mixed-race people are more beautiful than others is the WORST thing you can do for the mixed-race community.

It’s too much pressure for any race. I think each group should have its own beauty standards e.g. T or A or L, without feeling the need to compete on something largely gifted at birth.

Hybrid vigour is indeed a racist caricature, derived from comparing slave humans to horse breeds (they wanted the better workers so ‘bred’ their slaves together, arranging marriages, for more muscular men, for instance). Thankfully, as I’ve covered, hybrid vigour is a myth, in fact the evidence suggests a single instance of truly outbreeding (ancestors from two completely separate continents, neighbouring countries are fine), as it’s called, is as bad in general as generations of inbreeding (two to three generations during famine produces little difference or most of Europe would be thick).

Do you see what I mean about the Uncanny Valley though? The PC way to put it is an alarming tendency toward the … evolutionally novel. They look like they don’t fit.

A standard of their own would be fitting and better for a healthy sense of esteem without treading on toes.

“You think these things because these women are not seen The Other.  They are not seen as their race, they are just seen as women.”

applause all around hiddleston

Exactly, just because the science suggests one thing in theory is no excuse to be bitchy to one another IRL. You do you.
They had no control over it, it’s their parents fault (Eurasian men are especially bitter about this) and it’s each human’s duty to make the best of the beauty hand they were dealt.

Study: The evolutionary psychology of facial beauty

Meta-analysis/Review paper. Top tier.

http://www.femininebeauty.info/f/rhodes.meta.analysis.pdf

What makes a face attractive and why do we have the preferences we do? Emergence of preferences early in development and cross-cultural agreement on attractiveness challenge a long-held view that our preferences reflect arbitrary standards of beauty set by cultures. Averageness, symmetry, and sexual dimorphism are good candidates for biologically based standards of beauty. A critical review and meta-analyses indicate that all three are attractive in both male and female faces and across cultures. Theorists have proposed that face preferences may be adaptations for mate choice because attractive traits signal important aspects of mate quality, such as health. Others have argued that they may simply be by-products of the way brains process information. Although often presented as alternatives, I argue that both kinds of selection pressures may have shaped our perceptions of facial beauty.
It confirms the obvious…
…..Femininity is the strongest component of female attractiveness, but it showed no association with health (although only one study has looked for this). Femininity may signal fertility rather than health per se (Johnston 2000, Johnston & Franklin 1993, Symons 1979). The reasoning is that high estrogen/androgen ratio are associated with both feminine characteristics (e.g., small jaw, full lips) and fertility. A preference for feminine faces, therefore, would target sexually mature females. Facial femininity could also signal individual differences in fertility in adult females, to the extent that femininity declines with age.
How men age in attractiveness wasn’t studied, nor cross-referenced with sperm quality, which pisses me off. I wanna see the data on that.
What do you expect, it’s mostly men conducting the studies in this field.
Recently, male facial attractiveness has been linked to genetic heterozygosity at sites involved in immune function. Future studies should determine which components of male attractiveness (masculinity, averageness, symmetry) mediate this link, and whether female attractiveness is also linked to heterozygosity at these sites. A more direct test of a link between attractiveness and immunocompetence could also be done by challenging the immune system.
However, this seems to reinforce a youth link in both sexes via immune function and cellular quality.

Women care about looks, stop deluding yourselves guys

We care AS MUCH, sometimes more. The manosphere needs to get over itself on this one. Everytime I hear a man bitch that women don’t care about looks online, you can tell he’s an ugly motherfucker. It’s like a feminist whining about attention paid to pretty girls, it’s pathetic. Stop. Is/Ought.

oh really am I supposed to be scared angelina jolie wanted big man uhuhO rlly? *I’m* the little bitch if I’m the tenth woman in a row to turn down your offer?
It’s almost like people don’t like giving away their valuables at a loss.

Sperm = cheap
Eggs = expensive
Sex = valuable to men, women? Not so much. The one who cares less holds the power, right?

Research: http://psychologyofattractivenesspodcast.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/overconfidence-when-we-think-were-more.html

You’re swallowing what your grandmother told you – “looks don’t matter” (to women) and passing it off as your original belief because it serves your ego in sheltering you from the reality. It’s in the same category as JBY (Just Be Yourself) for advice that requires a disclaimer about a book long and a series of asterisks listing exceptions longer than the Game of Thrones book series. If random people keep pulling this weird, twisty lip face when you discuss dating, you’re probably ugly.

hmm uhuh o rlly really ah sure thing

Don’t take my word for it, do the damn work and find out your number: https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2015/07/09/an-easy-way-for-men-to-find-their-10-scale-value/ You’ve got a range of 1-2 based on external factors and the desperation of the prettier party.

