Mexican women are easy as

[mayugastank]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





by Dan Eden for Viewzone
Do you remember being in high school or college and noticing a group of females who had their own special group? More than likely they were the "popular" girls and the most pretty and conceited. When these kinds of people are depicted in movies they often get their egos crushed by plain classmates with better personalities. But, unfortunately, in real life this is unlikely. Being "beautiful" has its rewards and these usually continue throughout adulthood.



Studies show attractive people prefer to associate with others like themselves.

The secret of beauty and attractiveness has been a quest of humans for as long as we have been civilized. Many women (and some "metrosexual" men) spend up to one-third of their income on looking good. Why?

Besides being popular, beautiful people get special attention from teachers, the legal system and employers. Good-looking people tend to make more money than their plain-Jane counterparts, according to a study by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. Researchers found that beautiful people tend to earn 5 percent more an hour than their less comely colleagues. If that weren't enough, the Fed also discovered a "plainness penalty," punishing below-average-looks with earnings of 9 percent less an hour.

While we instinctively know what appeals to our own sense of beauty -- we know it when we see it -- defining what determines attractiveness is not always easy. In frustration, we often give up and claim that "beauty is in they eye of the beholder." But is beauty really a personal phenomenon?

Recent studies have shown that the secret of beauty may at last be understood. It seems that attractiveness may be hard wired in our brains.

Experiments designed to measure attractiveness usually involve showing a series of images of human faces and asking subjects to rate their visual appeal. Surprisingly, people from a variety of different ages, races and cultures agree on what is and isn't beautiful. Babies as young as 3 months can identify and prefer faces that most adults would deem beautiful. Europeans can pick out the same beautiful Japanese faces as Japanese subjects; Japanese can agree on which European faces another Europeans will view as beautiful. In fact, humans can even agree on the attractiveness of monkey faces, thus ruling out most unique racial, cultural and even species influences. So what's going on?

Facial recognition is a complex process. Only recently, with the need to spot criminals and terrorists, computer facial recognition programs have been developed to analyze the subtle variations of such things as the space between our eyes, the size of our noses and the proportions of our facial features. Scientists have discovered certain mathematical facial proportions that identify beautiful people. But is there more to beauty than the mere arrangement of eyes, noses and chins?

Our brains seem to do much more than simply recognize a beautiful face. Most people can assess emotions, personality traits and fertility -- as well as beauty -- almost instantaneously. In fact, the human brain has special part called the fusiform, located in the back of the head near the spine. It's the same neural pathway needed to recognize faces of family, friends and people we have met. When it's damaged, the patients cannot recognize anyone, even people they has just met. Also, in experiments, they cannot discriminate between photographs of plain and beautiful faces.

Studies show that when we recognize a face as "beautiful" we are actually making a judgement about the health and vitality of that individual. We interpret facial symmetry (the similarity of left and right halves of a face) and the smoothness of the skin to mean that a person has good genes and has been free from diseases. This is part of what we mean by "beautiful" but it is just the beginning.

Studies have shown that facial symmetry is one of the best observational indicators of good genes and healthy development and that these traits are what we mean when we say someone is attractive. Look at these examples below.



Which face do you think is more healthy?


A non-symmetrical face, or Facial Asymmetry (FA), increases with the presence of genetic disturbances such as deleterious recessives and with homozygosity. Also, FA increases with the exposure to environmental perturbations during development (i.e. extremes in temperature and pollution). Think of Facial Asymmetry as the inability of an individual to resist the disruptions in developmental symmetry. This implies a genetic weakness and less than optimum health.
Bilateral Symmetry (see image above) is thus equated with heterozygosity and resistance to infection and debilitating pathogens. Bilateral Symmetry and parasite resistance are factors that show optimum health and increase the success in intersexual and intrasexual competition.

Note: The term homozygosity refers to the similarity of genetic characteristics that can cause a weakening of a species -- such as occurrs with in-breeding. Heterozygosity, on the other hand, is the result of genetic variety which is able to change and adapt to environmental conditions. The latter is believed to be more beneficial to a species.


A plethora of recent experiments have shown that, aside from symmetry and being "healthy," men and women form opinions about attractiveness based on slightly different criteria which can change depending on such things as their age, hormones and potential for being a mate.

Attractiveness from a female's perspective

In one experiment, the researcher selected photographs of a man with what has been described as "feminine" features. These included a small nose, narrow chin and large eyes. This image was digitally morphed with an image of a very "masculine" face, with a strong jaw, big nose and small eyes. The two images were morphed in progressive steps in such a way that the viewer could adjust the degree of either masculine or feminine features with a slider, corresponding to which image the female subjects thought was most attractive. Subjects were also asked about their menstrual cycles to determine their potential fertility and estrogen levels.



While most women preferred the middle range -- a combination of both feminine and masculine features -- subjects who were in their most fertile hormonal cycles preferred the more masculine image. The same women, when later tested during their infertile days, selected the more average looking male image as most attractive.

Scientists reason that fertility causes hormonal changes in the brain that seek out strong testosterone traits in their potential mates. These traits are usually associated with aggressive behavior, risk taking and verility -- traits that are advantageous in the act of procreation.

Some other interesting studies may be explained using this biological model. University of Aberdeen psychologist Ben Jones and his team tested the impact that the opinions of others has on our perception of beauty by giving women a test in which they had to choose the more attractive of pairs of male faces and to rate how much more handsome they found them. [The Proceedings of The Royal Society]

They were then shown a short video in which the same faces were displayed. But each face was being looked at by a woman smiling or one showing a bored or neutral expression.

After watching the video, the researchers repeated the initial test.

"We found that the slideshow caused women to become more attracted to the men who were being smiled at by other women," said Jones. This shows that people are using the attitudes of others to shape their own judgement about the attractiveness of some people.

In other words, a woman may not be sure how attractive a face is. But if other women show that they're attracted they dismiss their doubt. This may explain the "groupie" and the "cult of personality" phenomenon and why so many ugly men learn to play the guitar.

The test had the opposite effect on men. When they were asked to look at the same male faces, those who got the approving female glances were rated less attractive. Could this be jealosy?

When women are assessing a man's face for a marriage partner they usually react to a man with a wide smile, small eyes, a big nose and a large jaw. This is thought to indicate a strong testosterone level, a potentially good provider and protector for family life.

Studies show that younger women rely more on the physical attractiveness of a man than do older women. The latter incorporate such things as wealth, stability, power and faithfulness in their definition of attractive. This demonstrates wisdom since the most recent studies prove that less attractive men are more faithful and loving than handsome men.

Attractiveness from a male's perspective

As might be expected, females tend to place less of their criteria for beauty on physical attractiveness than do males. This might be a lucky break for unattractive men! A recent study published in Psychological Science found that when seeking a date, men do not factor in their own attractiveness (or lack of) when assessing their chances of success with a beautiful woman. Sometimes they are lucky, but the study did find that, most of the time, people with similar levels of physical attractiveness usually end up dating each other and they aspire to date people who are slightly more attractive than themselves.

When reality sets in, less attractive people justify their less than beautiful partners by emphasizing their personality traits, like a sense of humor or kindness.

The ideal face of an attractive woman, according to experiments with men, has high cheek bones, big eyes and a thin jaw. From infancy to adulthood, our faces are growing at different rates and proportions, depending on such things as hormones. When viewing the proportions of elements such as nose size and facial proportions, males usually select features that are characteristic of a woman of 24.8 years -- perhaps also related to the perceived age of optimal fertility.

Some men prefer even younger proportions because these child-like faces stimulate emotions of caring and protection. These emotions seem to be more significant than sexual urges and procreation in some men. This can be in the psychological realm that dangerously approaches pathology and the law. Yet this "lolita" proclivity seems similarly hard wired.

Professor Victor Johnstone, of the University of New Mexico studied this phenomenon and reported that, "We found that that there definitely was a type of adult female face that men found attractive and that it was different from the average face," says Johnston. "The two key measurements are the distance from the eyes to the chin, which is shorter - in fact it is the length normally found in a girl aged eleven and a half; and the size of the lips, which are fatter -- the size normally found on a fourteen-year-old girl".

When it comes to body proportions, most men usually like big breasts and hips -- again possibly linked to the ability to bare and nurture offspring. Estrogen, the hormone associated with female fertility, encourages fat deposits around the buttocks and thighs. So full buttocks and a narrow waist send out the same message as the ideal face: "I'm full of estrogen and very fertile." Studies by Dr Devendra Singh from the University of Texas show the optimal preferred waist to hip ratio was 0.67 to 0.80, while a larger waist was viewed by males as meaning the woman was more faithful and kind and a woman with a smaller waist was judged as being more aggressive and ambitious.

Dr Michael Cunningham of Elmhurst College, Illinois found that if a male is judging a female in an interview for a job, a woman with expressive eyebrows and dialated pupils has the edge and is likely to be considered more competent. The same features would not be judged as attractive if the same man was looking for a mate. Cunningham also found that attractive women with mature features, such as small eyes and a large nose, received more respect from men.

"Average" is beautiful -- not!

In the late 1870s, scientist and eugenicist Sir Francis Galton developed an image of the prototypical "face of crime" by creating composite photos of men convicted of serious offenses. Though Galton failed to discover anything abnormal in his composite criminal faces, he did find that the resulting visages were shockingly handsome. Later, Galton tried to make the case that a face with average proportions would always look more beautiful than a unique, individual face.

