PDA

View Full Version : Depigmentation Supports Femininity



Thorburn
Saturday, July 2nd, 2005, 03:17 AM
"Here's a test provided found in Frost's book, provided by Richard Russell (https://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fweb.mit. edu%2Frrussell%2Fwww%2F) of the Sinha Laboratory for Vision Research (https://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fweb.mit. edu%2Fbcs%2Fsinha%2Fhome.html) at MIT.

Which one of these faces is a woman and which is a man?


http://forums.skadi.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=35650&stc=1


I bet you assumed the one on the left is a woman and the one on the right a man.

In truth, a computer generated these images by averaging male and female faces. The only difference between them is in complexion. (The lips look more attractively feminine on the left face because of the greater contrast with the skin tone.)"

[Source (https://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fvdare.co m%2Fsailer%2F050612_blondes.htm)]

In fact, with no morphological differences, the "woman"; on the left looks "Nordish", while the "male" on the right looks almost "Hispanic."

Consequently,

1. Depigmentation is, considered in isolation, an absolutely unsuitable instrument to determine race or sub-race,

2. Depigmentation suggests or supports a feminine appearance, while, e contrario, pigmentation supports a masculine appearance.

3. As a refutable thesis I postulate further that feminine appearance of the potential partner is a sexual selection criterium for most males (in the sense of a normal distribution) and that the same applies, vice versa, for females, what would explain the already almost stereotypical pigmentation difference between lighter females and their darker male partners, such as examplarily expressed by Nicole Kidman and Tom Cruise.


http://forums.skadi.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=35651&stc=1


Thoughts?

Northern Paladin
Saturday, July 2nd, 2005, 03:21 AM
Hence the logic behind Gentlemen prefer blondes. :D

Agrippa
Saturday, July 2nd, 2005, 03:37 AM
I think it makes sense, not necessarily for skin color, but for the general pigmentation, especially of the hair and eyes. For skin pigmentation we have to assume more factors, but for hair and eye color it can be exclusively sexual selection or group differentiation (a la "this is ours this not...").

One idea I heard is that especially the Northern Cromagnids had rather coarse and masculine, but of course rather progressive features.

My reasoning would be like that: This robust Cromagnids of the North had no problems with their males, since thats one of the possible ideals of a male, being robust and storng boned, even coarse to some degree, but for the females this racial type might have lead to some kind of compensation. To make the harder features softer, they developed even lighter, rosy skin and most important the lighter hair and eyes.
Later other people came from the South, but this established pigmetation feature, a big advantage for females and rather positive for other reasons (UV, VitD, nutrition etc.) too was kept even in the mixture and so the following groups get in the mixture the feature too and a relatively high percentage of "general blondism" via sexual selection. Even when the types get more gracile the advantage is still there, since it makes "cute features" even more extreme. But the first, the main selection to bring up a relatively homogenous light population which later mixed with other types in the North might have happened as I described above...
At least it doesnt sound that improbable to me.

anonymaus
Saturday, July 2nd, 2005, 05:08 AM
I have the thought that we are reading objective evidence of old colloquialisms and stereotypes; always a pleasure to prove those right, I think. After all: they are formed of truths. The discrepancy is usually left to the amount of truth.

Women are, as we say, "the fairer sex"--we are also told they, "the fairer sex", prefer "tall, dark, and handsome" men. It was not difficult to accept these things as fact before as we have much anecdotal evidence of their truth.

Applying these funny old sayings to modern imperical evidence makes for good results in this case. I agree with your thesis.

Vanir
Saturday, July 2nd, 2005, 06:37 AM
http://www.forums.skadi.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=5180
Well, this bloke is blonde, and I don't think he has a collection of manbags and pink polo shirts for some reason...

anonymaus
Saturday, July 2nd, 2005, 06:41 AM
He also doesn't have feminine features. He's a masculine cro-magnoid. Rather an atavistic type ;)

Since you mention it, though, he does have a fuller complexion than a similar looking female might. Note the coarseness and redness in the skin. In my opinion he fits quite well inside the boundaries of the thesis.

Triglav
Saturday, July 2nd, 2005, 07:29 AM
Frost discovered that the reason women were called "the fair sex" is because women are indeed fairer on average after puberty. He notes that 50 out of 54 anthropometric studies from around the world have shown that women's untanned skin, such as under the upper arm, reflects more light than men's. Women have more subcutaneous fat, which gives them a lighter look.

And hair/eye pigmentation stats note the opposite. Unfortunately, they are rare.

SouthernBoy
Saturday, July 2nd, 2005, 07:48 AM
My first response is to deny it. :D

It makes a lot of sense though; "Tall, Dark, and Handsome."

SouthernBoy
Saturday, July 2nd, 2005, 07:51 AM
And hair/eye pigmentation stats note the opposite. Unfortunately, they are rare.I haven't seen any. I would be especially interested in one with eye color percentages for the world.

You get the idea, Janez; "...yeah, that might be true, but my eye color is rarer than yours is. :P"

Triglav
Saturday, July 2nd, 2005, 08:02 AM
I haven't seen any. I would be especially interested in one with eye color percentages for the world. Yeah, and I want a PS3 from Santa. :D


You get the idea, Janez; "...yeah, that might be true, but my eye color is rarer than yours is. :P"Who are you to give away my first name? ;) And what are you talking about anyhoo? :suspect

SouthernBoy
Saturday, July 2nd, 2005, 08:17 AM
Who are you to give away my first name? ;) Sorry, I didn't know that was your first name. Your name is cooler than mine. You should be proud. :D


And what are you talking about anyhoo? :suspect...just my subconcious association of people with dark eyes to evil. :P

Huzar
Saturday, July 2nd, 2005, 08:23 AM
...just my subconcious association of people with dark eyes to evil. :P

Gosh !!;)

Dr. Solar Wolff
Saturday, July 2nd, 2005, 09:24 AM
Women and children Australian Aboriginies from the Central Desert can be blond. Males usually darken in adulthood. Females can retain light hair. So, it light pigmentation sex linked or simply neotoneous? We know from other characteristics that females are more neontoneous than males.

The Horned God
Saturday, July 2nd, 2005, 10:54 AM
Women and children Australian Aboriginies from the Central Desert can be blond. Could it be the execessive amount of UV radiation they receive destroying the pigment in their hair and turning it blond? I would imagine that blondism would be a very undesireable trait to have for a people living in the middle of the outback.


We know from other characteristics that females are more neontoneous than males. From what I've seen on television etc the facial features of female aboriginies are scarcely any more neotoneous than the males, they almost look identical to me.

http://www.planbooktravel.com/up/images/screen/nt/region/up13T.jpg
Care to guess which is the male and which the female?

Huzar
Saturday, July 2nd, 2005, 11:49 AM
The same thing for West-negrid sub-type : maximum distance from the white race and apparent absence of distinction iin facial features between males and females.


Still someone adfirms that they aren't less attractive than europeans.....................

Loki
Saturday, July 2nd, 2005, 12:00 PM
This is obviously an ignorant and uneducated (and simplistic) view by someone who doesn't know much about anthropology or the role of pigmentation in human variation. Loss of pigmentation in Northern tribes had zero to do with masculinity / femininity, but all to do with geographic and climatic driven evolution.

I would expect such an ignorant view from American people who live in a hodge-podge mongrel environment, where most females are bottle-blondes and most males are natural darks. I doubt Norwegian and Swedish men would agree with this sillyness ...

