East Asian beauty demands

https://www.businessoffashion.com/articles/global-currents/unmasking-east-asias-beauty-ideals

With over 270 million monthly users, Chinese technology company Meitu is in the business of vanity. The company has several apps, but their most famous one is MeituPic – China’s number one photo retouching app. It gives users the ability to alter their appearance with surprising flexibility and specificity.

Yet what is most notable about Meitu Pic is its uniquely Asian features and filters. There are functions to smooth skin, slim the face, add makeup, attach cute stickers, and enlarge one’s eyes.

And change their eye shape, by rounding it out, there’s no other way to do that.

And you thought Snapchat was weird.

I’m starting to think the guys who claimed a lot of makeup was witchcraft might’ve been right. If you’re trying to look like a whole other person… something ain’t right in the head.

Similar to MeituPic, Japan’s Line Camera and South Korea’s Snow also offer facial enhancement features.

catfishing premium

While these selfie apps may differ in terms of functionality, they all help users to beautify themselves in ways that are telling about the markets they serve. They provide an interesting lens on how women in three East Asian countries view beauty ideals – and why certain beauty products succeed in an increasingly influential region…..

look more white has always been their ideal, prior to any contact with white people

paler women have higher oestrogen

thinner faces are more feminine (especially the curve of the jaw) and White women have mathematically thinner faces than Asians

There are studies.

recessed chin there, in case you wanted to know what that was called

nose is similar to African, which has slightly more flared nostrils

European nose is straighter, stronger bridge, pointed, nasal tip can point up

Do they mention this?

Heavens, no!

“Traditionally, East Asian women have been held to a standard of feminine beauty that suggests they should be sweet and gentle. “

Geisha were prostitutes, see other posts.

No.

They were hookers. Not just strippers, there is plenty of art depicting them rolling around with men, penis out.

If they weren’t hookers, nobody would have paid that much for tea. Why did men never learn such a respectable ceremony, hm? Nor would they be depicted with their genitals exposed, like a hooker.

Asian men are broader too, it’s a racial thing before you go there.

Oh, did you think these studies didn’t exist? Yeah, MSM never mentions them huh?
There is categorically less sexual dimorphism in Asians i.e. the men look more feminine, technically, and the women more masculine, since their range is closer in both cases to the androgynous mean.

Eyebrows also vary by race, Asians have that garish Audrey brow but naturally, softer. Flat as a ruler and pointing upward in surprise. Asian women do a lot to change this about their brows (normally by cropping the Shock Tail) because otherwise their eye shape looks more extreme (and alien to Western eyes).

Is this right? That isn’t the point, they do it.

This is the female mask, most beautiful of all races.

Which sex does that resemble to you? Now, which race?

Neither hips nor mathematics lie.

Koreans do though.

https://www.koreaboo.com/buzz/scientists-generated-perfect-faceand-looks-like-kim-tae-hee-irene/

You can’t use plastic surgery women in a study of natural (genetic) beauty. Don’t be absurd.

Europe used to be full of those women. This is a Louis Vuitton advert.

It was the ideal of beauty for millennia.

You don’t get to claim that because someone got creative with a scalpel.

Asians don’t have eyes like that. Stop embarrassing yourselves.

I find it suspicious that whenever Asians study beauty, the result is always pedomorphic. There is never any sexual maturity (sexual dimorphism + maturity) in the features, which must be a deliberate, false omission of: high cheekbones, but gracile jawline (rare combination), cherry chin (strong teeth), larger philtrum than men (see Marilyn), smooth but not baby nose, full but not huge mouth, soft brows, higher forehead than men.

They erase all the masculinized features of their own women, it’s unfair. That’s an unrealistic standard.

The method is completely wrong, the aim of the studies is to search for an adult model, a real model. It’s disturbing many of their supposed results could be in primary school.

Compare with similar high contrast (pale, dark hair) but sexually mature.