Subsequent studies of both men and women had shown that averaging features seemed to make the faces more attractive than any specific face. When a collection of computer averaged faces and real female faces were submitted to a famous modeling agency for comments, 80% of the computer generated faces were selected as having potential to be a model. Scientists believed that average faces were more easy for the brain to recognize and require less analysis and processing in the fusiform. This ease of recognition was perceived as attractiveness.

But this theory has recently been disproved by Dr David Perrett, of the University of St Andrews, who found that individual faces were judged more attractive than the composites.


"We found that not only were individual attractive faces preferred to the composites, but that when we used the computer to exaggerate the composite features away from the average,that too was preferred," he said.
This would account for the popularity of actresses such as Brigitte Nielsen and Daryl Hannah [right], who have features that are far from average.


Attractiveness - a summary of facts

Attractive people earn more salary and get more promotions than average looking people.
One main feature that is indicative of healthy genetics is the symmetry of the face.
Recognition of beauty fosters better mate selection and healthier breeding.
Beautiful people usually associate with other beautiful people.
Beautiful people prefer date people who are a little more attractive than themselves.
Beautiful people and less beautiful people judge beauty in the same way, although less beautiful people often consider other factors as equally important.
People consider facial characteristics similar to their parents to be more attractive.
Members of a family or relations judge facial characteristics as implying personality traits in the same way.
Studies find couples often resemble eachother in facial characteristics.
Attractive people are viewed as honest and helpful while unattractive people are viewed as rude and unfair.
Women find a man more attractive in experiments when other women are pictured smiling at him.
Females find extremely masculine faces more attractive during their fertile periods.
Studies find less attractive men are more faithful and loving than handsome men.
Women looking for a mate like small eyes, a big nose and a large jaw.
Males in experiments prefer facial ratios similar to a woman of 24.8 years old.
The ideal figure of a woman is a waist to hip ratio of 0.67 to 0.80


Psychologist David Perrett found that young men and women prefer faces that most resemble their mothers and fathers. Members of a close family also often share the interpretation of certain facial characteristics in judging someone's personality. Although this does not relate directly with beauty or attractiveness, it demonstrates that some aspects of evaluating facial characteristics may be learned.

My own take on this is that it's a matter of nature vs. nurture. Various centers of our hard wired brain, like the fusiform, compete to control our daily decisions. One center is concerned with mate selection based on physical traits. Others brain regions respond to a potential mate who is also intelligent, honest, faithful, kind and sane. Attractiveness, in the end, actually is unique to each individual. It should be said that, "beauty is in the eyes (plural) of the beholder." It's more a matter of left and right brain politics and somehow both hemispheres must work together to attract us to the perfect mate, as they usually do. Life is beautifully complex.

Facial Attraction: Choice Of Sexual Partner Shaped The Human Face

According to Science Daily, men with large jaws, flaring cheeks and large eyebrows are sexy, at least in the eyes of our ancestors, researchers at the Natural History Museum have discovered. Facial attractiveness played a major role in shaping human evolution, as studies on our fossil ancestors have shown our choice of sexual partner has shaped the human face.



"I'm too sexy for my face..."
The face holds the secret to determining the sex of our ancestors and what makes us attractive to the opposite sex for reproduction.

According to palaeontologists at the Natural History Museum, men have evolved short faces between the brow and upper lip, which exaggerates the size of their jaw, the flare of their cheeks and their eyebrows. The shorter and broader male face has also evolved alongside and the canine teeth have shrunk, so men look less threatening to competitors, yet attractive to mates.

At puberty, the region between the mouth and eyebrows, known as upper facial height, develops differently in men and women. Unlike other facial features, however, this difference cannot be explained simply in terms of men being bigger than women. In spite of their larger size men have an upper face similar in height to a female face, but much broader. These differences can be found throughout human history. As a result, a simple ratio of measures could be used to calculate facial attractiveness in a biological and mathematical way.

In fact, scientists have recently invented a computer program that can recognize attractiveness. See here.

Dr Eleanor Weston, palaeontologist at the Natural History Museum said, 'The evolution of facial appearance is central to understanding what makes men and women attractive to each other. We have found the distance between the lip and brow was probably immensely important to what made us attractive in the past, as it does now.'


###

Back to Viewzone || Comments? || Appearance Is Everything

Also on viewzone.com



Why Some People Hurt Children -- viewzone looks at the causes and thinking of pedophiles.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Why the Somali Are Pirates -- there's another side to this story. After you hear it you just might change your mind about what they are doing.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What your finger lengths can predict about you and others...




Finger lengths are different for men and women. But this difference can reveal a lot!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here's how to know if he/she is lying to you...



This article shows you how to "read" the eyes of your lover, boss or politician. It's the same tried and tested method used by Homeland Security, the police and FBI.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What does your handwriting tell about you?


Learn everything about handwriting analysis in these free viewzone lesson by a professional!

See Casey Anthony's diary and handwriting analysis!



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All you ever wanted to know about fingerprints!


Each person's fingerprint is unique. Exactly how do they match them so quickly?



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Take the Luscher Color Personality Test - It's FREE! Instant results.


What do your Color Preferences reveal about your hidden personality. See what advertisers and marketing professionals have known for decades.

Other unexplained photos on this site:

Photographing spirits
Ice Circles
Sky Circles
Stone Head
Alaskan Lines
Odd Rock Formations
Petroglyph Archive
Black sun?
More Petroglyphs
Odd Skull
Snuff on Web?
Ancient Sword?
Birds paths!
Clay Dinosaurs?
Stone Dinosaurs!
Syrian lines.
Alien skull?

[mayugastank]

Setenza"

Well then please produce a source that states that symmetric bone structure is more common among latinos then elsewhere.
The reality is, that you can find that anywhere to the same amount.

I can not but give my personal observation-and honest view that its quite common amongst chicanos -and more prevealent in some latinos( nicaraguans and puerto ricans ,columbians). There are quite round faced mestizos -with totally non asymmetrical features. But there are in higher numbers ones that would describe to the concepts of universal beauty-its obvious in the amounts of cross racial births and marriages being in equal porportions MALE/FEMALE mixtures that other races view us likewise as "good enough to marry"..........If you put it in perspective..........over 1/2 of all interracial relationships in the USA involve a latino. And California accounts for 25% of all interracial marriages nationwide.....with latinos(chicanos) being almost completely involved in those interracial relationships. I get from that( and i would like to hear your counter argument) ....that 1. attraction is the biggest reason for couplings 2. Since latinos are able to marry in numbers unheard of in CA -that other races also view what latinos view as attractive in us.


But its all conjecture! You said every race has people with symmetrical bone structure, and I agree -but would it be un PC to say that some nationalities have them in larger numbers? Would the average chicano in LA have these features....in my honest opinion Id have to say YES. And I would take issue with your location if you disagreed. Its hard to disagree if your from this area.

[mayugastank]

Setenza -

One more thing if my opinion was biased in this matter I wouldnt have conceded that other latinos -have larger numbers of attractive people. I clearly stated that nicaraguans and puerto ricans have more people who would subscribe to the universal concept of beauty. The symmetrical features are the vast percentage of people of nicaraguan descent. Whereas in chicanos its common -enough //maybe 50%?.......but in Nicaraguans the number has to be about 80%.....its weird. My reasons for these beliefs have to do with isolation and breeding ...a 100 years ago people werent as likely to travel and breed outside their homelands. You can go to spots in Mexico where symmetrical wouldnt describe a .0001% of the aztec people. Yet Nicaraguans are some type of different indian with really fine features. Chilieans are also known for this. As are many Columbians. Guatemaleans on the other hand RARELY would have universal traits of beauty as would Somalians, Armenians, Chinese,Samoans,Africans.

Its all my opinion and its what I have seen quite frequently. I dont have proof as in this PC world a scientific racial study on beauty would bring about calls of RACISM from all the worlds UGLY people....hahaha....hey though thanks for bearing with me~I know this thread is mostly based on opinions of racial beauty BUT can we at least agree that their is a UNIVERSAL STANDARD OF BEAUTY?.......you said earlier you didnt concur.

[Sentenza]

Setenza -

One more thing if my opinion was biased in this matter I wouldnt have conceded that other latinos -have larger numbers of attractive people. I clearly stated that nicaraguans and puerto ricans have more people who would subscribe to the universal concept of beauty. The symmetrical features are the vast percentage of people of nicaraguan descent. Whereas in chicanos its common -enough //maybe 50%?.......but in Nicaraguans the number has to be about 80%.....its weird. My reasons for these beliefs have to do with isolation and breeding ...a 100 years ago people werent as likely to travel and breed outside their homelands. You can go to spots in Mexico where symmetrical wouldnt describe a .0001% of the aztec people. Yet Nicaraguans are some type of different indian with really fine features. Chilieans are also known for this. As are many Columbians. Guatemaleans on the other hand RARELY would have universal traits of beauty as would Somalians, Armenians, Chinese,Samoans,Africans.

Its all my opinion and its what I have seen quite frequently. I dont have proof as in this PC world a scientific racial study on beauty would bring about calls of RACISM from all the worlds UGLY people....hahaha....hey though thanks for bearing with me~I know this thread is mostly based on opinions of racial beauty BUT can we at least agree that their is a UNIVERSAL STANDARD OF BEAUTY?.......you said earlier you didnt concur.