Vanir
Saturday, July 2nd, 2005, 12:14 PM
He also doesn't have feminine features. He's a masculine cro-magnoid. Rather an atavistic type ;)

Since you mention it, though, he does have a fuller complexion than a similar looking female might. Note the coarseness and redness in the skin. In my opinion he fits quite well inside the boundaries of the thesis.

Probably just age related skin damage, plus the dominant female hormone is Oestrogen, which keeps skin supple alot longer (take alook at the skin of bodybuilders who use AS heavily. Thick, large-pored and aged!) ie, if we had a female clone of our blond caveman (:laugh:) here, she would have softer, suppler skin than "Ugg" above.

In general (and off the top of my head)
If depigmentation is merely a product of sexual selection, why is it not predominant or universal amongst females?

What is the actual depigmentation distribution amongst males and females then also? since the tendency would be from the very beginning to sexual dimorphism were it simply selection for an umbrella youthful/feminine trait in one females and its opposite in males would it not?

The "youthfulness" (neotony/paedomorphism?) that seems to be attractive to males universally is best represented in the alpinization process isn't it? So there are more ways than simply depigmentation to select for femininity. Why don't the two go hand in hand if that is all males are selecting for?

Also, I don't think anybody really does use depigmentation alone to classify someone. Depigmentation didn't develop in a vaccuum, and always seems to appear hand in hand with one or more other traits, depending on the type (Baltid, Eastern Nordid, etc)

Though I agree that fair colouration is can soften one's features, I don't think that's how it arose. All Humans possess the genes for the mutation, and if such were the case depigmentation/blondness would be prevalent or at least significantly present globally. Its concentration in the North simply can't be ignored, and I still think it had some adaptive benefit.

My 2 cents...

Loki
Saturday, July 2nd, 2005, 12:28 PM
If this was true, then there would have been more female natural blondes than males. But this is only found in an unnatural environment where females colour their hair more often than men would do.

In Scandinavia, men are as likely as females to be blond (naturally).

For hundreds of years, the image which instilled most fear in Europe was that of tall, blond, strong Viking raider men. I'm not sure how feminine that is ... :rotfl:

Lissu
Saturday, July 2nd, 2005, 01:11 PM
If this was true, then there would have been more female natural blondes than males. But this is only found in an unnatural environment where females colour their hair more often than men would do.

In Scandinavia, men are as likely as females to be blond (naturally). Well, men usually are slightly more pigmented than women, due to testoterone. This can be noticed by taking a look at siblings. This is not the only difference between men and women, as men are usually far more hairy than women.

But still I don't think this makes blond men any more feminine than men with darker pigmentation. That claim sounds nothing more than just another attempt to bash Northern people.

Loki
Saturday, July 2nd, 2005, 01:17 PM
Well, men usually are slightly more pigmented than women, due to testoterone.

Testosterone affects pigmentation? Is there any biological proof of this?

Lissu
Saturday, July 2nd, 2005, 01:38 PM
Testosterone affects pigmentation? Is there any biological proof of this?I have not seen any studies for this, but I have heard this could be so, and usually taking a look at siblings this seems to be the case. for example, I know siblings (man and a woman) who are both very blonde (white blonde still in their adulthood) but still, the brother is slightly more pigmented than his sister. My cousin twins (boy and a girl) are the same way. Neither one of them is blonde anymore, but the girl remained blonde in her early teens. Her twin brother was never blond, but their elder brother was blonde in his early teens but started to become darker sooner, and ended up having darker pigmentation than his sister. My brother is a lot darker than me.

But I do know several men who are extremely depigmented, white hair, eyebrows, eye lashes and obviously their body hair is blonde as well. In some way they look more striking than women do with similar pigmentation. And no way they look feminine...

Thorburn
Saturday, July 2nd, 2005, 01:42 PM
This is obviously an ignorant and uneducated (and simplistic) view by someone who doesn't know much about anthropology or the role of pigmentation in human variation. Such as John R. Baker? He wrote already in 1974 that pigmentation is the least significant criterium to distinguish (sub-)races. You have the book in your library if I recall correctly. ;)


Loss of pigmentation in Northern tribes had zero to do with masculinity / femininity, but all to do with geographic and climatic driven evolution. How an increase or decrease of pigmentation occurs isn't even peripheral relevant to Frost's and Sailer's observations. Thesis is only that a given person leaves a more feminine impression if her skin is lighter.


I would expect such an ignorant view from American people who live in a hodge-podge mongrel environment, where most females are bottle-blondes and most males are natural darks. I doubt Norwegian and Swedish men would agree with this sillyness ... Apart from arguing that the picture to the right does not look more masculine to the majority (something that should be easily refuted empirically), there is really no way you can avoid the consequences of the conclusion without leaving the methodologic path of observation and reason.


If this was true, then there would have been more female natural blondes than males. Not necessarily, as it is really just one out of many criteria that determines a feminine or masculine impression.


In Scandinavia, men are as likely as females to be blond (naturally). Amongst Europids in general, men seem to have a marginally higher degree of hair and eye depigmentation, even, albeit such studies are rare and unreliable. One could as well explain the differences by statistical errors.


For hundreds of years, the image which instilled most fear in Europe was that of tall, blond, strong Viking raider men. I'm not sure how feminine that is ... Again, non sequitur, as it is not claimed that blond males, Viking raiders or Mr. Kahn look feminine; it's merely claimed that they or he would leave an even more masculine impression if they or he would be more pigmented.


But still I don't think this makes blond men any more feminine than men with darker pigmentation. That claim sounds nothing more than just another attempt to bash Northern people. See the third paragraph in my answer to Loki. I think it's important to distinguish between what can be empirically observed and certain (right or false) conclusions people make or (right or false) agendas they try to support with them.


Applying these funny old sayings to modern imperical evidence makes for good results in this case. I agree with your thesis.Thank you kindly.


If depigmentation is merely a product of sexual selection, why is it not predominant or universal amongst females? Because it is not. Not directly, that is. Alleles determining pigmentation cannot be found on the sexual chromosomes either. It's definitely a neotenic trait, however, and in that way indirectly factors in.


The "youthfulness" (neotony/paedomorphism?) that seems to be attractive to males universally is best represented in the alpinization process isn't it? Interesting thesis. I understand your drift.


So there are more ways than simply depigmentation to select for femininity. For sure. Depigmentation is, in isolation, not even a significant one, but it still factors in in combination with the other parameters.


Why don't the two go hand in hand if that is all males are selecting for? Because it is, as you said above, not all they are selecting for.


Also, I don't think anybody really does use depigmentation alone to classify someone. True, they don't. It's by tendency significantly over-rated, however, at least on tNP, Skadi, Stirpes, and related boards.


Depigmentation didn't develop in a vaccuum, and always seems to appear hand in hand with one or more other traits, depending on the type (Baltid, Eastern Nordid, etc) Depigmentation supposedly correlates with what precisely in these types?


Though I agree that fair colouration is can soften one's features, Absolutely.


I don't think that's how it arose. I agree. Nobody claimed it did. ;)

tuddorsped
Saturday, July 2nd, 2005, 01:44 PM
This is obviously an ignorant and uneducated (and simplistic) view by someone who doesn't know much about anthropology or the role of pigmentation in human variation. Loss of pigmentation in Northern tribes had zero to do with masculinity / femininity, but all to do with geographic and climatic driven evolution.