Please tell me you can see a difference. Only the sexual opinion of (non-pedophilic) normal men (within a race) counts for these types of study into NATURAL, ADULT FEMALE BEAUTY (not popularity, classic beauty). It’s been proven you can only really perceive accurately your own race best. Nudging it into other categories is…morally dubious. Is it right to expect an Asian woman to look European? Is it right to expect every Italian woman to resemble Monica?

Yet I know sexually who men would SELECT – and that’s the problem, Asian variations of this study are prone to emphasize surgery and popularity. It isn’t historical or evolutionary (therefore instantly wrong, you cannot study it without this context). This is Darwin, accept it or don’t pretend to study it.

Some Western studies make the same mistake, fixating on Hollywood (celebrity, popularity) like they’re the best looking people you’ll ever meet (they are not, travel, they are actually subpar even within their own races historically).

Back to Asians.

They choose the Asian-specific features and say that’s the ideal, of all times and periods. …No? It reminds me of fat acceptance. If that were true, they wouldn’t be getting quite so much surgery to resemble a mulatto, at best (philtrum reduction). Both women listed in the Korean article have entirely the wrong bone structure, it is impossible to change the eyes and they are the root of the face. Bad nose jobs aside (like Paris Hilton’s and many stupid women, they got them done too small) their faces are too broad to fit (a racial trait), their mouth is ghoulish (too broad, too wide and fat lipped, Asians shouldn’t get injections it makes their eyes look tiny) and the face is too flat looking since it’s difficult to add (structure) where there’s nothing there.

For comparison, since I’m not denying Asian women can get very good quality surgery, power to them for hoodwinking the stupid marks with a fetish, here is a woman who resembles their template better.

Wang Fei Fei, but she is Chinese so they instantly discount her. Asians hate other Asians.

The stellar example of surgical improvement I have ever seen is this woman.

Im Ji Hye

but she made it obvious with cleavage work so despite being Korean… they immediately discount her.

Again, who is beautiful in the sexual selection sense, little Miss Nine Year Old or Tits McGee?

Their children won’t look like this and it isn’t hard to guess who they’re trying to look like.

Here’s a morph of Asian celebrities (mostly actresses).

Not that they’re getting surgery at all, no. I’m sure Scarlett Johansson’s nose is untouched, like Angelina Jolie’s….

so this isn’t a racial thing but a natural beauty point. None of these bitches have it.

They must wear contacts, for example, to hide the dead-eyed stare. Like a serial killer.

Pic or it didn’t creep me out:

 

Same huge-breasted woman as above. Instant loss of two points imho once she stops appropriating white women’s eye colours (phenotype range is important to classification). I would be scared to encounter that in an alley, she reminds me of a sexbot. Her neutral there looks murderous. On the contrary, as you can see, getting fuckdoll surgery makes a woman look far less innocent.

The entire purpose in all those cases to purposefully get surgery is sexual enticement (one husband or lots of boyfriends, doesn’t matter).

The breast work just makes it obvious to foreigners.

The so-called perfect Asian face is based on a genetic lie (surgery).

Let’s look at method

One Korean researcher decided to apply Asian features through computer graphics on top of the mask layout, giving the results of the “perfect Asian face”.

No. That isn’t how the mask works, the data is already infused INTO the mask, which can be separated by RACE and SEX. He has essentially scribbled over the truth with only the positive features of surgical, trendy women he wants to fuck. Is that science?

When I say scribbled

I mean scribbled. And with the exclusions (so the whole thing is a sham), it fits white women better.

Yes, very Asian…..

The “perfect face” has an egg-shaped head, big bright eyes, a narrow and sharp nose, and medium-sized lips.

Because the sampled women were all trying to look like THAT.

You can even see through the mask to the way it discounts Asian female features.

The Asian mouth is broader than the mask (mouth corners upturned, width remains constant), the Asian nostrils and nose are bigger than the mask, the Asian face size is bigger than the sketch and should be horizontally broader, the mask brows are lower and curved than the (cropped) Asian ones, the nasal tip and chin of the mask are more defined than the Asian girl, it’s all right there!

I hate noticing things, really. It’s such a burden.

Look at this horse-shit.