I have no problem agreeing with that. I just said that beauty ideals are culturally influenced and highly subjective.

Here:
Dynamic Beauty: Cultural Influences and Changing Perceptions

A culture’s ideals of physical appearance are dynamic. Change can be induced by external cultural contact and, particularly, domination. Do these affected standards of beauty imply a kind of reverse ethnocentrism?

http://www.uhh.hawaii.edu/academics/hoh ... .php?id=87

Why beauty is in the eye of the beholder
Cultural images influence our perception of attractiveness
Excerpt:

Sexiness evolves according to what we see over and over. This mechanism, Winkielman noted in a statement, “accounts for cultural differences in beauty — and historical differences in beauty as well — because beauty basically depends on what you’ve been exposed to and what is therefore easy on your mind.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15098830/

In other words: What appeals to you or your friends may be totally odd somewhere else.

The problem is, you make an allegation and base your conclusion on that allegation without having proven the first allegation in the first place. Its called circular reasoning.
Its not about PC. The term PC has been coined by some outdated conservatives who were pissed that genetical science has refuted racism and racial categories and even the existance of races.
So they blame this reality on "political correctness", as if there were some dark forces trying to suppress them, trying to portray themselves as some sort of freedom fighters when they are in fact the opposite, because they want to re-establish social theories about mankind which are from the middle ages and outdated.
Btw. i have spent about 4 months of my life in Los Angeles County, so i have at least some sort of insight as to what it looks like.
I would say that the high number of interracial-relationships in California is due to the fact that California is a highly mixed state. And the fact that its a majority latino involved in this doesnt surprise me either considering the amount of Latinos in the state.
You would also have to ask yourself why so many latinos marry non-latinos if their own knd is the ne plus ultra?

To put it short:
Skin color, body height, hair color and thin/thick body shape are no factor in defining beauty, because they do varyfrom country to country.
So whats left?

[mayugastank]

Setenza writes"Btw. i have spent about 4 months of my life in Los Angeles County, so i have at least some sort of insight as to what it looks like.
I would say that the high number of interracial-relationships in California is due to the fact that California is a highly mixed state. And the fact that its a majority latino involved in this doesnt surprise me either considering the amount of Latinos in the state.

California holds about 11 million latinos or about 33% of the state. There are 1 million 50 thousand interracial marriages involving a latino partner-these are marriages ONLY. There are 320 million people in America coast to coast. Only other ethnic whites (italians-poles-irish-french etc etc ) have been able to intermarry in those numbers so quickly. In 1980 there were 15 million latinos in the USA -today there are some 50 million.With most being foreign born. How will the children of these immigrants date and breed ? Its hard to say. I have read the interracial marriage situation has decresed due to asian and hispanic immigration and 2nd generation latinos marrying these new arrivals. Its the reason the immigration debate is now being had. The numbers of immigrants arriving is astounding. But what I am saying is that the interacial numbers are extremely high even still in California it doesnt match up to any other ethnic grooup in America. If we took every interracial white/latino marriage in the state, their wouldnt be any other groups combined that would have numbers like that.
Keep in mind we are talking marriage certificates where one of the persons checked latino-this isnt including the mixed children these marriages have produced. Nor children born out of wedlock.Nor future marriages.


You would also have to ask yourself why so many latinos marry non-latinos if their own knd is the ne plus ultra?

See I find this question EXTREMELY interesting and my answer is speculation -Id definetly like to hear what you say about it. Although sometimes I feel you just take the opposite position I do, to simply provoke more discussion-which is fine -ONLY IF ...you truly believe what your saying.


So I take it you are familiar with the marriage and interbreeding habits of asians and blacks (americas 2 other minorities).Their marriages amongst whites are so one sided so as to debate the intentions of the person doing the intermixing. Almsot all the marriages of blacks and whites is white female/black male and vice versa asain female/White male.......WHY? its been discussed and the theories are abundant ! But latino interracial marriage is almsot split evenly male to female ratio. Could it be that when a latino intermarrys it just happend that 2 people of different nationalities fell in love? Yet when blacks or asians do so they are either trying to accomplish something or feel less attraction to their own race?....just my thoughts....

[Sentenza]

See I find this question EXTREMELY interesting and my answer is speculation -Id definetly like to hear what you say about it. Although sometimes I feel you just take the opposite position I do, to simply provoke more discussion-which is fine -ONLY IF ...you truly believe what your saying..

Of course i do. I think flaming on the internet and claiming stuff you dont really mean is lame. I dont do that.

So I take it you are familiar with the marriage and interbreeding habits of asians and blacks (americas 2 other minorities).Their marriages amongst whites are so one sided so as to debate the intentions of the person doing the intermixing. Almsot all the marriages of blacks and whites is white female/black male and vice versa asain female/White male.......WHY? its been discussed and the theories are abundant ! But latino interracial marriage is almsot split evenly male to female ratio. Could it be that when a latino intermarrys it just happend that 2 people of different nationalities fell in love? Yet when blacks or asians do so they are either trying to accomplish something or feel less attraction to their own race?....just my thoughts....

I think its the first one.
As i said, i know a couple of "interracial" couples and most of them - not all- are the combination you mentioned. Two friends of mine are married to chinese women. They live in China. For a chinese woman marrying a foreigner means social safety a societal rise and they think that all europeans/americans are rich as fuck. And compared to the average chinese that is kind of true. So its material interest thing i would say.
The sister of a good friend of mine just got a baby by a guy from Barbados, black as can be, tall and strongly build guy. In the west that is the most common combination i would say. Black guy, white woman. Another girl i know was married to a Nigerian guy, they had to marry cause otherwise he would have been deported. So that might play a role too.
Now if you go to africa black women will stand in line for the white guy because its the same as for the chinese: they want to escape from poverty, not because white people are particularly attractive.
So i would say often people are trying to accomplish something when choosing their partner. But it doesnt rule out, that it also can be simply about two people falling in love with each other.
At the end of the day i cant really say that i find women of one race more attractive then the other. You have beautiful and ugly examples in all races.

In the US blacks and whites are pretty much still segregated and racial tensions are high, thats why they dont interfere with each other. That doesnt apply to latinos, which are often counted as white even in the census and they can mix with white people without sticking out. Thus they higher rate of marriages. My opinion.

[Silencioso]

there's a theory that it has to do with perceptions of masculinity/femininity. White women view black men as more masculine than white men, Asian men as less and Latino men as about the same. White men view Asian women as more fem than white women, Black women as less and Latino women as about the same. Blacks, Asians an Latinos have similar heirarchies. The latino (specifically Mexicans)/white (specifically White American gentiles) gender matches are similar because those two groups view each other as similar in terms of gender affect. The black/white and Asian/white gender matches are lopsided because of a perception that the gender affect is different.

[mayugastank]

there's a theory that it has to do with perceptions of masculinity/femininity. White women view black men as more masculine than white men, Asian men as less and Latino men as about the same. White men view Asian women as more fem than white women, Black women as less and Latino women as about the same. Blacks, Asians an Latinos have similar heirarchies. The latino (specifically Mexicans)/white (specifically White American gentiles) gender matches are similar because those two groups view each other as similar in terms of gender affect. The black/white and Asian/white gender matches are lopsided because of a perception that the gender affect is different.

Good post. I have read a little of what your saying. When I questioned the motives of the people doing the mixing -it was brought about the one-sided lopsided dysfunction. How can almost 80 of all white and asian intterracial match ups of asians and blacks be SO one sided. It was the dysfunction of either -believing black is not beautiful or ugly to begin with that made black men deliberately pass up black women for marriage, and asian women viewing asians as not masculine/petite, ugly and foreign. Harsh but true! Attraction is the first communicator. When you view someone as capable of marriage you are deliberately placing that person on par with your family-nationality and yourself. Keep in mind that out of all the interracial match ups between black and white nationwide......they wouldnt equal up to the amount of white/chicano matches in California! Now sentenza questioned my motives and critiqued me for placing latino men and women in terms of attractiveness before other races. But I believe that (1) they amount of US born latinos in California as opposed to foreign born latinos is a big factor on why people choose us as mates as they view us (chicanos) who can speak english, know about the country as not as different as someone who would only speak spanish and didnt have a clue on how to navigate thru society. (2) That these chicanos hold a steady stream of attractive people--giving them ample oppurtunity to find "one" who would make a good mate.
(3) that the interracial marriage and couplings between us latinos and whites didnt involve too much focusing on the partners race as opposed to how sexy they either were or cool they got along.So basically it was similair to finding someone of your own race.

Silencioso-wrote that female -femininty and male masculinity are stressed in the latino culture....well to me that means are men are brought up to be manly, and our women are brought up to be3 sexy and sweet . Why were we questioning me on WHY I thought latinos were the most attractive the statement above states as much without actually saying so
Its backed up by scientific data. We are defiently an atractive people and other people view at it well. Both are women and men are viewed in this way . So great for us another reason I love being chicano! We tend to try to find another chicano to get with but when we dont our hearts just got in the way it wasnt deliberate like the people above !!

[mayugastank]

I think its the first one.
As i said, i know a couple of "interracial" couples and most of them - not all- are the combination you mentioned.

MOST IS THE KEY WORD HERE. To me it sounds liek exactly what I have said -less admission -then acknowledgement .



