Black Female Interracial Appeal
Danny Tweedy
of symmetry:
http://www.angelfire.com/sc/biobea/index.html
The Devil's Advocate©
I've read this before. I'm not entirely convinced. I think it's still
mostly cultural. There may be some genetic basis to what people
consider beautiful, but I don't think that the hip-waist thing is one
of them. For example, only in recent times have thin women been
considered desirable in Western culture. Look at Renaissance paitings.
The women painted are fat by today's standards of what is beautiful,
but back then, that's what was fashionable. I think people are
attracted to whatever they have been taught to find attractive.
--
regards,
The Devil's Advocate
Currently Under Revitalization
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
"Your Warrant Is In Question"
http://surf.to/advocate
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
remove "nojunk" to email
DD200
and WHITE women who would be considered unattractive by any standard?
It is a FACT that a portion of the WHITE women with black men belong to
the group of WHITE women that most WIHTE men would NOT want. It is a
MYTH that all black men with WHITE women are walking around with WHITE
women considered attractive by most people. It is a LIE!!!!!!!!
DD200
that black men prefer WHITE women because WHITE women are thinner ect;
therefore, I posted asking about all the black men with unattractive FAT
WHITE women.
After reading a little more, I realize that Danny is probably a WHITE
man explaining why WHITE men are not attracted to Black women. Well, I
could not care less about the topic of what WHITE men see or do not see
in Black women.
I read at the end of the "message" from the URL that Black women cannot
have the men they fancy the most. I suppose those are WHITE men? The
statement was made to Black women in interracial relationships or who
want an interracial relationship. The message also tells Black women
not to lose hope. Well, racist WHITE people are known to grab what is
available during a crisis. Plenty of extremely unattractive FAT WHITE
women who have sworn that they would never let an ugly "nigger" who is
looking for beautiful WHITE women touch her has changed her tune as soon
as the first "nigger" looks her way.
Danny Tweedy
and have placed on many many boards for discussion]. The piece seeks only to
provide *competative plausiblity* as to why Black females [and apparently
Mexican American females] are not sought after as frequently as other ethnic
groups of women when it comes to relationships that take an interracial
form.
Increasingly, the explanation of race and race prejudice is becoming an
inadequate one,--as our social progress renders it an illogical one.
Something more fundamental is at the heart of the matter--something
apparently incontrovertible. The Biology of Beauty study provides us with
evidence of how physical proportions not only impact the forming of
relationships in general, but interracial relationships as well. And judging
from the remarks of many of my colleagues, who are experts in their
respective fields of genetic/biological, social, and behavioral sciences,
what i propose is entirely likely, and nothing short of intriguing. My
colleagues, being experts in their own right, provided some very legitimate
criticisms, which i addressed in full. Their caveats notwithstanding, they
generally tend to agree with my postulate.
On the matter of cultural influence:
In the piece i address the issue of how much cultural sway contributes to
the determination of attractiveness. No where do i deny that culture plays
some role in terms of how societies define beauty, and even marginal
attractiveness. But--as i say in not so many words--cultural defines of
beauty do not predominantly influence human considerations of physical
attractiveness. Were it the case that this was true, the human race might
have die out not long after the inception of the agricultural revolution and
"civilized" society. But instinctive human impulses continued to do the work
of natural selection according to mother nature's plan, continuing to
provide humans with the optimal physical form for survival and progress. The
genetic reality is that there is but one physical form that is prodigious
among humans--one with a modest distribution of weight about the body and
which is accompanied with all the other signatures of physical healthiness
that are the hallmarks of attractiveness.
Many of you have made a point of noting only what appears to me "exceptions
to the rule". Something that people have done quite fervently on other
boards as well. I'll simply say what i've said on other occasions; that
exceptions are only that, exceptions, and only have value in that regard.
They in no way invalidate the rule.