“Chinese herbalists have concocted special tinctures, tonics and elixirs for over 5,000 years to specifically address individual skin concerns. This knowledge has passed down from generation to generation and is what we use today to formulate many of our beauty concoctions,” Brian explains.

No, you’ve been giving them plastic surgery, developed in the West, not rubbing their face with tiger’s nuts. Next you’ll claim you invented pearls (Scotland’s had a roaring trade in them too before China stole cultivation methods in the last century).

http://blogs.bl.uk/digitisedmanuscripts/2017/04/an-illustrated-old-english-herbal.html

Anglo-Saxons had herbalism too, you didn’t invent shit (you can’t take credit for inventing a fucking PLANT) but Cheryl Cole’s face is still pumped full of plastic shit. As it is, Europe has better biodiversity of plants and more (most) useful ones for skincare e.g. rosehip, lavender, orange blossom…

why lie?

As for Fan Bing Bing (what kinda name…) any woman who relies on eye makeup to get her eyes to look that beautiful way…, isn’t actually beautiful?

White example

Asian example

The problem with so much deep, structural surgery is that with less makeup, it looks Uncanny Valley.

If you’re going to go to such great lengths to look like us, be decent enough to admit it?

Artist’s “Asian” inspiration, now VS. Victorian Valentine, typical face.

Update: let’s throw this in, why not? re the philtrum and smaller mouth

http://buism.com/facebody.htm

 When it comes to the face there’s just one shape-shifter and that’s the entire mouth area (i.e. upper lip, lips, and chin). The mouth area is capable of articulating many, many distinct sounds. Just like frequently using the hands, frequently using the mouth results in a slender, lean, and petite mouth, including the upper lip and chin. Also like the hands, disusing the mouth produces a loose, flabby, and enlarged mouth area.

speaking better, being classier = more feminine mouth (small range possible, muscular on top of genetic)

The main muscle involved here is the one surrounding the lips, the orbicularis oris. If you’re trying to achieve a feminine face, I suggest speaking speak with great frequency and articulation. Not all languages are equal though—some neglect the orbicularis oris while others heavily rely on it. French, for example, seems to have a lot of words with the “oo” sound, like “beaucoup.”

dialect too

Many more muscles that attach to the orbicularis oris (mouth) and I believe they are all gender-neutral, or slightly favored by males. This is my conclusion after observing many faces and seeing little to no sexual dimorphism in this area. This is much like limbs, between the chest and fingers or between the butt and toes. They are not nearly as sexually-dimorphic as breasts are to a male chest, but the muscles seem to be slightly favored by males. So the updated picture now shows the orbicularis oculi and masseter muscles in opaque blue to denote that they are greatly favored by men.

but cheekbones are bone structure, literally

zygomatic arch

The final archetypal male and female faces.

                Unlike muscles of the body, some facial muscles aren’t attached to bone at all; some muscles are attached to other muscles. This means that tighter, more-developed muscles can pull on weaker muscles and facial organs. Tight midface muscles (in translucent blue) can enlarge the mouth area—including the base/wing of the nose—if the mouth muscles are weak. The average male partially uses some of the midface muscles and disuses/underuses the mouth muscles. Thus, the average male develops a wider mouth and nose than the average female.

well hold on the jaw is broader, larger and the lips thicken

The average female underuses the midface muscles and fully uses mouth muscles, which results in a pull towards the mouth. This produces a narrow nose, defined philtrum, small mouth, and narrow chin.

smooth nose (defined structure from bridge to tip), higher (length) or more well-shaped philtrum, rosebud lips and cherry chin

but philtrum especially is genetic in pronouncement and an indicator of fertility (men are under-studied)

The entire mouth area is large and loose for men and compact and tight for women.

This is not my opinion as you can see but plainly observable fact. Women have a longer philtrum and smaller mouth by breadth than men. Ah, some troll demands, wouldn’t we observe this in Marquardt’s masks?

We would.

That is the most feminine face humanly possible.