Two friends of mine are married to chinese women. They live in China. For a chinese woman marrying a foreigner means social safety a societal rise and they think that all europeans/americans are rich as fu--. And compared to the average chinese that is kind of true. So its material interest thing i would say.
The sister of a good friend of mine just got a baby by a guy from Barbados, black as can be, tall and strongly build guy. In the west that is the most common combination i would say. Black guy, white woman. Another girl i know was married to a Nigerian guy, they had to marry cause otherwise he would have been deported. So that might play a role too.
"Now if you go to africa black women will stand in line for the white guy because its the same as for the chinese: they want to escape from poverty, not because white people are particularly attractive."

Sure -in a poverty stricken country that works fine. But in Europe and everywhere else their are asians and blacks -the marriage statisctics are the same. You are not acknowledging attraction -and whether to a certain person (black-asian) a female or male of another race might be more atractive then their own. Yet despite this you dont acknowledge that black females dont intermarry -hardly -with whites...could it be that both white men and black women find eachother as NON ATTRACTIVE? The previous post had good information on differnt womens views on levels of attractiveness to other men. Both black women and white men ....listed eachother as unattractive. ALL RACES LISTED ASIAN MEN AS THE LEAST ATTRACTIVE. Notice anything here? The amounts of cross racial marriages are directly connected to whether the features and race is attractive in their book. The views on almost 300,00 women/men of different nationalities listed their least likely mates -as being from the racial category that on average -these groups are the least likely to marry. So the 2 are connected. Least attractive race=least likely to intermarry for that group. Pretty simple-yet your unracialist view isnt shared by ALL-setenza. Juts because you would get with any race and dont make distinctions on attractiveness due to race -most people still do. Whether they know it or not. They are pursuing the symmetrical structure in making their choices.





So i would say often people are trying to accomplish something when choosing their partner. But it doesnt rule out, that it also can be simply about two people falling in love with each other.At the end of the day i cant really say that i find women of one race more attractive then the other. You have beautiful and ugly examples in all races.

Yes but would a latino be on average more likely to possess those symetrical features then say an asian man or black woman?ON AVERAGE.


In the US blacks and whites are pretty much still segregated and racial tensions are high, thats why they dont interfere with each other. That doesnt apply to latinos, which are often counted as white even in the census and they can mix with white people without sticking out. Thus they higher rate of marriages. My opinion.

Okay but you are not acknowledging the differences in their mating when they DO -intermarry. Asians are not discriminated against as much nor do they hold the history of racial tension blacks do ---YET ---they still intermarry in a one sided way! Latinos dont .....hmm.....
Sentenza
Super Heavy Weight

[mayugastank]

Americans are more likely than ever before to marry outside their race or ethnicity.

Skip to next paragraph
Related Stories
La. interracial marriage: Is life tougher for biracial kids?
A year into Obama’s presidency, is America postracial?
Arizona immigration law: two rallies, two very different views
.Nearly 1 in 7 marriages in 2008 was interracial or interethnic, according to a report released by the Pew Research Center Friday. That’s more than double the intermarriage rate of the 1980s and six times the intermarriage rate of the 1960s.

Also, most Americans say they approve of interracial marriage, with more than 6 in 10 saying they’re OK if a family member marries outside his or her group. Thirty-five percent say they already have a family member who is married to someone of a different race or ethnicity.

“Race relations have certainly changed in a positive way,” says Daniel Lichter, a professor of sociology at Cornell University in Ithaca, N.Y. “This indicates greater racial tolerance, a blurring of the racial divides in the US. In general, it’s an optimistic report.”

Still, he cautions against notions that the United States is entering a postracial era.

“I don’t think these racial boundaries are going to go away anytime soon, despite these patterns we’re seeing over past 20 years,” Dr. Lichter says. “It’s hard to imagine the black-white divide in particular is going to go away anytime soon.”

Immigration, changing attitudes drive trend
Waves of immigrants from Latin America and Asia are driving the intermarriage trend by enlarging the pool of potential marriage partners, says Jeffrey Passel, a lead researcher and author of Pew’s report.

“American society is becoming more diverse, and workplaces, schools, and other arenas are fairly open so people can meet others of different races on one-to-one levels,” Mr. Passel says. “Underneath that, there’s a broad acceptance of interracial marriages that 40 or 50 years ago just didn’t exist.”

But, he adds, “It’s very much a generational phenomenon.” While 80 to 90 percent of people under age 30 say they find interracial marriages acceptable, that number falls to about 30 percent for those over 65, he says. “People 65 and over grew up in the ’30, ’40s, and ’50s when such things weren’t acceptable or were illegal. That’s an indicator of how things have changed.”

Whites', blacks' rate of intermarriage rising; Hispanics, Asians steady
Approximately 280,000 of the roughly 2 million marriages in 2008 were between spouses of different races or ethnicities, according to the Pew report. White-Hispanic couplings accounted for the greatest proportion of those intermarriages, at 41 percent. White-Asian couples made up 15 percent, and white-black couples 11 percent.

The report found vastly different rates of intermarriage for each of the groups studied. Among all newlyweds in 2008, 9 percent of whites, 16 percent of blacks, 26 percent of Hispanics, and 31 percent of Asians married someone whose race or ethnicity was different from their own.

But while blacks nearly tripled their intermarriage rates from 1980, and whites more than doubled theirs, the rates have hardly changed for Hispanics and Asians over the past 30 years.

“For whites and blacks, new [Asian and Hispanic] immigrants and their now grown US-born children have enlarged the pool of potential partners for marrying outside one’s own racial or ethnic group,” Passel writes in the Pew report. “But for Hispanics and Asians, the ongoing immigration wave has greatly enlarged the pool of potential partners for in-group marrying.”

Lichter of Cornell has documented this trend in his own research. In some cases, he says, immigration is reinforcing cultural and ancestral identities.

“Native-born populations are returning to their national-origin group, in part through marriage,” he says. “An increasing share of second-generation Hispanics are marrying first-generation immigrants. If marriage is one factor of assimilation, this represents a slowdown in assimilation among Asians and Hispanics.”

Black men and Asian women have highest rates of intermarriage
The report also tracks stark differences in intermarriage by gender.

Some 22 percent of black male newlyweds in 2008 married outside their race, compared with just 9 percent of black female newlyweds.

Among Asians, it's an opposite pattern. Some 40 percent of Asian female newlyweds in 2008 married outside their race, compared with just 20 percent of Asian male newlyweds.

“A lot of this has to do with cultural definitions of beauty and stereotypes of gender roles ... the exotic Asian woman and the patriarchal man,” Lichter says.

This can also create tension within racial and ethnic communities.

“The opportunities to marry for African-American women are exacerbated by high shares of black men marrying out, combined with extraordinarily high rates of incarceration among black men and higher rates of mortality," says Lichter. "That leads to a shortage of men to marry in the black community.”

[mayugastank]

Americans are more likely than ever before to marry outside their race or ethnicity.

Skip to next paragraph
Related Stories
La. interracial marriage: Is life tougher for biracial kids?
A year into Obama’s presidency, is America postracial?
Arizona immigration law: two rallies, two very different views
.Nearly 1 in 7 marriages in 2008 was interracial or interethnic, according to a report released by the Pew Research Center Friday. That’s more than double the intermarriage rate of the 1980s and six times the intermarriage rate of the 1960s.

Also, most Americans say they approve of interracial marriage, with more than 6 in 10 saying they’re OK if a family member marries outside his or her group. Thirty-five percent say they already have a family member who is married to someone of a different race or ethnicity.

“Race relations have certainly changed in a positive way,” says Daniel Lichter, a professor of sociology at Cornell University in Ithaca, N.Y. “This indicates greater racial tolerance, a blurring of the racial divides in the US. In general, it’s an optimistic report.”

Still, he cautions against notions that the United States is entering a postracial era.

“I don’t think these racial boundaries are going to go away anytime soon, despite these patterns we’re seeing over past 20 years,” Dr. Lichter says. “It’s hard to imagine the black-white divide in particular is going to go away anytime soon.”

Immigration, changing attitudes drive trend
Waves of immigrants from Latin America and Asia are driving the intermarriage trend by enlarging the pool of potential marriage partners, says Jeffrey Passel, a lead researcher and author of Pew’s report.

“American society is becoming more diverse, and workplaces, schools, and other arenas are fairly open so people can meet others of different races on one-to-one levels,” Mr. Passel says. “Underneath that, there’s a broad acceptance of interracial marriages that 40 or 50 years ago just didn’t exist.”

But, he adds, “It’s very much a generational phenomenon.” While 80 to 90 percent of people under age 30 say they find interracial marriages acceptable, that number falls to about 30 percent for those over 65, he says. “People 65 and over grew up in the ’30, ’40s, and ’50s when such things weren’t acceptable or were illegal. That’s an indicator of how things have changed.”

Whites', blacks' rate of intermarriage rising; Hispanics, Asians steady
Approximately 280,000 of the roughly 2 million marriages in 2008 were between spouses of different races or ethnicities, according to the Pew report. White-Hispanic couplings accounted for the greatest proportion of those intermarriages, at 41 percent. White-Asian couples made up 15 percent, and white-black couples 11 percent.

The report found vastly different rates of intermarriage for each of the groups studied. Among all newlyweds in 2008, 9 percent of whites, 16 percent of blacks, 26 percent of Hispanics, and 31 percent of Asians married someone whose race or ethnicity was different from their own.