I would expect such an ignorant view from American people who live in a hodge-podge mongrel environment, where most females are bottle-blondes and most males are natural darks. I doubt Norwegian and Swedish men would agree with this sillyness ...

Agreed. The article is pure filth. I particularly liked the reference to two well-known homosexuals as an "exemplarily" couple.

I think loss of pigmentation was probably initially a random mutation that then became predominant through sexual selection. This seems to be the case as there simply is no strictly environmental advantage to being depigmented. (The sunlight/Vitamin D and Copper deficiency through increased dairy product theories seem to be wildly speculative at best).

Therefore sexual selection included blondism in the male as well. Not just the female. Anyone who has read Rigsthula knows this to be true.

I believe the "tall dark stranger" myth came about in the Regency period. Indeed, during the 17th and 18th Centuries, blondism was considered plebeian and was connected with loose morals and promiscuity by the Upper classes. Think it only regained its primacy during the late Victorian period.

Vanir
Saturday, July 2nd, 2005, 01:49 PM
Testosterone influences secondary sexual characteristics, (ie hirsuteness) but I don't think that it alters pigmentation. I haven't seen anything to corroborate that.

Indeed, my sister is darker than my brother and I (my brother is fairer than me still) and I can tell you also, neither me or my brother have ever been mistaken for being feminine :laugh:

Death and the Sun
Saturday, July 2nd, 2005, 02:34 PM
My cousin twins (boy and a girl) are the same way. Neither one of them is blonde anymore, but the girl remained blonde in her early teens. Her twin brother was never blond, but their elder brother was blonde in his early teens but started to become darker sooner, and ended up having darker pigmentation than his sister. My brother is a lot darker than me.


Well, this is all anecdotal evidence of course and in no way scientific (btw I'm sceptical of the study mentioned in the op too), but I've seen reverse cases too, where the male sibling is a lot more dark than his sisters.

Lissu
Saturday, July 2nd, 2005, 02:44 PM
Well, this is all anecdotal evidence of course and in no way scientific (btw I'm sceptical of the study mentioned in the op too), but I've seen reverse cases too, where the male sibling is a lot more dark than his sisters.Male sibling was darker than his sister? How is this reverse? :scratch:

It would really be interesting to see if there's any proofs if hormones really affect on pigmentation. One way to proof this would be giving testosterone to women. But of course, I don't want to be a guinea pig for this kind of an experiment :speechles

Ok, I am dropping this subject because I have no proofs to offer. Anyway, light pigmentation does not make men any less masculine IMO ;)

As for the pictures in the first post, I don't see any difference in the possible masculity or femininity between the 2 pictures.

Death and the Sun
Saturday, July 2nd, 2005, 03:00 PM
Eh ... I meant that the male sibling was less dark than the sister.

Triglav
Saturday, July 2nd, 2005, 04:05 PM
Sorry, I didn't know that was your first name. Your name is cooler than mine. You should be proud. :D
Of course it ain't. :D

jcs
Saturday, July 2nd, 2005, 05:21 PM
Well, this is all anecdotal evidence of course and in no way scientific (btw I'm sceptical of the study mentioned in the op too), but I've seen reverse cases too, where the male sibling is a lot [less] dark than his sisters.
I think the greater degree of depigmentation in females than males would be more of a trend than an absolute.

I, too, have noticed that women are typically more depigmented than men, especially in skin colour (as opposed to hair and eye); but I think it is as likely that this may be due one's activity and environment (spending time in the sun, for example) as much as hormones.

Perhaps "depigmented" is the wrong word to use, though. Observe with the picture in post #3 that the man is not depigmented inasmuch as his skin is ruddier.

Loki
Saturday, July 2nd, 2005, 06:05 PM
I have not seen any studies for this, but I have heard this could be so, and usually taking a look at siblings this seems to be the case. for example, I know siblings (man and a woman) who are both very blonde (white blonde still in their adulthood) but still, the brother is slightly more pigmented than his sister. My cousin twins (boy and a girl) are the same way. Neither one of them is blonde anymore, but the girl remained blonde in her early teens. Her twin brother was never blond, but their elder brother was blonde in his early teens but started to become darker sooner, and ended up having darker pigmentation than his sister. My brother is a lot darker than me.


With all due respect, your handful of personal experiences mean nothing in the grand scheme of things. Actually, in my case it was the opposite. Two of my sisters are darker than I am. I know several other cases where male siblings are fairer than the females.

If one wants to claim such a controversial thing, i.e. that female siblings are on average lighter / darker pigmented than males, then you need survey evidence to back up that claim ... otherwise it is worthless and mere speculation.

Loki
Saturday, July 2nd, 2005, 06:20 PM
Such as John R. Baker? He wrote already in 1974 that pigmentation is the least significant criterium to distinguish (sub-)races. You have the book in your library if I recall correctly. ;)

Yeah, that I know .. but did Baker write that males are darker pigmented than females in humans, and that dark pigment in humans is "more masculine"? I think not! Or please prove me wrong by quoting chapter and verse. :rolleyes:


How an increase or decrease of pigmentation occurs isn't even peripheral relevant to Frost's and Sailer's observations. Thesis is only that a given person leaves a more feminine impression if her skin is lighter.

That "thesis" is pure Hollywoodian rubbish and has only relevance in artificial American society. For Europeans it means nothing at all.


Apart from arguing that the picture to the right does not look more masculine to the majority (something that should be easily refuted empirically), there is really no way you can avoid the consequences of the conclusion without leaving the methodologic path of observation and reason.

Oh? I beg to disagree! This is not reason, but thought lines based on observations on a wannabe society's artificial pigmentation where non-blonde women like to dye their hair blonde.


Not necessarily, as it is really just one out of many criteria that determines a feminine or masculine impression.

There is one case where pigmentation and masculinity can go hand-in-hand, and that is where a male would appear sun-tanned from labour outside. But this has nothing to do with natural born skin colour, and absolutely nothing to do with hair and eye colour. Also remember that most blonde Nordics from Scandinavia are able to tan their skin in the sun.


Amongst Europids in general, men seem to have a marginally higher degree of hair and eye depigmentation, even, albeit such studies are rare and unreliable. One could as well explain the differences by statistical errors.

Evidence, please?


Again, non sequitur, as it is not claimed that blond males, Viking raiders or Mr. Kahn look feminine; it's merely claimed that they or he would leave an even more masculine impression if they or he would be more pigmented.

This claim is erroneous, because it is based on personal taste of a handful of individuals in artificial American society who are far removed from their natural instincts, and even further removed from reality. Many Americans can't even point out Europe on a world map ...

SouthernBoy
Saturday, July 2nd, 2005, 09:09 PM
I'm sure little dimorphism, in most cases, is the result of homogeny. I would much rather we had thirty groups that varied very little, than three groups that varied a lot.

Odin Biggles
Sunday, July 3rd, 2005, 04:08 AM
Lets say theres about a billion Whites on planet earth, with the light eyed of the non White races thrown in as well, say about half of that have dark eyes, thats about 500,000,000 light eyed people in the world.

SouthernBoy
Sunday, July 3rd, 2005, 07:48 AM
Is your definition of White exclusively light-eyed? I'm sure no more than 20% of native Europeans are light-eyed. I think your numbers are way off.