This doesn’t make us women shallow anymore than not fancying landwhales makes you shallow. It’s nature. Everyone fancies attractive people. It’s evolution, it’s health, and it’s about the health of potential offspring.

Even when it comes down to the r-types, we have the Sexy Sons hypothesis. This overwhelmingly strong female attraction to appearance might dictate the bulk of their psychology, it’s that powerful. The stated exception is gold diggers, because plastic surgery is expensive and they’re rarely natural lookers themselves. The money overwhelms their disgust reflex and they’ve usually been around the block before settling.

Why do you believe women are special snowflakes when it comes to options? It’s ridiculous. Given two equally appealing choices, everybody, male female or alien would go for the more physically attractive. This was often swept under the rug because women had little historical say in mate selection (the betas and lower are the ones bitching about this now for that reason, they lost their power) and arranged marriages, complete with veil, meant if they knew they had a negative opinion of their husband-to-be, she had neither time nor purpose to point it out. It wasn’t as if women were expected to enjoy sex, was it? The woman’s sexual desire wasn’t a factor in the historical equation, so very little was written about it. Then courting came around, then dating and now hookup culture, where it’s plain to see if you pay attention. Look at any male model’s instagram account. Same as a woman’s, isn’t it?

Of course people care about looks when it comes to the opposite sex, that’s the difference between friends and more – do you find them physically attractive? It’s almost like boys in the manosphere haven’t heard the two ladders metaphor. This defines a big difference between male and female attraction mechanisms. If a woman fancies you, you’re on the prospect ladder. If she finds you ugly (that’s the brutal truth, it’s yay or nay) – you’re on the friend ladder. You ain’t never getting off, and the Friendzone is such a big deal online, because the boys in question refuse to believe women have eyes.

And dare to exercise a personal choice in whom to date.

You’re probably average, no shame in it, get over it. What do you think the Brad Pitt rule is about? Do you honestly think that guy needs a single bit of Game to have women interested in him? Pre-fame and money? Christian Bale met his wife when he was dirt poor and she traveled round with him. Any guesses why, children? [Clue: everybody has a personality, that doesn’t count as an answer.]

The starving artists stereotype is always drop-dead gorgeous. As is the hot nerd. And the hot librarian. And the hot businessman. And the hot gamer. It isn’t the context/skill/status that makes them hot, but adds to pre-existing hotness. And all pure stereotypes that appeal to women sexually, are already 10s….

What was I saying?

Gee, I guess that’s a MASSIVE coincidence…

You can’t convince women to be turned on by losers (genetic or otherwise), neither can feminists or SJW freaks. Attraction isn’t a negotiation. I’m saying this to help you. Women didn’t lie, your mother probably lied but she has vested self-interests, it’s usually the media who lied to you. The world has always been this way. Prince Charming isn’t the Hunchback, he’s a physical specimen of 10 like the Princess. The Beast turned into a hottie at the end to match his fiancee. Look at all romance plots written by women, the guy is never ugly.

Of course women are shallow, when it comes to dating, that’s all it is – being really, really shallow. Until you meet someone’s mutual standard of shallowness. One of the few totally valid PUA criticisms – they look at their actions, including external factors like income, and never pause to consider their physical league. If women seem to have a “bitch shield” around you, and you aren’t being rude, you’re probably swimming in the wrong gene pool. People with status abhor being approached by the SMV/MMV equivalent of peasants. This goes for men too, don’t start on a misogynistic rant about how all women are bitches and blaming them for your problems. If you were unemployed and walked up to random successful men in swish suits in coffee shops and in the street, they’d be disgusted too. You gotta have something to offer those people and bring to the table. What’s relevant in business? Contacts, contracts, money, skills. What’s relevant in dating? Looks, looks, looks, and a wildcard, like maybe you have a sense of humour like most people on the planet. You know that thing where everyone laughs at the hot girl’s non-jokes? It’s cos you don’t really see past the packaging, isn’t it? Women online are upfront about this, who they crush on and who’s the hottest out of XYZ options and men have the temerity to call us superficial…. nah, not gonna cut it, men discuss passing women in the street with the same lack of respect and when men have topless calenders and read lad’s mags at work, inappropriate doesn’t cut it either. We’re all adults here, opinions are okay. Alpha/quality males are serene about this and acknowledge quality women have options too and the non-quality proles of both sexes will daydream (few are foolish enough to try and play out of their league).