But while blacks nearly tripled their intermarriage rates from 1980, and whites more than doubled theirs, the rates have hardly changed for Hispanics and Asians over the past 30 years.

“For whites and blacks, new [Asian and Hispanic] immigrants and their now grown US-born children have enlarged the pool of potential partners for marrying outside one’s own racial or ethnic group,” Passel writes in the Pew report. “But for Hispanics and Asians, the ongoing immigration wave has greatly enlarged the pool of potential partners for in-group marrying.”

Lichter of Cornell has documented this trend in his own research. In some cases, he says, immigration is reinforcing cultural and ancestral identities.

“Native-born populations are returning to their national-origin group, in part through marriage,” he says. “An increasing share of second-generation Hispanics are marrying first-generation immigrants. If marriage is one factor of assimilation, this represents a slowdown in assimilation among Asians and Hispanics.”

Black men and Asian women have highest rates of intermarriage
The report also tracks stark differences in intermarriage by gender.

Some 22 percent of black male newlyweds in 2008 married outside their race, compared with just 9 percent of black female newlyweds.

Among Asians, it's an opposite pattern. Some 40 percent of Asian female newlyweds in 2008 married outside their race, compared with just 20 percent of Asian male newlyweds.

“A lot of this has to do with cultural definitions of beauty and stereotypes of gender roles ... the exotic Asian woman and the patriarchal man,” Lichter says.

This can also create tension within racial and ethnic communities.

“The opportunities to marry for African-American women are exacerbated by high shares of black men marrying out, combined with extraordinarily high rates of incarceration among black men and higher rates of mortality," says Lichter. "That leads to a shortage of men to marry in the black community.”

[Sentenza]

Least attractive race=least likely to intermarry for that group. Pretty simple-yet your unracialist view isnt shared by ALL-setenza. Juts because you would get with any race and dont make distinctions on attractiveness due to race -most people still do. Whether they know it or not. They are pursuing the symmetrical structure in making their choices.

The least attractive race still hasnt been proven. You are still using ciruclar reasoning and try to get away with it.
It hasnt been proven that there is one race that is particularly attractive or unattractive. There is no criteria for that.
Most people do like you do and that has been explained in the article i posted.
They judge by what they know and think that is an universal law.

Yes but would a latino be on average more likely to possess those symetrical features then say an asian man or black woman?ON AVERAGE.

Why should they? Which Latinos are you talking about? The ones of eruopean descnet, the native ones, or the mixed ones? They cant possibly have genetically the same features. And why should they be more symmetric then anyone else?

Okay but you are not acknowledging the differences in their mating when they DO -intermarry. Asians are not discriminated against as much nor do they hold the history of racial tension blacks do ---YET ---they still intermarry in a one sided way! Latinos dont .....hmm.....
Sentenza
Super Heavy Weight

Yea, you dont seem to know much about asians. They stick to themselves, trust that. Thats the reason. I know a couple of asians and its really hard to get to them. My 2 homies who are married to chinese girls did, because for YEARS, they worked hard to get their trust.
And how do you know that asians are not discriminated against like blacks are. At least you are admitting something here.

[mayugastank]

You keep implying I am using circular reasoning. Well some of what I said is an opinion -but the statistics -are just that: FACTS. The statistics say -that almost 80% of asian and white interracial couplings are asian female and white male. The statistics say that almost 75% of interracial black/white couplings are black man/white female. The statistics also state that asian men are the least likely to intermarry and black women are as well. Are we in agreement on that?.............


Now the survey on racial preferences stated that asian men were viewed by all -races to be the least attractive and black women came in second. Well now doesnt that match up? Granted its a survey -BUT-300,000 people were surveyed for it. The findings of the survey ARE EXACTLY -in accordance with the marriage statistics. Am I being to liberal in uniting the 2?

Forget circular reasoning if 1+1=2....then 1+2 =3. period. Its mathematics as much as anything. How much clear cut can it get? Or am I not explaining it right? also note that the survey stated black women viewed white men as the least attractive. Hence , the statistics say: that black woman/white man are the least likely of interracial marriages, alongside asian men and black women -whom black women said they also find the least attractive just slighty above white men.....guess so they marry slightly more then asian men? yup.....


The statistics say that hispanic men and hispanic women interracial marry at almost the exactly same levels...a 53% women to 47% men. So its not one sided or heavy in any particular direction. The survey says" that white men and white women ...view hispanic men and hispanic women as attractive equally. Weird that they should match up again. The one doing the ciurcular reasoning is you . SIR. I merely stated what the census stated were the amounts of cross racial marriages and stated likewise the findings of the survey on racial preferences. Granted the survey and statistics were done seperately . But I used what I have -You on the other hand -believe since you see things through unracial eyes that the world does as well : Well the reality of it is that people are EXTREMELY race conscious. Especially in the USA. Dislike it all you want -but its a FACT^ and far from spin.

[Sentenza]

Out of the article you posted:

Whites', blacks' rate of intermarriage rising; Hispanics, Asians steady
Approximately 280,000 of the roughly 2 million marriages in 2008 were between spouses of different races or ethnicities, according to the Pew report. White-Hispanic couplings accounted for the greatest proportion of those intermarriages, at 41 percent. White-Asian couples made up 15 percent, and white-black couples 11 percent.

The report found vastly different rates of intermarriage for each of the groups studied. Among all newlyweds in 2008, 9 percent of whites, 16 percent of blacks, 26 percent of Hispanics, and 31 percent of Asians married someone whose race or ethnicity was different from their own.

But while blacks nearly tripled their intermarriage rates from 1980, and whites more than doubled theirs, the rates have hardly changed for Hispanics and Asians over the past 30 years.

“A lot of this has to do with cultural definitions of beauty and stereotypes of gender roles ... the exotic Asian woman and the patriarchal man,” Lichter says.

This proves my point.

You keep implying I am using circular reasoning. Well some of what I said is an opinion -but the statistics -are just that: FACTS. The statistics say -that almost 80% of asian and white interracial couplings are asian female and white male. The statistics say that almost 75% of interracial black/white couplings are black man/white female. The statistics also state that asian men are the least likely to intermarry and black women are as well. Are we in agreement on that?.............


Now the survey on racial preferences stated that asian men were viewed by all -races to be the least attractive and black women came in second. Well now doesnt that match up? Granted its a survey -BUT-300,000 people were surveyed for it. The findings of the survey ARE EXACTLY -in accordance with the marriage statistics. Am I being to liberal in uniting the 2?

Forget circular reasoning if 1+1=2....then 1+2 =3. period. Its mathematics as much as anything. How much clear cut can it get? Or am I not explaining it right? also note that the survey stated black women viewed white men as the least attractive. Hence , the statistics say: that black woman/white man are the least likely of interracial marriages, alongside asian men and black women -whom black women said they also find the least attractive just slighty above white men.....guess so they marry slightly more then asian men? yup.....


The statistics say that hispanic men and hispanic women interracial marry at almost the exactly same levels...a 53% women to 47% men. So its not one sided or heavy in any particular direction. The survey says" that white men and white women ...view hispanic men and hispanic women as attractive equally. Weird that they should match up again. The one doing the ciurcular reasoning is you . SIR. I merely stated what the census stated were the amounts of cross racial marriages and stated likewise the findings of the survey on racial preferences. Granted the survey and statistics were done seperately . But I used what I have -You on the other hand -believe since you see things through unracial eyes that the world does as well : Well the reality of it is that people are EXTREMELY race conscious. Especially in the USA. Dislike it all you want -but its a FACT^ and far from spin.

You are stating the obivous, what i said before. Higher Latino intermarriage rates resulted from a higher racial acceptance of Latinos in the US. You and i know that there are many Latinos who would pass as white and are even counted as that in the Census (according to one census on hrere that i read some time ago about 18% of Comptons population was counted as "white" and we all know there are no caucasians down there).
So even in more racist times White-Latino intermarriage was a more accepted thing, where as black and white marriage was even outlawed:

Anti-miscegenation laws, also known as miscegenation laws, were laws that banned interracial marriage and sometimes sex between members of two different races.

Although anti-miscegenation amendments were proposed in United States Congress in 1871, 1912–1913 and 1928,[4][5] a nation-wide law against racially mixed marriages was never enacted. From the 19th century into the 1950s, most US states enforced anti-miscegenation laws. From 1913 to 1948, 30 out of the then 48 states did so.[citation needed] In 1967, the United States Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Loving v. Virginia that anti-miscegenation laws are unconstitutional. With this ruling, these laws were no longer in effect in the remaining 16 states that at the time still enforced them.

So this has nothing to do with perceptions of beauty, because since these laws have been abolished there is a rise in black a and white interracial marriages.
So its a racism thing and not a question of universal beauty. You confirmed that at the end too.

Now the survey on racial preferences stated that asian men were viewed by all -races to be the least attractive and black women came in second. Well now doesnt that match up? Granted its a survey -BUT-300,000 people were surveyed for it. The findings of the survey ARE EXACTLY -in accordance with the marriage statistics. Am I being to liberal in uniting the 2?

Forget circular reasoning if 1+1=2....then 1+2 =3. period.