Edwin
Sunday, July 3rd, 2005, 09:01 AM
Depigmentation, or blondism, of the hair might have this effect, but rufosity certainly does not. But its effect is not exactly the opposite, it being one more of disorientation I venture.

Nice thread :king

Odin Biggles
Sunday, July 3rd, 2005, 09:35 AM
Is your definition of White exclusively light-eyed? I'm sure no more than 20% of native Europeans are light-eyed. I think your numbers are way off.
No it isnt which is why I said half of the white pop are dark eyed...read it again ! ;).

20% is a bit low, i'm counting grey,green, blue etc, i'll have a look see for some stats.

Lissu
Sunday, July 3rd, 2005, 02:31 PM
With all due respect, your handful of personal experiences mean nothing in the grand scheme of things. Actually, in my case it was the opposite. Two of my sisters are darker than I am. I know several other cases where male siblings are fairer than the females.

If one wants to claim such a controversial thing, i.e. that female siblings are on average lighter / darker pigmented than males, then you need survey evidence to back up that claim ... otherwise it is worthless and mere speculation.I already stated, that


Ok, I am dropping this subject because I have no proofs to offer.

;)

Constantinus
Sunday, July 3rd, 2005, 04:20 PM
I'm way paler than my sister. I'm paler than just about every non-albino creature, now that I come to think of it. I tan, but it is a very light goldenbrown colour.

Agrippa
Sunday, July 3rd, 2005, 05:22 PM
I think it makes sense, not necessarily for skin color, but for the general pigmentation, especially of the hair and eyes. For skin pigmentation we have to assume more factors, but for hair and eye color it can be exclusively sexual selection or group differentiation (a la "this is ours this not...").

One idea I heard is that especially the Northern Cromagnids had rather coarse and masculine, but of course rather progressive features.

My reasoning would be like that: This robust Cromagnids of the North had no problems with their males, since thats one of the possible ideals of a male, being robust and storng boned, even coarse to some degree, but for the females this racial type might have lead to some kind of compensation. To make the harder features softer, they developed even lighter, rosy skin and most important the lighter hair and eyes.
Later other people came from the South, but this established pigmetation feature, a big advantage for females and rather positive for other reasons (UV, VitD, nutrition etc.) too was kept even in the mixture and so the following groups get in the mixture the feature too and a relatively high percentage of "general blondism" via sexual selection. Even when the types get more gracile the advantage is still there, since it makes "cute features" even more extreme. But the first, the main selection to bring up a relatively homogenous light population which later mixed with other types in the North might have happened as I described above...
At least it doesnt sound that improbable to me.

Looking at someone like Kahn and imagine a similar female with dark hair...
Furthermore its right, the really reddish-hard skin tone doesnt look more feminine, its rather the milky-rosy-white one. Rosy cheeks look more feminine, especially if the cheeks are full, or at least they make a female face looking better (with the rosy-full cheeks) than a male face, for which such a feature is less important. Otherwise the whole rouge use and abuse would be less common probably.
Even Negrid females try to fake it oftentimes...

Loki
Sunday, July 3rd, 2005, 06:20 PM
Most of these conclusions are anecdotal without a shred of credible evidence from natural blond populations. I would shelve its findings personally.

Agrippa
Sunday, July 3rd, 2005, 06:34 PM
If someone is able to do it I would suggest to take a very strong-robust, even coarse build Cromagnid woman and make it first light and then dark (hair and eye only - and eye, hair and skin), just to compare the effect. :)
As I said, for the skin color there are more than one factor to think of, for hair too but sexual selection might be of much greater importance.

anonymaus
Sunday, July 3rd, 2005, 06:41 PM
The whole point of the article is to point out the relative nature of pigmentation and complexion within different societies, and how they are related to selection and breeding.

This is not an article of hispanic vs nordic absolutism--if anyone thinks that, they need to read it again. If anyone who commented on this merely read the post and not the source article: they need to go read the source article.


That "thesis" is pure Hollywoodian rubbish and has only relevance in artificial American society. For Europeans it means nothing at all.

Steve sailer sure isn't your average Hollywoodite. More to the point: the term "the fair sex" is an ancient european one. The relevance might be stronger than you imagine, seeing as it has carried on in our lexicon for this many centuries.

I'm not going to defend Tiwaz' thesis for him, because that's his job, but I think a few people misunderstood the aim of the article in the first place. Smells like reactionary paranoia to me.

Loki
Sunday, July 3rd, 2005, 07:07 PM
... I think a few people misunderstood the aim of the article in the first place. Smells like reactionary paranoia to me.

Are you claiming that I misunderstood the aim of the article, or that I am acting with "reactionary paranoia"? I resent the idea. I think the findings in the first posted article is rubbish, and of no relevance to natural depigmented Northern European populations. If you think this is "reactionary paranoia", then you're totally out of line.

anonymaus
Sunday, July 3rd, 2005, 07:09 PM
Are you claiming that I misunderstood the aim of the article, or that I am acting with "reactionary paranoia"? I resent the idea. I think the findings in the first posted article is rubbish, and of no relevance to natural depigmented Northern European populations. If you think this is "reactionary paranoia", then you're totally out of line.

You weren't included in that. :)

actually, i'll add:


of no relevance to natural depigmented Northern European populations

I happen to agree with you on this in particular. I would want to see North European data from North European population by North European scientists before I thought twice about its relevance to that. It requires a culturally sensitive scientist, one who belongs to the group he studies, to fully grasp even his own findings in such areas. It is not pure science and, thus, cannot be purely objective.

Agrippa
Sunday, July 3rd, 2005, 07:27 PM
What shouldnt be forgotten is that in other cultures and groups, as most of us know, light skin color is rather positively seen as well, ESPECIALLY in females. That can be seen in classic East and South Asian art f.e., which means that there is sexual selection of females for fairer skin and this is for females at least more important than for males. Anyway, lighter pigmentation is for sure a neotonic and therefore at least for male selection of females a positive connotation.
Of course the perspective and conclusions of the article are too simplistic and can only be used for inspiration if anything.

This comment is awful:

"Since higher-ranking men marry the more attractive women, the upper classes tend to lighten in color with each passing generation, as in India."
Especially because the most leading castes, especially in the North, might have been much lighter at the beginning rather than getting light just by sexual selection. But of course thats typical for the simplistic style.

Does anyone have the book of Frost and read it? It might be far better than this and can't be worse.

I tried to find some references and found different results for pigmentation differences in males in females. On the one hand I read that steroids lead to darker hair pigmentation, on the other hand in the ("Fischer Lexikon Anthropologie" S. 97) it is written that in most parts of Europe females have darker hair and eyes than males.
Whats for sure is, that during puberty and under the influence of hormones the hair darkens.