Dan
quasi...@aol.com
partially on attraction to beauty (there is attraction based on other
attributes, i.e. money, power, fame), but that does not support a genetically
hardwired connection between beauty and genetics.
Beauty is basically a creation of popular opinion. Nature ,the final arbitor
of what is biologically important, cares little for beauty; it cares more for
survival. Most notions of beauty include traits that are irrelevant to and
sometimes contradictory to survivability.
However, beauty can however be seen as a tool of some to propagate their own
genes, so in that essence there is a biological association, but it's not from
nature...it comes from it's contestants.
Beauty is truly in the eye of the beholder but some want you to see through
their eyes, so they hide behind the legitimacy of science.
It's all looks, apparitions, mind tricks, and virtual reality, but some quirk
in our thinking comes to attach some kind of deep significance to it. It's
called being fooled.
Reality is far more than cosmetics.
-John Clarke
In article <3645EDAF...@mindspring.com>,
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Danny Tweedy
Hardly.
Here is the link for the Newsweek article on the groundbreaking study of late:
http://hss.fullerton.edu/sociology/orleans/symmetry.txt
From this fascinating study, it should be more than clear to you that beauty is
quite quantifiable, and hardly a relative matter that is "in eye of the beholder".
Enjoy.
The Devil's Advocate©
>Beauty is entirely a man-made notion.
I'm about 85% there in agreement with you. But the other 15% is
unsure. It's generally been my opinion that beauty is subjective in
the world of aesthetics. However, in many arenas, people will converge
on the same opinion. Most would consider the Florence Cathedral more
beautiful than the average 3 bedroom house in the suburbs. Of course
some idiosyncratic person will think the opposite. And most will think
that the music of Bach is far better than the music of Alanis
Morrisette. So the fact that many people converge on things gives
evidence that there may be such a thing as objective beauty.
> Selection of a mate can be based
>partially on attraction to beauty (there is attraction based on other
>attributes, i.e. money, power, fame),
These attributes tend to work in favor of men. A not so attractive guy
with a lot of money, fame and power, e.g., Bill Gates can attract
women that are perfect 10s. (In fact, I'd be very curious to see what
his wife looks like. I've done a netsearch for a pic using hit words
like "Bill" "Gate's" "Wife" "Spouse" but I can't find a picture.)
However, a not so attractive women that has money will have a much
tougher time attracting men than a not so attractive man with money.
>but that does not support a genetically
>hardwired connection between beauty and genetics.
This is something I'm not sure about. It could be true. I am at least
convinced that genetics has something to do with finding other humans
physically attractive, because it is ubiquitious. I can't think of any
culture that doesn't have at least -some- idea of beauty and ugliness.
I don't think even a single isolated tribe has been encountered that
had no concept of an attractive person and an unnatractive person. It
seems to be hardwired into all animals, everything from birds to
spiders, to fish to people seem to be selective in who they mate with
based on some physical criterea. Why? I don't know.
>
>Beauty is basically a creation of popular opinion.
What we consider beauty is a creation of popular opinion, however, the
notion of beauty per se is genetic.
>It's all looks, apparitions, mind tricks, and virtual reality, but some quirk
>in our thinking comes to attach some kind of deep significance to it. It's
>called being fooled.
Beauty may have no actual significance, but it really doesn't matter
because no one can "think" themselves out of finding someone
beautiful. Even for me, I am fully cognizant that beauty doesn't exist
objectively and that it has no more significance than toe size, yet I
can't force myself to forget about it and be just as attracted to an
"ugly" woman as I could a "pretty" one. If somebody has figured out a
way to do this, please, please tell me. I'd like to be able to find
every woman beautiful if possible.
DD200
First, only self serving sexist men could believe that most females
would not care if a man is extremely overweight and has an extremely
asymmetrical face. You are assuming that all men are in great shape and
have symmetrical faces? The reasons why women might seem less chosy is
because of societal conditioning that ANY man is better than no man, and
a rich man is best of all. Lets not even count that most men usually
have more money and power and therefore can be more chosy. Men can also
be more chosy when there is a male shortage. Here I am only refering to
the SEXIST aspect of your post.