China rigs bikini contest

in the most hilarious way possible.

https://www.elitereaders.com/miss-world-bikini-exclusive-contest-for-the-chinese/

Asian supremacy so fragile.

Sure, they just “forgot” to include White women.

Terrified of being outgunned by the average girl from Hull.

Who would win? One billion plus Chinese or… the average White figure?

That’s plain pathetic. And how many of those had surgery? If that was part of exclusion criteria, there’d hardly be anyone.

It must be tough holding your barely sexually dimorphic, pedomorphic females to womanly standards of physical development.

Meanwhile, in England-


Shall we blame Royal Mail? Did the invites get lost in the post? Will it happen next year?
The only curves Asians can do are in textbooks, get a reality check.

Stop trying to be white like a Twinkie and be happy with your gamine boy-toy-looking women.

Hell, even black (and I mean BLACK) women have got you on this.
https://www.elitereaders.com/sudanese-model-queen-dark-advocate-self-love-diversity/
Good for her.
They are hardly renowned in attractiveness studies for ranking top.

Hourglass Asians do not exist, their race lacks the sexual dimorphism. Look at pelvic width, you can’t buy one of those! That’s why their surgery and ‘beauty hacks’ and makeup are the most advanced in the world. It’s called erotic capital because they’re status whores.

Nice? No. True? Yes.

Imagine a Mr Olympia herculean contest with exclusively 100% Asian men. I don’t fucking think so.
So why hold the women to a higher standard? It’s unfair. They can’t compete, this literally proves it.

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?77783-TO-ALL-WHITE-MEN-please-don-t-date-and-marry-Asian-girls-(-ugly-make-up-fake-)/

Good luck finding an Asian woman throughout all of history that looks like this without being trussed up and stuffed like a Thanksgiving turkey.

Lesson? Asians lie about everything prestigious.

The market problem with Patriarchy is false advertising of daughters.
They are bred as attractive as it’s possible to go, it’s only downhill from there. Their very demeanor is fake (the scourge of fake femininity) and cracks around menopause if you’re lucky. They are naturally kind only under financial hardship and cruel men. Otherwise, spoiled cunts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princess_sickness The majority of the worst divorce stories involve Asian women, they are ball-busters.
They’re fully looksmax-ed, that is It. That is their peak, the furthest right reach of their bell curve of SMV.

Stop trying to fob off your average-looking under-developed women to the West for anchor, higher status half-white babies. You’ll have as much luck opposing evolutionary preferences as the chubby-pushers. Migration habit to one side, it’s so r-selected to rig a competition so a true one is impossible. Don’t let ‘child per woman’ data fool you, Asians are r-selected, they expand to fill any area they live in until all the resources are consumed (hello Japan). There isn’t a single billion white people, but a 4.5 billion Asians. They are the world majority, well over half of the world population. By comparison, Africa, a bigger continent by survivable habitat, contains 1.2 billion. Asians are now buying up and swarming Africa, this should tell you who is the Ultimate R. They also lack the time preference to resolve basic problems e.g. elderly care (hello Japan).

The demographic threat to Ks is yellow.
If we resolved the African boom problem, they outnumber us about 10:1.

And not one good figure to spare.

They’re not even skinny, they’re just squat, I’ve seen more lithe famine victims.

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).


Source: majorityrights.com/images/uploads/newsweek.jpg

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.

Update: listen, we can’t all be Nutan. Consider how many Indians had to breed to get to a woman who looks suspiciously white (dormant genes exist – epigenetics).

nutan beauy

The Latina beauty standard is actually Spanish, which is a mixture of pampered English skin, French manners and Italian looks. Before Coco Chanel held us to male field labourer standards… thanks, you anorexic Nazi-fucking whore. I don’t want to see a 12yo painted orange and dressed in drag. That’s no role model.

The sheer majority of mixed race propaganda is all Italian in description. Dark, glossy hair, a tan and curves. This is rare, even in Europe.

that's enough stop please karen will and grace

I mean, I can fit it, so thank you, but also fuck you guys for implying there’s anything wrong with blondes with green eyes. It’s harsh and uncalled for.

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.