Interesting article about the presence in art:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1510227&dopt=Abstract


We also analysed the effect of sex on constitutive pigmentation,
EDR and MDR (Table 3). Sex-based differences in
constitutive skin pigmentation have been reported in numerous
anthropological studies, using a variety of skin reflectance
measurement techniques. In the majority of these
reports females display higher skin reflectance than males,
this result being consistent across many different cultural
groups (e.g. 19–23). This trend was observed in this study,
however, the results were not significant, as was observed by
Nordlund and Ortonne (24) and Lock-Andersen et al. (18).
Contrarily, Roh et al. (16) reported that the sex differences in
pigmentation were significant in a sample from Korea, with
males being darker. Some authors (e.g. 25), argue, however,
that such sex-based differences are not representative of
biological differences between the sexes, and instead reflect
differing patterns of activity or clothing between males and
females. For example, in American society it may be socially
acceptable for males to remove their shirts while outside on a
hot day, while such behaviour is uncommon among females.

http://www.erin.utoronto.ca/~eparra/profile/PDF%20files/Wagner%20et%20al.,%202002%20%7BSkin%20re sponses%20to%20UVR%7D.pdf

and

http://www.bgsu.edu/departments/chem/faculty/leontis/chem447/PDF_files/Jablonski_skin_color_2000.pdf


The advantage of light skin is that it lets more sunlight through, which leads to increased production of vitamin D3, necessary for calcium absorption and bone growth. The lighter skin of women results either from sexual preference or from the higher calcium needs of women during pregnancy and lactation (also possibly from both).

http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Skin_pigmentation

Loki
Sunday, July 3rd, 2005, 08:20 PM
What shouldnt be forgotten is that in other cultures and groups, as most of us know, light skin color is rather positively seen as well, ESPECIALLY in females. That can be seen in classic East and South Asian art f.e., which means that there is sexual selection of females for fairer skin and this is for females at least more important than for males.

To say "especially in females" would be a biased assertion - because these old Asian art forms were mostly performed by males who craved lighter females. Of course that doesn't mean the females didn't crave lighter males too ... it is just that old societies were paternalistic and male-dominated. Both sexes in Asia habitually crave fairer sexual partners. Just look at Asian women's preferences for fair, Nordic males. And that is in India and China, with combined populations of over 2 billion people - a third of the world's population.

newenstad
Sunday, July 3rd, 2005, 08:24 PM
Just look at Asian women's preferences for fair, Nordic males.

Every girl likes Nordic males! :D :thumbsup

Agrippa
Sunday, July 3rd, 2005, 08:29 PM
To say "especially in females" would be a biased assertion - because these old Asian art forms were mostly performed by males who craved lighter females. Of course that doesn't mean the females didn't crave lighter males too ... it is just that old societies were paternalistic and male-dominated. Both sexes in Asia habitually crave fairer sexual partners. Just look at Asian women's preferences for fair, Nordic males. And that is in India and China, with combined populations of over 2 billion people - a third of the world's population.

I agree with you that fair skin is, or at least was in most groups a positive factor for males either and that the female choice was not always that important, but on the other hand, the depiction might represent a general trend in art to see extremes. Still I would argue that light skin might have been of greater importance in females, as skin is generally more important for females anyway. Just think about wrinkles, scars and any "disturbance" of the facial smoothness, like facial hair, having a far greater, more negative effect since facial relief is rather masculine and facial smoothness rather feminine associated.
So I would see it in a bigger context of whats most important for male and female selection. So the same feature, though in both sexes rather positively or at least neutral might be more or less important in this or that sex.


Just look at Asian women's preferences for fair, Nordic males.

The question would be which features are decisive and which are just of secondary importance, what doesnt mean they are unimportant.

Loki
Sunday, July 3rd, 2005, 08:44 PM
Still I would argue that light skin might have been of greater importance in females, as skin is generally more important for females anyway. Just think about wrinkles, scars and any "disturbance" of the facial smoothness like facial hair have a far greater, more negative effect since facial relief is masculine and facial smoothness ratehr feminine associated.


Sure, I agree. The whole female cosmetic thing and greater care about their appearance. Males care less about the condition of their skin, etc. In the olden days, when a male was heavily sun-burned, it didn't matter too much. But it was taboo for females. Tanned females age less well ... and a woman without beauty is a sad thing, if she is still single. Not so for men. They can be ugly and still attract females.

Unfortunately nowadays, women also like to tan.

tuddorsped
Sunday, July 3rd, 2005, 11:56 PM
Steve sailer sure isn't your average Hollywoodite. More to the point: the term "the fair sex" is an ancient european one. The relevance might be stronger than you imagine, seeing as it has carried on in our lexicon for this many centuries.



Rubbish.

It was coined by Cervantes in the 17th Century and has nothing to do with pigmentation anyway. It means 'of pleasing appearance'.

Sorry, but I can't stand unscientific ahistorical claptrap being spewed to justify this nonsense. The article is dross and politically suspect. Loke is right to be suspicious of it and fully justified in condemning it.

If that makes me a reactionary too then so be it. Like that epithet would actually upset me.

anonymaus
Monday, July 4th, 2005, 12:45 AM
It was coined by Cervantes in the 17th Century and has nothing to do with pigmentation anyway. It means 'of pleasing appearance'.

When last I looked, spain was in Europe. The meaning of the phrase was being looked at from a new perspective, attempting to determine which is the cause and which is the effect--and if there was any underlying reason for the term existing so long when so very many coined phrases disappear from our vocabulary much quicker; in this case they attacked it from a selection angle.


I can't stand unscientific ahistorical claptrap being spewed to justify this nonsense.

The article is "justifying" the "claptrap". Not the other way around. What I did was make an anecdotal reference. I wasn't aware the scientific merit of anecdotes was being judged. My apologies.


The article is dross and politically suspect. Loke is right to be suspicious of it and fully justified in condemning it.

You're welcome to your opinion, as is Loki; I do, in fact, agree with him on a portion of what he said.


If that makes me a reactionary too then so be it. Like that epithet would actually upset me.

I'm not sure if trying to fell a tree by cutting off a branch makes you a reactionary, but it sure makes you look silly.

Here is my opinion: I don't dismiss things out of hand because I'm afraid they might make a point I dislike. Nor will I seek out conspiratorial or political undertones when they aren't relevant to the accuracy of the statement or thesis. Dismissing something which is ideologically or otherwise diametrically opposed to one's views requires a steady hand to refute beyond speculation of vested interest.

There's reasonable, though mostly anecdotal, discussion going on all around you. If you wish to participate, jump right in!


Sorry

:hugs

Thorburn
Sunday, July 10th, 2005, 11:04 PM
Yeah, that I know .. but did Baker write that males are darker pigmented than females in humans, and that dark pigment in humans is "more masculine"? I think not! Or please prove me wrong by quoting chapter and verse. :rolleyes: Nah, I have been referring to his statement about depigmentation being in isolation the most irrelevant criterium to distinguish race.


That "thesis" is pure Hollywoodian rubbish and has only relevance in artificial American society. For Europeans it means nothing at all. See the next paragraph.


Oh? I beg to disagree! This is not reason, but thought lines based on observations on a wannabe society's artificial pigmentation where non-blonde women like to dye their hair blonde. Does the right picture look more masculine to you than the left one?

If so, why would it if nothing but complexion changed?


There is one case where pigmentation and masculinity can go hand-in-hand, and that is where a male would appear sun-tanned from labour outside. Because they are darker in complexion in other words?


But this has nothing to do with natural born skin colour, and absolutely nothing to do with hair and eye colour. Surely, the pictures apply to complexion, i. e. skin tone (including lip tone and contrast).

If this can be analogously applied to coloration in general is a good question. By mere feeling I would affirm it at least in the case of hair color. Might be exactly why "Gentlemen prefer blondes", and why women tend to dye their hair lighter. Would also explain why Nordish women prefer dark-haired men. (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=17091) Hair and skin depigmentation would also have in common that they are neotenic traits.

Both genders tend to prefer light eyes on the other hand, thus the expansion of the thesis to eye coloration appears to be a bit jolty.