If you dare try and pull that feminist shit like “we don’t like being judged, it hurts our feelings” – erm, how do you think we feel, being literally marked on a scale when we walk down the street, like produce? Which sex is more sexualised in the media? Again, grow up. Adults judge things all the time and it’s a good thing. If you fall short, that’s your personal issue, not the people judging you and finding you wanting. You didn’t bring it to the table. You weren’t tall enough for this ride, whatever. Offer rejected. Nothing personal. You’d be a glad of a “bitch shield” if it was your wife maintaining it, in fact, you’d rely on it. That’s what really gets us – you expect us to make an exception for you and turn around and complain about special snowflakes. Does that make your hypothetical wife a bitch? Nope, she’s a quality woman who doesn’t fall for that casual nonsense we call pick-up, you’re just crybabies that spitting certain lines isn’t like a cheat code for sex with any random woman.

Short-term, who cares, get rejected thousands of times for all it matters. I don’t speak to those guys who wanna die alone because it fulfills some mythic complex about Eve and the wicked temptation of women.
For long-term, you need to redpill and look at the data. Assortative mating. People end up (most of the time don’t anecdote me) with someone of similar attractiveness to themselves. Not higher. Not lower. Similar. This way, neither party feels like they’re losing out on the deal of the relationship, getting the wedding is the easy part, maintaining the marriage requires effort on both sides. Sure, she loses post-pregnancy weight for you, but you can’t get a beer belly and wonder why she keeps getting headaches. It’s an exchange, no woman will ever be your mother (a mother figure you wanna fuck, creep alert!) unless she’s a co-dependent drip you don’t respect or trust. Long-term it’s an exchange of genetic material, the most serious decision you’ll ever make, an Eloi with a Morlock is poorly matched and won’t stick around for long and no, celebrities aren’t a rule or proof for anything in the real world.

Nothing wrong with being average, it isn’t your spiritual worth as a person, but it is your real SMV and likely highly correlates to your MMV, male or female, gay, straight, bi or whatever. Better happily matched, once your ego is over the shock, than #foreveralone because you had the male equivalent of Cinderella syndrome. Notches aren’t alpha, that’s a lie from PUAs trying to sell their book/site/method by spinning out notch numbers (not accounting for quality), your life isn’t a video game where you score for your score and if you’re top of the leaderboard you’re Mostest Alpha Man; it’s getting the Best woman in a social circle (the socio- in sociosexual hierarchy) and keeping her is what an alpha male does.

Bonus attachment!

Beauty and Intelligence incredibly linked (same level as education)

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201012/beautiful-people-really-are-more-intelligent

In a previous post, I show, using an American sample from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, that physically more attractive people are more intelligent. As I explain in a subsequent post, the association between physical attractiveness and intelligence may be due to one of two reasons. Genetic quality may be a common cause for both (such that genetically healthier people are simultaneously more beautiful and more intelligent). Alternatively, the association may result from a cross-trait assortative mating, where more intelligent and higher status men of greater resources marry more beautiful women….

Mostly the former, as it explains female bequeath too it should be genetic. Assortative mating usually applies to objective attractiveness (the famed 10-scale) for both sexes, skewed relationships rarely last long without something else to make up for the gap.

Regardless of the reason for the association, the new evidence suggests that the association between physical attractiveness and general intelligence may be much stronger than we previously thought.

… Attractive NCDS respondents have the mean IQ of 104.23, whereas unattractive NCDS respondents have the mean IQ of 91.81.  The difference between them is 12.42. This mean difference implies a correlation coefficient of r = .381, which is reasonably large in any survey data…..

Huge IQ bridge, on par with eugenic/dysgenic effects? I’d love to see expanded profiles (marital status at 30, for example).

By pure coincidence, the correlation between physical attractiveness and intelligence in NCDS is exactly the same, down to the third decimal point, as the correlation between intelligence and education. Both correlations are .381. Everybody knows that intelligence and education are very highly correlated. What they don’t know is that physical attractiveness is equally highly correlated with intelligence as education is. 

In other words,

If you want to estimate someone’s intelligence without giving them an IQ test, you would do just as well to base your estimate on their physical attractiveness as you would to base it on their years of education.

oh damn wow ah

I’ll leave these here:
http://thisisattractiveprivilege.tumblr.com/
http://thisisbeautyprivilege.tumblr.com/
http://thisisthinprivilege.org/

“Privilege” has statistical backing!
The stereotypes, again, are true!

Maybe humans will branch into an Eloi and Morlock scenario? The IQ difference is huge, the SD I calculated for the summary result (both sexes) is 8.78227, population SD is 6.21 with population variance of 38.5641 in IQ. Huge values.