Reply to Thread New Thread |
![]() |
#21 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#22 |
|
Also urban people tend to have better salary, quality of life etc, this all effects how we look. Access to amenities etc is all ofcourse important too. |
![]() |
![]() |
#23 |
|
Why do Latvians look better than Brits? ![]() I actually think some girls from London can be the best in the world. However, its when you get to 'chav' areas there are some real scum. We could say that mixed nationalities dispalyed what is termed as 'hybrid vigour' though. This is by the genetic hetrosis, gaining a large gentic pool allows increased strength, resistance and many argue - better looks. |
![]() |
![]() |
#24 |
|
And, imo, people who live in a country sides look better and are healthier, cause they eat better food and they are physically more active, they breathe fresh air every day... ect...
And men, I am sure that you all are talking about make - up beauty and the style that city girls usually have. ---------- Post added 2011-12-07 at 00:46 ---------- I don't think they do really ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#25 |
|
I know some urban people are ugly and villagers beautiful, I just thought of my impression- I put aside impact of a dentist or dermatologyst, obviously its important too, but I meant natural look- shape of face, body, etc.
It may be due to prolonged better life conditions, from early childhod, so it may be less effect of homogenyty. Logically, where there is more to choose from, the results might be better in longer terms. But I dont know how beauty transfer genetically haha. In theory, in cities the ugliest people could be naturally eliminated, while in countryside still keep breedeing, because once- the standards are lower, second- a limit of choice lower- but again, two ugly from a city could mate up and create a real monster. ok i will stop here, i am half jokng now with it but going into dangerous area of eugenics- pale blonde, please take over the steering wheel. howgh. |
![]() |
![]() |
#26 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#27 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#28 |
|
it depends on what ethnicities you're mixed with. I think Kim Kardashian got the best of both worlds... the anglo in here made her nose smaller and more feminime(less armenid)..
Brazillians, Columbians and Argentinians are some of the most attractive people to walk this earth. so yes mixed ethnicity does give someone a really fresh look. But this is just because its sort of new. i think in the very far future unmixed people will be seen as more attractive and exotic. I think that some unmixed english men are really attractive and masculine, along with Kurdish men to (unmixed). |
![]() |
![]() |
#29 |
|
It rather depends of the look of the two parents : there was a trend in the nineties in France to deem half-black children as flawless and very handsome individuals, but heck in reality mixed background does not guarantee from ugliness in reality. There's no Übermenschen based on the ethnicity but rather on the personality.
|
![]() |
![]() |
#30 |
|
I've been in USA many times . And you can see very exotic peoples, who are in average better looking than european : their only problem is their diet, you will never find peoples like that in Europe except among the mixed ones. Exoticness have something to do with that I agree . Like them : ![]() ![]() ![]() I see nothing exotic about them, unless you saw them walking by the streets of Nepal there they would look exotic.... |
![]() |
![]() |
#31 |
|
Mixed supremacy!
![]() I'm mixed myself and I'm rarely attracted to people of any of my ethnic backgrounds. Italians are the best looking single ethnicity, apart from that I prefer Americans and Jews. But, yeah. Mixed people normally looks better, although some can look uglier than any of their ethnic components (so it's pretty much dependant on what kind of mix...). |
![]() |
![]() |
#32 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#33 |
|
Don't remember if a thread about that already exist . |
![]() |
![]() |
#34 |
|
I dunno, sort of strange that South American telenovelas are full of people who are way less admixed than the average for their populations. ---------- Post added 2011-12-07 at 01:48 ---------- Some others mixed peoples . Milla Jovovich (Serbian/Ukranian) ![]() Anna Falchi (Italian/Finn) ![]() Kim Rossi Stuart (Dutch/German/Scotish/Italian) ![]() Kristin Kreuk (Chinese/Dutch) ![]() Patrik Antonius (Swedish/Finn) ![]() Sigrid Agren (French carribean/Swedish) ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#35 |
|
I don't think that a certain combination of ethnicity/race is going to make someone more attractive. EVERYONE is mixed to be honest.
For example, to make a full blood Spaniard took tens of thousands of years of mixing. Often, at least in the U.S, mixed refers to first generation mixes between the so called races, and sometimes mixed ethnicity. I will say one thing, I think being mixed ethnicity and or race can often give a broader range of phenotype choices/appearances, so mixed ethnicity/race individuals may appeal to a broader range of people, and that's as far as I can lend to the idea of Mixed ethnicity/race=attractive. Point blank, attractive people are attractive people I DON'T FIND THESE OF MIXED RACE/ETHNICITY PARTICULARITY ATTRACTIVE ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#36 |
|
Race-mixing is a very arbitrary concept.
OP: when you say that French people are particularly good-looking, this must be your chauvinism speaking because being familiar with France, as well as Germany and Holland, this is just plain false ![]() Anyway about New World vs Old World, having read many books about american conquest, I read many reports from the 19th century observing that "European settlers in America of the second generation were healthier looking than their european brothers and cousins due to the better quality of the air and environment, they have better complexion and have bigger frames, european quality of air being very polluted and the continent is overcrowded" Another thing that counter your point of view is the Bottleneck effect. White north americans are LESS MIXED than white Europeans; the Bottleneck Effect, or Founder effect being "the loss of genetic variation that occurs when a new population is established by a very small number of individuals from a larger population". The White american population comes from a very small part of the European genepool who spreaded inside north America, there is actually less genetic variation within the American population, as there is typically less genetic variation within a newly settled area. |
![]() |
![]() |
#37 |
|
Another thing that counter your point of view is the Bottleneck effect. White north americans are LESS MIXED than white Europeans; the Bottleneck Effect, or Founder effect being "the loss of genetic variation that occurs when a new population is established by a very small number of individuals from a larger population". I would not say its true anymore in XX century, as the number of immigrants over XIX and XX century were so high, counted in dozens of millions, also 'mixing policy' changed, so modern US population I would say is mixed. back to Europe- its similar phenomen. Most Europeans lived in their villages for centuries without seeing anyone else, many live like that even today, however in last centuries mobility and migrations increased largely so people from various areas mixed with each other, eg north and south France or Germany and France etc. Then I would say that it goes parrarely between USA and Europe, maybe not in the same exact time, Europeans who went to USA transplanted European attitude- they often basically resettled whole villages to New World. Later with agrar or industrial and social revolutions it changed and nowadays most people do not consider marrying only among people of the same village or town (even though many still do for practical reasons) |
![]() |
![]() |
#38 |
|
Typical telenovelas actors are Italian/Spanish, Italian/German or German/Portuguese . Similar to their mix population among white, but not similar to all the population in their country. search "anna falchi cemetery man" in google you won't be disappointed. |
![]() |
![]() |
#39 |
|
It's is largely if not entirely determined by genetics and prenatal factors(hormonal activity), Higher testosterone activity during pregnancy will lead male fetuses to have more typical masculine features that are attractive to the opposite sex . While it is less clear how enviromental factors would affect attractiveness during our pubertal growth(stress, nutrition, physical activity).
Some people grow up poor and in really bad conditions, yet they turn out to be attractive. While the reverse can be said about upper classes. Factors like nutrition effects are unclear. We don't know yet what leads to variation in physical features amongst human populations. There are some correlates and theories though, taking up bone density, skin-texture, facial features and muscle development, obesity, all connected to diet. |
![]() |
Reply to Thread New Thread |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 2 (0 members and 2 guests) | |
|