Also remember that most blonde Nordics from Scandinavia are able to tan their skin in the sun. Absolutely.


This claim is erroneous, because it is based on personal taste of a handful of individuals in artificial American society who are far removed from their natural instincts, and even further removed from reality. Many Americans can't even point out Europe on a world map ... Not at all. That's an empiric observation one can draw from the picture above. It could, of course, not be universal, e. g. not generally applicable to all human face forms. But in that case we would need a counter-example. In the meantime, let's call it a refutable assumption based on observation.

I also think that some confusion in this thread arose. That depigmentation supports femininty does not mean that Nordish males look feminine. It also does not mean that depigmented groups (e. g. robust Dalofaelids) look more feminine that pigmented groups (e. g. gracile Mediterraneans), as pigmentation is only one of many factors that support a more feminine or masculine impression in groups and individuals. Compared to morphology it would at best be secondary to almost irrelevant.

In addition, sexual dimorphism amongst certain Nordish populations seems to be very high, i. e. males tend to look rather masculine per se.

Similarly, it says nothing about about differences in femininty of given depigmented vs. pigmented population groups.

What it means, as a refutable assumption, is that a darker complexion makes a given individual look more masculine, and, e contrario, a lighter complexion makes an individual look more feminine. Not in absolute but in relative terms.

I actually thought that "extreme Nordicists" would be happy about the discovery that Nordish girls have by birthright a femininty bonus. ;)

Loki
Sunday, July 10th, 2005, 11:28 PM
Does the right picture look more masculine to you than the left one?

If so, why would it if nothing but complexion changed?

It is an unfair comparison, because the tone has not been changed across the board... only the skin colour was made lighter in the left one (or darker in the right). With the result that the lips still look dark in contrast (suggesting lipstick in the left one), and the eye brows still dark in the first (suggesting female make-up). In natural conditions, pigmentation of fair people are generally lighter in their other features too, like fair eyebrows. ;) Thus it is a misleading and unfair/unnatural comparison. Fair men don't normally wear lipstick (except in gay bars :laugh: ).


Because they are darker in complexion in other words?

Nope.


Surely, the pictures apply to complexion, i. e. skin tone (including lip tone and contrast).

Good thing you noticed the contrast. Bad thing you didn't take it into consideration.


If this can be analogously applied to coloration in general is a good question. By mere feeling I would affirm it at least in the case of hair color. Might be exactly why "Gentlemen prefer blondes", and why women tend to dye their hair lighter. Would also explain why Nordish women prefer dark-haired men. (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=17091)

One can also claim that Indian and Chinese women prefer light-haired Nordish men. All this merely points to sexual curiosity of things different. It has nothing to do with masculinity/femininity attached to pigmentation. This curiosity streak finds its most extreme expression in bestiality, which is not uncommon in these days. It is a sexual deviation; a soul-sickness called xenophilia.


I actually thought that "extreme Nordicists" would be happy about the discovery that Nordish girls have by birthright a femininty bonus. ;)

Nordish women are universally accepted to be the most beautiful of females on earth. Likewise, the Nordic Man is the pinnacle of mankind.

Aptrgangr
Monday, July 11th, 2005, 04:24 AM
Every girl likes Nordic males! :D :thumbsup

If this was the case, we would have less problems with racemixing.
(I know, itīs not only the women...)
Perhaps you mean: every non-Nordic women likes Nordic men?
Letīs say: Not every Nordic women likes Nordic men!
It is true, dark (Asian, Romanic...) women like Nordic men.
In my town, especially in the city, there are many students around, (female)
e.g. Asian students often tried to date me, and Iīm no good-looking lady-killer...

xidaux
Monday, July 11th, 2005, 09:37 PM
This is obviously an ignorant and uneducated (and simplistic) view by someone who doesn't know much about anthropology or the role of pigmentation in human variation. Loss of pigmentation in Northern tribes had zero to do with masculinity / femininity, but all to do with geographic and climatic driven evolution.

I would expect such an ignorant view from American people who live in a hodge-podge mongrel environment, where most females are bottle-blondes and most males are natural darks. I doubt Norwegian and Swedish men would agree with this sillyness ...

Well, I have nothing against blonde hair blue eyed nordish men. I don't want anyone to get jealous either -- but I'm pretty happy to have brown hair and eyes yet still be clearly nordish. I think there might be something to it though. Paedomorphy is usually equated with feminine qualities perhaps because of the radiant juvenile glow of Hallstatt females. That whole paedmorphy thing (Hallstatts only display one form of it) evolved for that reason. I think that is where this whole thing springs from quite honestly. Paedomorphy is not really masculine when you think about it. Most males even if born blonde tend to darken more when they age compared to their female peers, I think, for the most part. Women generally do seem to equate darker qualities (to some degree) as more masculine for whatever reason. Talk to some females about it. They will explain it to you better than I can. You'll bump into one on the internet sooner or later who will shoot straight from the hip on that issue. If you give me a private message I can direct you to a female around these forums who can sum it up from her point of view. I think people may have taken it to extremes in their manichean dualistic concept of it, though (due to low intelligence); which they do with most other things of such nature. I don't think a blonde haired Anglo-Saxon would necessarily be as feminine as a Halstatt nordic male per se. However, I don't know that the browner haired Anglo-Saxons who are mixed with some native Brit/Latin (there is Latin in Cymraeg etc.. which is the Silurian) aren't more masculine than the pure East Anglian type. They could likely be though. The UP strains in the blondest Anglo-Saxon male add a rough and angular more masculine edge over the plain Hallstatt male just like in the Tronder, obviously. A blondish Celtic male would lack the ostensible extreme outward paedomorphy but other latent feminine qualities he might generally not .

What about Arnold Schwarzenegger ? He is Falish blonde; but I think being masculine has to do with things other than being extremely vain in ones appearence like he was. That was rather anti-masculine of him. He wasn't training to play a niche in a sport, powerlifting (olympics) or training to be an elite special forces soldier. Incidentally the elite special forces training would not have comprised of the same kind of total meat factory vainness he went for. Check out the French Foreign Legions workout or perhaps even the Marines workout. That's masculine -- although, he did kind of pull it off in Hollywood during "The Predator" movie as a soldier. That's Hollywood and not reality, however. Not even football quarterbacks are as rediculous as Arnold was; so you know it's extraneous vainness. Was he a construction worker in the city lifting rediculously heavy steel beams singlehandedly on his shoulder ? No, so what was the purpose ? Sheer vanity like I said.

Those meat factory looking guys would probably get murdered real easily by special forces guys trained in a more streamlined way with a Rambo or Bruce Lee type body (in most hand to hand combat situations).


I think most woman equate tallness to strength too for whatever weird reason. For instance : some guy who is only 5'6 or 5'8 who is totally buff and ripped compared to a more lanky mesomorphic guy who is 6'1. They will see the latter as stronger even though the former might be significantly heavier and technically stronger.

This I think might be a cultural ideal Loki. Although, you may disagree. :

http://www.acupofideas.com/images/cutouts/blondiedagwood.jpg

http://photos1.blogger.com/img/85/2126/320/Dagwood-and-Blondie.jpg

I easily fit within that dark, tall and handsome Dagwood paradigm-- I'm pretty much 6 foot more or less.

Loki
Monday, July 11th, 2005, 09:56 PM
This I think might be a cultural ideal Loki. Although, you may disagree. :


It's a "cultural ideal" of the vast majority of men on earth to procreate with a blond female.