Now what about asians themselves? Do they find themselves ugly? Cause if there was such a thing like universal beauty that everybody agreed on, then that would have to be the case. Which it clearly isnt.
Asians consider brown skin ugly, they are scared by tall, big europeans, not even mentioning africans etc.
Now who is right? I dont know man.
So what do we have here....A survey that says, that white and Latinos tend to intermarry more at average then other races and you draw the conclusion that the reason is, because Latinos are more attractive then anyone else. I cant follow you on this one man, this theory is kinda crude.

But I used what I have -You on the other hand -believe since you see things through unracial eyes that the world does as well : Well the reality of it is that people are EXTREMELY race conscious. Especially in the USA. Dislike it all you want -but its a FACT^ and far from spin.

I know that thats the way it is. But it proves my point. There is no such thing as universal beauty, but there is such a thing as racial subejctivity when it comes to defining beauty.
And i dont care who sees what which way.
A vast majority used to believe that the world was a disc also. Doesnt mean i have to share that belief.
Or there is another saying, in German: "Eat more shit, billions of flies cant be wrong."

[Christina Marie]

Holy sh*t there's a grip of testosterone up in here haha wow! And some inflated ego's to boot. But yeah, some women are easy to sweet talk, can make em do just about anything...but there are a lot of guys like that too. I know, I sweet talked my fair share, usually when they were trying to play me though. Just beat em to the punch. I hate men now, have no use for them really. That's what all that bs talking does ya know? Nope, don't need a man FT. I got my regular, get mine and leave. Maybe that will change someday, maybe not. Maybe I will find me a Mexican woman

[mayugastank]

Now what about asians themselves? Do they find themselves ugly? Cause if there was such a thing like universal beauty that everybody agreed on, then that would have to be the case. Which it clearly isnt.
Asians consider brown skin ugly, they are scared by tall, big europeans, not even mentioning africans etc.Now who is right? I dont know man.
So what do we have here....A survey that says, that white and Latinos tend to intermarry more at average then other races and you draw the conclusion that the reason is, because Latinos are more attractive then anyone else. I cant follow you on this one man, this theory is kinda crude.


You accuse me of circular reasoning yet you do the exact same thing here with this statement. You make broad assumptions-BETTER YET- broad vast sweeps ...of what a culture deems attractive without so much as a fact or statistic. Yet these asians whom you consider -to know intimately ....in an enviroment that is mixed and in an enviroment(USA and othert parts of Europe) where a choice of racial partners is long and wide, tend to intermarry in quite high numbers. But sadly-this interracial experiment is one sided* asian women are the sole proprieters of just about all marriages. Now I dont know what I can do to convince you of my logic and final conclusion as we are both on extreme ends of the discussion. But I do believe you have used -emotion/personal opinion and have discounted cold hard numbers/census reports/surveys ...merely to suit YOUR VIEW. Thats a sad situation when /as a human being your mind cant be persuaded of another view despite the evidence to the contrary. In all my biased statements,biased posts ...I have ALWAYS left the oppurtunity to be convinced otherwise. And have quite frequently had my mind changed, Yet I am of the opinion that I hardly ever reach hard conclusions till after I have viewed everything possible about the subject to satisfy my curiosity and then and only then do I reach an analysis of the situation. I have stated that latinos are viewed equally as attractive. Both our men/women are viewed equally as attractive by all races, my views (circular reasoning ) the facts( census reports/marraige statistics/surveys on attraction by race) all reach my conclusion. Therefore afetr it all , I believe I am right. Asians,Whites and Blacks all equally in my view have pursued chicano people-frequently-we get targeted by their women and our women get targeted by their men. When in a mixed enviroment-school/work....usually the person whom everyone considers to be sexy or hot, have been almost overwhelmingly been latino. You discount me saying I am bias////BUt statistics show that California has the highest rates of interracial matches nationwide/possible worldwide. As I have stated over and over ----all the states combined all 50 of them wouldnt have the interracial marriages LATINOS do in California......now if that doesnt blow your mind I dont know what will! When people say interracial California ...what they mean is latino/mixed California

[mayugastank]

Heres the thing-latinos/chicanos-are an extremely sexy people. We love ourselves and eachother. We are extremely attracted to eachother. We frequently marry eachother. When we dont -it is done equally, our women arent out there searching for a non latino man and our men arent out there searching for a non latino woman. It just so happens that we being sexy as hell are quite frequently targeted by other races...and well if thta race happens to be sexy/hot then we do what we do and let the racial differences go by the way! That is the how it is*....unlike black men and asian women who do everything in their power to erase their racial consciousness or view their own women and men as either to manly/or femine or downright without admission UGLY......we just go with the flow/hey if you want to come get yourself some latino ...then step up but make sure your sexy enough to step in line cuz you going to have alot of competition from other latino men and women...lol! Cuz for every race that trys getting with us ---most get shot down! And only the best of blacks/asians/whites get to step up...now how the hell wouldnt I have such pride in the people I come from ? our sexy appeal is unmatchable....in views/statistics and everything inbetween its seen ...Ive seen the white boyz go nutz over the latino women /Ive seen the black guys flirt to no end with the thick latinas...Ive seen the asian cats or heard them talk about how fine Maria.Theresa.Lorena are ......and Ive seen and heard the black women, talk about sharkys lips' or homeboy being fine as a mudafucka, Ive personally been the target of many a mixed romance and Ive personally seen my friends or had women of other races tell me to hook em up with Juan,Jose,Carlos.......Ive had the white girls more then a million times tell me about their ex boyfriend or current one who was a hot latino....its what we do DUDE! Blacks dribble,sing,play sports.....Asians are smart...whites make things, run things,hold leadership positions. Latinos define sexuality,beauty,style and art! We bring about a heat unmatched-people dont know what to do! When we give em a chance the marrriage statistics show that they want a baby or marriage with the standard of beauty. Totally one sided and bias but I dont know how else I could put it.

[Sentenza]

You accuse me of circular reasoning yet you do the exact same thing here with this statement. You make broad assumptions-BETTER YET- broad vast sweeps ...of what a culture deems attractive without so much as a fact or statistic. Yet these asians whom you consider -to know intimately ....in an enviroment that is mixed and in an enviroment(USA and othert parts of Europe) where a choice of racial partners is long and wide, tend to intermarry in quite high numbers. But sadly-this interracial experiment is one sided* asian women are the sole proprieters of just about all marriages. Now I dont know what I can do to convince you of my logic and final conclusion as we are both on extreme ends of the discussion. But I do believe you have used -emotion/personal opinion and have discounted cold hard numbers/census reports/surveys ...merely to suit YOUR VIEW. Thats a sad situation when /as a human being your mind cant be persuaded of another view despite the evidence to the contrary. In all my biased statements,biased posts ...I have ALWAYS left the oppurtunity to be convinced otherwise. And have quite frequently had my mind changed, Yet I am of the opinion that I hardly ever reach hard conclusions till after I have viewed everything possible about the subject to satisfy my curiosity and then and only then do I reach an analysis of the situation. I have stated that latinos are viewed equally as attractive. Both our men/women are viewed equally as attractive by all races, my views (circular reasoning ) the facts( census reports/marraige statistics/surveys on attraction by race) all reach my conclusion. Therefore afetr it all , I believe I am right. Asians,Whites and Blacks all equally in my view have pursued chicano people-frequently-we get targeted by their women and our women get targeted by their men. When in a mixed enviroment-school/work....usually the person whom everyone considers to be sexy or hot, have been almost overwhelmingly been latino. You discount me saying I am bias////BUt statistics show that California has the highest rates of interracial matches nationwide/possible worldwide. As I have stated over and over ----all the states combined all 50 of them wouldnt have the interracial marriages LATINOS do in California......now if that doesnt blow your mind I dont know what will! When people say interracial California ...what they mean is latino/mixed California

Look dud, i m gonna give you credit for the way you debate, you keep it clean without resorting to racial or verbal insults. Kudos for that.
But: You dindt convince me cause you didnt present anything that is convincing. You make the same mistake that many Californians/Americans make. To think its the hub of the world. No pun intended, but its not.
You give me some stats about interracial marriages and that latinos lead in that aspect (even though is showed you that black and asians are catching up) and take this as evidence that latinos are most attractive. Thats just not the way it works man, neither scientifically nor in any other aspect is an argument like that reliable. It tells us nothing.
Its the same as if i would say: New York is the city with the most singles on Earth. That must mean Americans (black, white, latino alike) are ugly. That just doesnt make sense at all.
We already went into the reasons why Latinos could be leading in California concerning interracial marriages, because they are much more eligible for whites to marry them then blacks and asians are due to separation and segragation and racism.
Many Latinos dont even stick out among white people. Im getting tired of these discussions.
By the way they did polls around the world on which people are considered the most beautiful...You wont like the results.
Also here the countries who have won the most Miss World Titles:

1 Venezuela 5
1 India 5
3 United Kingdom 4
4 Sweden 3
4 Jamaica 3
4 Netherlands 3
7 United States 2
7 South Africa 2
7 Iceland 2
7 Finland 2
7 Argentina 2

A british poll:

US Tops “Most Beautiful Countries” Poll
“The likes of Jessica Alba, Jennifer Aniston and Brad Pitt all help America’s image as a hot bed of good looking people.
1. U.S.
2. Brazil
3. Spain
4. Australia
5. Italy
6. Sweden
7. England
8. India
9. France
10. Canada
11. Mexico
12. Portugal
13. Wales
14. Russia
15. Japan
16. Ireland
17. Argentina
18. Netherlands
19. Scotland
20. Germany

You see, its a wild mix of everything.