Lissu
Tuesday, July 12th, 2005, 12:02 AM
About this Nordid/Nordish men being more paedomorphic than the men of other subtypes; In my opinion pure Nordics are less paedomorphic than UP men. But perhaps this is just my observation and perhaps not correct...

I have the image that especially East-Baltics are pretty paedomorphic, as the heads are usually relatively big compared to the body and nose for example is not always that big etc. If someone could tell me what exactly are paedomorphic traits, I'd be very glad :)

There was one very funny incident in Luft(Waffen)Hansa plane some time ago... There were a group of Finnish passengers aged 20-30. Not a single one of us were able to get alcoholic drinks before showing ID's that we were not under 18. The oldest one of us was 27. Finally one of the Stewardess' asked the oldest one, that what kind of a facial lotion do we use because everyone looks so young :rotfl: Perhaps it's the cold climate, clean environment and skin care by sauna, or everyone had their share of paedomorphic features, or all things combined.

In my opinion paedomordic features in men does not make then any less masculine; besides, men will always be boys, only toys will get bigger and more expensive as men get older :laugh:

xidaux
Tuesday, July 12th, 2005, 01:02 AM
It's a "cultural ideal" of the vast majority of men on earth to procreate with a blond female.


Maybe, that could be true. One has to take into consideration the cultural milieu. For instance an Italian would only have at his luckiest in the ideal world an attempt to knock up a noric or sub-nordic type blonde of chick due the exclusivity of the native ethnic types of his region ( modern globalization, yes, I am cognizant) I consider myself Scottish and given Mccolluch's estimation I could knock up a blonde Borreby, a Hallstatt nordic, an Anglo-Saxon (Albeit it should be the Northumbrian kind), a blonde keltic nordic, or a blonde sub-nordic/sub-noric (due to the auld alliance and it is a minority but still , exists. I can trace some that ancestry), and blonde Tronder (alot of the Tronders probably hedge towards redhead though).

Did you happen to read the anthropolgical classification of myself ? I think that means If was a noric that I could breed with sub-nordics (possibly Alpines) in the south and relatively pure nordics in north if I was pure noric (which I am definitely not -- a noric like affiliation is different from being a noric). So I logically scale it within the Celto-Teutonic Scottish cultural context -- that means probably sub-nordics/noric affiliated (although, not necessarily full vertical and horizontal asymptotic affiliation but also full at minority percentage rate, Northumbrian Danish-Angles or Northumbrian-Danish-Angle-Norse+Latin+Celt Norse influence (technically within the wider range Angle-Saxon type it's still non-saxon Danish Angle), Keltic nordics, NorthEastern Tronders, so on and so forth blah blah blah.

I've been essentially practicising onanism in my home town. Several girls tried to get me to knock them up intentionally. The other girls I'm not so sure about. I almost did with one by accident. The other ones I pulled out intentionally -- all over their stomachs and things of that nature. I wasn't quite sure of their sub-types. One was Czech and Swedish. That could have meant a Hallstatt(Swedish side) extra nordicized sub-nordic from (Czech side) -- which is likely. In that case I probably should have knocked her up. I still can knock her up probably since she is my next door neighbor. Although, she would probably be very psychotically attached to me at this point. I don't like that. That whole Slavic reference threw me for a loop at first because I wasn't that knowledgeable of the nordish sub-types at that time. Eastern Slavic just seemed to have had a bad general vibe to me at the time due to conditioning.

I'm attracted to women phenotypically pigmented like Kristin Davis and this :

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v336/naudiz/2.jpg



Some times that whole blonde thing gets a little bimbo and cheesy like. I don't know that I would prefer all blonde women by default. Depends on the subjective person.

I takes responsibility though because it's advantageous from an evolutionary point of view just to knock up every any girl one can for the male of the species. That's the game men are hard wired for by nature. So I had to over ride the deep primal evolutionary urges it with consciensciousness intelligence. Something the negro race doesn't seem capable of doing. I'm not really attracted to red heads particulary I find. Although, from a cultural point of view I probably should be.

xidaux
Tuesday, July 12th, 2005, 02:41 AM
About this Nordid/Nordish men being more paedomorphic than the men of other subtypes; In my opinion pure Nordics are less paedomorphic than UP men. But perhaps this is just my observation and perhaps not correct...

I have the image that especially East-Baltics are pretty paedomorphic, as the heads are usually relatively big compared to the body and nose for example is not always that big etc. If someone could tell me what exactly are paedomorphic traits, I'd be very glad :)

There was one very funny incident in Luft(Waffen)Hansa plane some time ago... There were a group of Finnish passengers aged 20-30. Not a single one of us were able to get alcoholic drinks before showing ID's that we were not under 18. The oldest one of us was 27. Finally one of the Stewardess' asked the oldest one, that what kind of a facial lotion do we use because everyone looks so young :rotfl: Perhaps it's the cold climate, clean environment and skin care by sauna, or everyone had their share of paedomorphic features, or all things combined.

In my opinion paedomordic features in men does not make then any less masculine; besides, men will always be boys, only toys will get bigger and more expensive as men get older :laugh:


No, if anything the modified UP types would be more masculine and combative by nature compared to Keltic nordics and Hallstatt nordic males. Other types have juvenile affinities too. Like Lapps and Alpines (snub noses etc..) have some kind of neotenic traits but the Alpine males make up for in other ways e.g stocky robust builds. That's why I said I don't think blonde Anglo-Saxon males or Tronders are necessarily as feminine as Hallstatt nordic males or plain Keltic nordics.

Scientifically on the whole, though, paedomorphism is linked to feminine qualities for very simple obvious reasons of evolution. What is the males traditional natural role ? Protector and provider. Female caretaker. So if the female could emulate youthfull characteristics in adulthood that would increase the males tendency towards protective urges. Perhaps upping the chance he would stick around.

I don't know that Hallstatt males exhibit the same amount of paedomorphy as the females. I'd imagine not. Some dimorphism probably exists just not as pronounced as in other types.

xidaux
Tuesday, July 12th, 2005, 03:20 AM
Strangely enough one should only notice this in teenage years. I don't want to post my pictures for compare and contrast. However, when I was lifting Olympic weights like a mad man I took a picture of just my chest, shoulder, and head from an angle wearing a shirt --- my face rough and my nose more robust and bumped ( angular) -- like a smelting of Saxon and Celt rather than just straight up Angle-Saxon. When I stopped doing that I could swear my facial features and everything shrunk down a bit. Thing is when one does squats and bench presses .. such exercises release tremoundous amounts testosterone especially squats. I'm not sure that I'm convinced that it's just in teenage years/puberty that this has effect. That kind of testosterone boost can have dramatic effect probably well into someones 20s and 30s. I was huge like 220 pounds -- Arnold Schwarzenneger at his peak was like 240 or something. I started working out again a couple days ago with olympic weights instead of just jogging, doing pullups and pushups. I'm down around the 180s low 190s range now. Probably somewhere in the former.

Being 220 pounds at 6 foot just didn't make much common sense to me at the time because I'm an engineer not a quarterback.

Nordhammer
Tuesday, July 12th, 2005, 09:56 AM
I will agree that depigmentation suggests femininity only if we can also say that depigmentation suggests evolution. ;) Besides, aren't Nords and the world in general obsessed with females, with feminine beauty? Such is the case for the popularity of lesbianism. So evolving towards a feminine model to a degree is what we want, not to say that men are "feminine" in the sense of being weak, just less primitive and more evolved. Nordish females are the epitome of feminine beauty while the men are still strong and masculine but have evolved to be more handsome and refined than the primitive darkies of the third world. Nordish men are the "golden mean", an example could be Brad Pitt, voted the most handsome man in the world. He has the "feminine" beauty of Nords, while also very masculine with strong features.

Nordhammer
Tuesday, July 12th, 2005, 10:09 AM
Nordish women prefer dark-haired men. (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=17091) Hair and skin depigmentation would also have in common that they are neotenic traits.

Both genders tend to prefer light eyes on the other hand, thus the expansion of the thesis to eye coloration appears to be a bit jolty.

It is a complex issue with what seem to be contradictions, such as women liking darker hair and darker skin than themselves, but while wanting a man with light eyes. That is a reoccurring preference I find personally with women, darker hair with the light eyes. I also find that women prefer blond male babies and children, giving them special affection, but then for some reason in adulthood they want the men darker. Also interesting is that Asian women seem to have the opposite preference, wanting much lighter men than themselves, and I see this with some Hispanic females as well. They have this special affection for Nordish men, particularly blonds. Perhaps it is just that instinctively they want to compete genetically with other light females and wish to have their progeny be lighter. I am aware of this being the fact with some women who have said that they married their husband because when they were growing up they were jealous of blond girls, and thus they wanted to marry a blond man to have their female progeny be blond.

SouthernBoy
Tuesday, July 12th, 2005, 03:52 PM
I will agree that depigmentation suggests femininity only if we can also say that depigmentation suggests evolution. ;) Besides, aren't Nords and the world in general obsessed with females, with feminine beauty? Such is the case for the popularity of lesbianism. So evolving towards a feminine model to a degree is what we want, not to say that men are "feminine" in the sense of being weak, just less primitive and more evolved. Nordish females are the epitome of feminine beauty while the men are still strong and masculine but have evolved to be more handsome and refined than the primitive darkies of the third world. Nordish men are the "golden mean", an example could be Brad Pitt, voted the most handsome man in the world. He has the "feminine" beauty of Nords, while also very masculine with strong features.
It's interesting to note too, that even though depigmentation may suggest femininity, Nordids have strong dimorphism. :)

Thorburn
Saturday, July 23rd, 2005, 05:52 AM
It is an unfair comparison, because the tone has not been changed across the board... only the skin colour was made lighter in the left one (or darker in the right). With the result that the lips still look dark in contrast (suggesting lipstick in the left one), Surely, and that's quite correct, as it is about skin complexion and not about overall brightness of the picture. In other words, all other factors being equal, a lighter skin suggests a higher degree of femininity.


One can also claim that Indian and Chinese women prefer light-haired Nordish men. Do you have any evidence for this claim?

In general, there is miscegenative trend, I believe, amongst East Asian women towards Europoid men. One of the primary reasons would be that the latter, on average, are less neotenic and more masculine in appearence than East Asian men. More masculine not because they are depigmented, but primarily because of their morphology. Similarly Europoid men tend to miscegenate with East Asian women because their girls are, on average, more neotenic than Europoid women -- again despite of their dark hair and eye coloration and not because of it.


All this merely points to sexual curiosity of things different. This I can grant, and it has, of course, a valid biological function.


It has nothing to do with masculinity/femininity attached to pigmentation. From the fact that B is true, it doesn't follow that A is untrue. ;)


This curiosity streak finds its most extreme expression in bestiality, which is not uncommon in these days. Bestiality has primarily other reasons, I believe.


It is a sexual deviation; a soul-sickness called xenophilia. The rule "opposites attract each other" has, as mentioned, a valid biological function. In general, sexual individuals look for partners whose genes are different (but not too different) from their own. It increases the chances of their offspring to survive.


Nordish women are universally accepted to be the most beautiful of females on earth. They are -- if you include the periphery. Nordish not Nordic.


Likewise, the Nordic Man is the pinnacle of mankind. Nah, far from it. Faelids and Atlanto-Mediterraneans are considered significantly more handsome -- not only by the "most beautiful females on earth" but universally.


I will agree that depigmentation suggests femininity only if we can also say that depigmentation suggests evolution. ;) Amongst human beings it's a neotenic trait, thus by tendency it is evolutionary advanced. However, morphologically more advanced are surely the Northern Sinids. Rushton certainly hit the nail on the head.


Besides, aren't Nords and the world in general obsessed with females, with feminine beauty? Such is the case for the popularity of lesbianism. So evolving towards a feminine model to a degree is what we want, not to say that men are "feminine" in the sense of being weak, just less primitive and more evolved. Nordish females are the epitome of feminine beauty while the men are still strong and masculine but have evolved to be more handsome and refined than the primitive darkies of the third world. I fully agree with you. Not to forget the dimorphism SouthernBoy mentioned. It compensates for lighter pigmentation.


Nordish men are the "golden mean", an example could be Brad Pitt, voted the most handsome man in the world. He has the "feminine" beauty of Nords, while also very masculine with strong features. And he's surely not Nordic (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=14617). Faelid dominates in my view. Thanks for proving my point. ;)

SouthernBoy
Saturday, July 23rd, 2005, 06:42 AM
Amongst human beings it's a neotenic trait, thus by tendency it is evolutionary advanced. However, morphologically more advanced are surely the Northern Sinids. Rushton certainly hit the nail on the head.
Neoteny seems to be the primary factor of "hominidization". I would be interested in debating whether or not pedomorphism is favorable to gerontomorphism; the latter being a well-manifested Nordid condition. :)

I'm saving to buy Rushton and Baker's books, but I suck at saving money. I won't be surprised if I buy a t-shirt or order a pizza. Goddamn this perpetual ignorance I inflict on myself. :D

Have a nice day, Thorburn.

lei.talk
Saturday, July 23rd, 2005, 07:07 AM
Neoteny seems to be the primary factor of "hominidization".judging from the affect of neotenisation on other animals,
it would seem to be an effect of domestication
- rather than one of evolutionary advancement.

Loki
Saturday, July 23rd, 2005, 10:17 AM
In other words, all other factors being equal, a lighter skin suggests a higher degree of femininity.

The logic you use or disseminate from arguments beggars belief. I have no idea how you came to this conclusion.

Thorburn
Saturday, July 23rd, 2005, 10:43 AM
The logic you use or disseminate from arguments beggars belief. I have no idea how you came to this conclusion.
Empiricism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism). ;)

Loki
Saturday, July 23rd, 2005, 10:55 AM
Empiricism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism). ;)

Wikipedia also claims we are "White Supremacists". :rotfl:

Thorburn
Saturday, July 23rd, 2005, 11:12 AM
Wikipedia also claims we are "White Supremacists". :rotfl:
Their philosophy and logics stuff is quite good, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi) though. ;)

Falcon
Thursday, November 10th, 2011, 05:45 PM
Females may be lighter in the sense, that they may be a little more anaemic than men. IE, men are ruddier while females are sallow or yellowish.
Red or Pink skin does not exactly means pigmentation.
And concerning hair and eye color, it may be same as intelligence. Men are both more Bright Blond and Bright Red and on the other hand, more Dark Brown as well, while females tend to be concentrated in medium browns.
Just a speculation, though