But really, this:

Blacks dribble,sing,play sports.....Asians are smart...whites make things, run things,hold leadership positions. Latinos define sexuality,beauty,style and art! We bring about a heat unmatched-people dont know what to do!

killed it. Yea and Russians drink vodka, French people eat frogs, Brits drink tea, Asians do Kung Fu and Brazilians dance Samba. Thats just a collection of stereotypes from cheap movies.

[mayugastank]

I said the last statement was hyperbole-biased opinions!Its the simply ghetto fab way of explaining it. I took the statistics-the polls -the surveys --but that didnt seem to change your mind one iota! So I went street thinking maybe -factual debates are out of the question in changing your mind. Venezuela-has always been known to have the most miss universes worldwide. The country has beauty as its culture-they begin showing girls in middle school how to apply makeup---and finishing school is just as important to them as a university degree. I believe that the middle ground in the marriage scene says tons about the situation. The poll said likewise. When the interracial marriage statistics say that cross/racial marriages dont go heavy in any way its says to me" LOVE HAPPENS" ............which cant be discounted. But when the interracial marriage rates are slanted in one direction tremendously--as is the case amongst blacks/asians, I see," that a purposely made attempt has been made to target that race by either their women or men.....and the question looms .......WHY WOULD THEY DO SO?...............you have bypassed the margins in interracial marriage as if it means nothing....you didnt even acknowledge it. But it is the key to the debate.It is actually far more important then the amounts of interracial marriages going up! because those slants and one sided way has continued to happen. We are not speaking on minor variations on male/female ratios , we are talking about ----big differences.....80% of all asian marriages involve the female. Almost 80% of all black/white relationships involve black males. Both black females and asian males are considered the least attractive race in the survey. What else do you need? Such blatant disregard for facts doesnt make you firm in your position it makes you a fanatic! Hence-with a mountain of evidence -you still discount anything I have said. The statistics you mentioned on attraction doesnt pertain to the USA as the minority pool here is largely hispanic/asian/black. I believe the rest account for 3% of all the USAs population. I limited the debate to the minorities in the USA.

[mayugastank]

Start another thread these forums are dying out -gimme something interesting-something I can think about.

[mayugastank]

SETENZA"

But: You dindt convince me cause you didnt present anything that is convincing. You make the same mistake that many Californians/Americans make. To think its the hub of the world. No pun intended, but its not.


Its hard to deny isnt it? If Rome was the hub of the world in ancient times and babylon was the hub in biblical times and germany was the hub of technology---well then surely you arent suggesting that the USA is not the hub of the world at present time? And if the USA is the hub of the world like I suggest -then most definetly both NYC and California compete for the the title of the worlds hub. Its why their is that EAST and WEST COAST rivalry. LA is assuredly the hub of street culture, and Its debatable as to whom has done more influencing whether NYC or LA. But you cant seriously be suggesting America isnt the present day Rome or Babylon. Neither the entire EU nor any other country holds as much influence on world opinion as the USA ---and if this isnt debatable** well then Id have to ask you to concede that both NYC and LA are top proprieters for street culture. Of which in a debate Id have to say that I could most definetly annihilate NYC.

[Sentenza]

Its hard to deny isnt it? If Rome was the hub of the world in ancient times and babylon was the hub in biblical times and germany was the hub of technology---well then surely you arent suggesting that the USA is not the hub of the world at present time? And if the USA is the hub of the world like I suggest -then most definetly both NYC and California compete for the the title of the worlds hub. Its why their is that EAST and WEST COAST rivalry. LA is assuredly the hub of street culture, and Its debatable as to whom has done more influencing whether NYC or LA. But you cant seriously be suggesting America isnt the present day Rome or Babylon. Neither the entire EU nor any other country holds as much influence on world opinion as the USA ---and if this isnt debatable** well then Id have to ask you to concede that both NYC and LA are top proprieters for street culture. Of which in a debate Id have to say that I could most definetly annihilate NYC.

Well the US are the only remaining super power these days, but that doesnt mean that what people in California or NY think counts for the rest of the world.
What these statistics you presented show is nothing but an extract from that corner of the world, not universally appliable.
The United States are nothing more then one step in the stairway of history of mankind.
Street gangs are thousands of years old and so is everything else we are debating here.
To say that latinos are the most beautiful people in the world is your opinion and you are entitled to it, but it isnt a fact. Beauty ideals are different all over the world, we already went through that. Of course Hollywood has some impact on that through the media, but thats about it. A tan or brown skn is still considered ugly in parts of eastern asia and in parts of africa voluptuous women are considered beautiful and so on.

Example:

Many Asian women eschew the tanned sporty look and favor the white, frail look. Pale skin is considered beautiful and has traditionally been associated with sophistication and wealth while brown skin traditionally has been a sign of being poor and working outside in the sun. One 38-year-old Hong Kong public relations executive who spends hundred of dollar a month on face masks, scrubs and whitening creams told Reuters, “I love to be pearly white because that is more beautiful.”

Women often refuse to go out in the summer unless they have an umbrella, a makeshift cape or some other kind of skin protection. One 27-year-old accountant told the Times of London, “I prefer women with light skin. Westerners look healthy with bronzed skin, but Asians look dirty.”

Pregnant women have traditionally avoided soy sauce out of concern it might make their baby dark. Among the skin whiteners available in China are White Detox by Biotherm, Pure by Dior, Blanc Expert by Lancom and Derma White by Clinique.

http://factsanddetails.com/china.php?it ... ubcatid=75

[Silencioso]

These beauty studies seem to take the position that there's no connection between beauty and race. But the ideal faces they describe have traits that seem more characteristic of some races that others. For example, the ideal female face has large eyes, full mouth, small nose, high cheek bones and a delicate jaw. Does every race/population/ethnic group have the same percentage of people that look like that? Or the .7 waist/hips ratio - does every race every race have the same percentage of women with that ratio? It seems unlikely.

Races/Ethnic groups and mixed types known for female beauty:

Mediteranean -Southern Europeans, specifically Spanish, Southern French and Italians.
Latino - Mestizos and light Mulatos types
Scandinavian/Nordic/Russian - blonde European types.
Malay - Filipinos, Balinese etc.
Eurasian - white/Asian mixed people
Mullato - white/black mixed people
East Asian - Japanese and Koreans specifically


Not known for female beauty:

Australian aboriginals
Bushmen
pygmies
Samoans/Tongans
Native American (unless they look Latino or are part white)
South Asian (unless they look Mediteranean or Latino)
Anglo-Saxon/British Isles (unless they look Nordic or med)
Middle Eastern/Arab (unless they look med, mulatto or nordic)
Extreme Asians -Mongolians, Siberians etc.

The groups that aren't known for female beauty have a large percentage of extreme or dis-harmonic features. Australian aborigines, for example, tend to have thick brow ridges, deep set eyes, very broad noses and flat cheekbones. The aborigine face is probably the farthest from the female ideal and not surprisingly Australian aborigines are widely believed to be the least attractive race.

[mayugastank]

These beauty studies seem to take the position that there's no connection between beauty and race. But the ideal faces they describe have traits that seem more characteristic of some races that others. For example, the ideal female face has large eyes, full mouth, small nose, high cheek bones and a delicate jaw. Does every race/population/ethnic group have the same percentage of people that look like that? Or the .7 waist/hips ratio - does every race every race have the same percentage of women with that ratio? It seems unlikely.

Races/Ethnic groups and mixed types known for female beauty:

Mediteranean -Southern Europeans, specifically Spanish, Southern French and Italians.
Latino - Mestizos and light Mulatos types
Scandinavian/Nordic/Russian - blonde European types.
Malay - Filipinos, Balinese etc.
Eurasian - white/Asian mixed people
Mullato - white/black mixed people
East Asian - Japanese and Koreans specifically


Not known for female beauty:

Australian aboriginals
Bushmen
pygmies
Samoans/Tongans
Native American (unless they look Latino or are part white)
South Asian (unless they look Mediteranean or Latino)
Anglo-Saxon/British Isles (unless they look Nordic or med)
Middle Eastern/Arab (unless they look med, mulatto or nordic)
Extreme Asians -Mongolians, Siberians etc.

The groups that aren't known for female beauty have a large percentage of extreme or dis-harmonic features. Australian aborigines, for example, tend to have thick brow ridges, deep set eyes, very broad noses and flat cheekbones. The aborigine face is probably the farthest from the female ideal and not surprisingly Australian aborigines are widely believed to be the least attractive race.

Where did this come from? is it in order? By most to least? Also the traits you listed pertain to both men and women..if you didnt know . A male with harmonic features is known to be considered the most attractive of males although not in the extreme but men facial characteristics match womens ideals of attractive. The jaw is considered effiminate if it is weak. Hence the term pretty boy. Latinos most assuredly have quite a bit of men/women who would hold the ideals of beauty. But Mexicans also have a percent that would be considered either native american looking or arab or extreme asian. The farther away from the tribes of aztecs ---the more likely they resemble extreme asians. Mayans and other native mexicans hold close resemblances to extreme asians.But through out it all ....and scientifically proven ....their is definetly a structured view of beauty-it entails both effeminate looking features for man and woman and nation to nation /race to race /place to place . The ideal features of beauty are identical . Whetehre a certain race has more so or less of people pertaining to the ideals of beauty is a matter of personal opinion or so I thought till reading your post. I appreciate it and would like the link ...I am very interested in it. Its something Ive known forver and thru personal observation...everyone has their own tastes but usually a man with the ideals of beauty has quite a bit more options. And many times doesnt have to make any effort to get the girl!.....I know personally that far and wide I have known latino men and women to have these ideals in perfect symphony...meaning for every woman latina whom held them their was a man likewise to match her. Its a quandry that Ive only ever really seen among hispanic men. Because evenly Id say no males of any race would have those ideals like hispanic men do. Ever notice why latino men are many times portrayed as uber sexual? meaning a very attractive homosexual of hispanic orign...Its this above.

[perongregory]

Hispanic/Latino isn't a race and actually is a quite new subgroup of human people. How can you compare such a heavily mixed group of people with lessed mixed groups of people?

[Silencioso]

The above post is based on a few things I've read on the subject and my own observations. There are certain ethnic groups and mixed race combinations that males seem to think of as hot and others that they don't. I was just trying to stir up the discussion a little. Sentenza's position that all races have the same amount of beautiful women and that beauty is based on symmetry and and a certain combination of features - big eyes, small nose, full lips etc. - has a major logic problem - it suggests that all ethnic groups have the same percentage of these features.

[perongregory]

But then by your logic Silencioso, people in the "non-attractive" ethnic groups were mostly settling because their groups supposedly, largely don't fit human male beauty standards. I think you need to specify a lot more when this human male vision of beauty came about, and so forth. It's not like we always knew every ethnic group and type in the world, and with that logic Native Americans, pygmys, etc. Mainly thought their woman were unattractive until they came into contact with the "beautiful" groups.

[cliffard]

These beauty studies seem to take the position that there's no connection between beauty and race. But the ideal faces they describe have traits that seem more characteristic of some races that others. For example, the ideal female face has large eyes, full mouth, small nose, high cheek bones and a delicate jaw. Does every race/population/ethnic group have the same percentage of people that look like that? Or the .7 waist/hips ratio - does every race every race have the same percentage of women with that ratio? It seems unlikely.

Races/Ethnic groups and mixed types known for female beauty:

Mediteranean -Southern Europeans, specifically Spanish, Southern French and Italians.
Latino - Mestizos and light Mulatos types
Scandinavian/Nordic/Russian - blonde European types.
Malay - Filipinos, Balinese etc.
Eurasian - white/Asian mixed people
Mullato - white/black mixed people
East Asian - Japanese and Koreans specifically


Not known for beauty:

Australian aboriginals
Bushmen
pygmies
Samoans/Tongans
Native American (unless they look Latino or are part white)
South Asian (unless they look Mediteranean or Latino)
Anglo-Saxon/British Isles (unless they look Nordic or med)
Middle Eastern/Arab (unless they look med, mulatto or nordic)
Extreme Asians -Mongolians, Siberians etc.

The groups that aren't known for female beauty have a large percentage of extreme or dis-harmonic features. Australian aborigines, for example, tend to have thick brow ridges, deep set eyes, very broad noses and flat cheekbones. The aborigine face is probably the farthest from the female ideal and not surprisingly Australian aborigines are widely believed to be the least attractive race.

YOU CHEEKY BASTARDS!!! THATS IT!!! IM FUCKIN HANDSOME AND I KNOW I AM, EVEN MY OLD MUM TELLS ME!!!!
you, mister silencioso, have been taken RIGHT off my christmas card list
*goes off to sulk*

[whiskeyjack]

These beauty studies seem to take the position that there's no connection between beauty and race. But the ideal faces they describe have traits that seem more characteristic of some races that others. For example, the ideal female face has large eyes, full mouth, small nose, high cheek bones and a delicate jaw. Does every race/population/ethnic group have the same percentage of people that look like that? Or the .7 waist/hips ratio - does every race every race have the same percentage of women with that ratio? It seems unlikely.

Races/Ethnic groups and mixed types known for female beauty:

Mediteranean -Southern Europeans, specifically Spanish, Southern French and Italians.
Latino - Mestizos and light Mulatos types
Scandinavian/Nordic/Russian - blonde European types.
Malay - Filipinos, Balinese etc.
Eurasian - white/Asian mixed people
Mullato - white/black mixed people
East Asian - Japanese and Koreans specifically


Not known for female beauty:

Australian aboriginals
Bushmen
pygmies
Samoans/Tongans
Native American (unless they look Latino or are part white)
South Asian (unless they look Mediteranean or Latino)
Anglo-Saxon/British Isles (unless they look Nordic or med)
Middle Eastern/Arab (unless they look med, mulatto or nordic)
Extreme Asians -Mongolians, Siberians etc.

The groups that aren't known for female beauty have a large percentage of extreme or dis-harmonic features. Australian aborigines, for example, tend to have thick brow ridges, deep set eyes, very broad noses and flat cheekbones. The aborigine face is probably the farthest from the female ideal and not surprisingly Australian aborigines are widely believed to be the least attractive race.

[mayugastank]

But then by your logic Silencioso, people in the "non-attractive" ethnic groups were mostly settling because their groups supposedly, largely don't fit human male beauty standards. I think you need to specify a lot more when this human male vision of beauty came about, and so forth. It's not like we always knew every ethnic group and type in the world, and with that logic Native Americans, pygmys, etc. Mainly thought their woman were unattractive until they came into contact with the "beautiful" groups.

Its doubtful -perongregory-that other groups didnt think their women were attractive till coming into contact with outside influences. However -their is a defined criteria of beauty. It doesnt change from race to race and place to place. Bone structure and harmonic facial features, are considered attractive in Africa. Ethopian women are known throughout Africa -as being extremely attractive. They have those features in large numbers. Pyschology suggests that men/women...both subconsciously look for these features as a sign of kindness and male/female reproductivity. The argument says that 'by women defining men who hold harmonic features as attractive " they are actually saying that ...this man looks as if he might be a female and a better suitor for child rearing then a man would be. The argument can be made as to whom would hold more of these people(nation/race) and silencioso gave his observation ( which means jack!) ....but clearly people from place to place do have certain looks and body types by region. This all has to do ...with a lack of transportation up until recently ...and how people would marry/breed with those closest to them. Now using dogs as an example: when you breed a chihuhua with a mini poodle you are left with an even smaller dog. How so doesnt this work in human beings? The mating pool up until the 19th century was limited by -your familys choices and those around you. The gene pool from location to location in the USA is diverse itself. Minnesota is known for having a high rate of blonde blue eyed nordics...because it was a destination for danish fishermen. Guadalajara is known for having --a high percent of WHITE mexicans -because of a heavy spanish presence. Now tell me when women and men pyschologically look for a defined signatures for attraction that they wouldnt pursue those facial charecteristics? and that certain places on earth with possible smaller gene pools wouldnt be more likely to have some type of genominial experiment where those features would NATURALLY through selection begin to represent more of a majority? seems logical to me....

[mayugastank]

Hispanic/Latino isn't a race and actually is a quite new subgroup of human people. How can you compare such a heavily mixed group of people with lessed mixed groups of people?

Thats true. Its a new gene pool ....notice how spaniards/latins are known for having a high percent of attractive people? and mexicans being heavily mixed would give mexicans higher percentages of these genes? not only that but native aztecs ...differ tremendously from the facial structures of MAYANS.....if you were to line up the 2 mexican/indian subgroups ...you could clearly see the differences in facial structures. And the MAYANS have a higher familarity with Mongoloid peoples...in bone structure. Which looking at the history --mexicans are supposedly descendants of them.

Yes your right about that --mexicans wouldnt make up a good example for this conversation. The gene pool is too mixed and holds too many subgroups and other racial mixtures to have a comprehensive discussion on it.

[mayugastank]

Personal observation.....on why I said chicano people(men/women) are considered attractive to all people. Because I have seen as much. In situations where both our women and men are purposely targeted in large part by others. Many times in mixed race situations-the man or women found attractive by all races likewise..is latino. Of which I have found only pretty white women would match up. Meaning that when a white female is attractive its usally shared across the board that she is. But for whatever reason when latino men or women are considered attractive . EVERY race usually is in agreement. Heres an example: When working in heavily white simi-valley, the racial makeup of the situation (work enviroment) was pretty even. White men/black men/latino men ...were all somewhat in agreement on which of the women amongst us were attractive. ( Hence the universal charcteristics of beauty) in all the amount of attractive latinas was equal to what Ive seen my entire life. A big part of all the women considered attractive were chicanas. Although the numbers were split evenly. As for the men -and how the women thought...well universally women of all races present felt likewise that a few of the men in the situation were extremely attractive...( again the universal traits of beauty) I noticed that one of the men considered attractive was always being pursued by black chicks-white chicks alike, and that all the chicano women felt likewise that he was attractive. Mind you -that these real life situations are mini-experiments. And yes.....pobrecito.......it was limited to my enviroment. But it is normally what I have seen. Both chicana women and chicano men do something to other races in that without to much of a thought /they pursue us without conscious to the ramifications of race. We are in the middle ground. And our attractiveness is a good percent. Enough to make us interracial targets quit a bit. The census states that half of all interracial marriages will be latino partners. People like always go for what they like...whats sexy . If he was latino it makes it easier. And many times only amongst latino men do I see the equal percent of attractive men to women. It is weird!