Second, you claim beauty has nothing to do with race then you deduce
that black women are inherently less attractive. Are you saying that
WHITES have more symmetrical faces than blacks? How does one jump from
symmetry to race? Are Blacks less symmetrical? Besides, if men seek
symmetrical females to assure healthy children would women ALSO not by
nature choose symmetry to assure healthy children? I think your
symmetrical study is more than a bit lopsided.
Also, you still have not answered that if beauty is a factor in
interracial relationships why are there black men with FAT unattractive
WHITE women?
I really do not want to get into an argument with you. Your purpose for
posting the lopsided study (women vs men) with conclusions that are
not relevant (symmetry vs race) is suspect.
DD200
Please!!!!! We live in a world where we see plenty more ugly rich men
with what most consider attractive women because there are simply many
more rich men than rich women. Men ( rich WHITE men) have most of the
money in the world. As I explained before, women might seem less chosy
for economical reasons and societal conditioning. You are using the
word ATTRACT in a misleading way. To attract with money does not mean
that women do not care about the man's face and body but rather that the
money and power often COMPENSATES for the lack of physical
attractiveness in some rich men. MONEY is what is working for the ugly
rich men and NOT that beauty is a factor in mate chosing. Do you not
SEE the logic here?
Big Don
>
> A not so attractive guy
> with a lot of money, fame and power, e.g., Bill Gates can attract
> women that are perfect 10s. (In fact, I'd be very curious to see what
> his wife looks like. I've done a netsearch for a pic using hit words
> like "Bill" "Gate's" "Wife" "Spouse" but I can't find a picture.)
There's been a few foto's of her in the Seattle paper. Big Don would
give her a 7-8, nothing exceptional in the looks dept but she is an IQ-150...
The Devil's Advocate©
>but she is an IQ-150...
How do you know? And btw, what's YOUR
IQ, "big" Don?
roz...@hotmail.com
I'd give her a 6 or 7 at the most. Reputedly, she's quite smart because one
of Gates' requirements for a wife was that she be able to beat him at some
computer game. Of course, I question her intellectual capacity because their
prenuptial agreement includes a clause whereas he would be able to take a
one-week vacation each year with a former girlfriend. (Article in Ladies
Home Journal)
In article <3649112...@news.earthlink.net>,
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
E...@cheerful.com
soca...@earthlink.netNO-JUNK wrote:
> These attributes tend to work in favor of men. A not so attractive guy
> with a lot of money, fame and power, e.g., Bill Gates can attract
> women that are perfect 10s. (In fact, I'd be very curious to see what
> his wife looks like. I've done a netsearch for a pic using hit words
> like "Bill" "Gate's" "Wife" "Spouse" but I can't find a picture.)
The only pic I could find is at
http://www.futuremedia.org/Media/imedia/retailing/gamewks/pages/mgates.html
I recently saw a pic of her walking with Bill (and their bodygurads) in
Newsweek. Its the issue with the picture of baby in cover with the caption 'Do
Parents Matter?' or something like that. I think it was the September 7th
issue. It may be in your library, the pic is towards end of the magazine.
The Devil's Advocate©
>The only pic I could find is at
>http://www.futuremedia.org/Media/imedia/retailing/gamewks/pages/mgates.html
I just saw it. However, "big" Don's rating system is a bit more
forgiving than mine. She's be about a 5 or 5.5 on my scale. If I were
a CEO worth billions I'd have an 8+ and nothing less. Of course those
two may get along great and love each other and that's all that really
matters in the end. Wonder what it's like to be the wife of the
richest man in the world?
Danny Tweedy
outright did not understand what is actually claimed in my post. Whatever
the case may be, allow me, the source of the notions expressed, to explain
away your confusion on the matter of my reasoning.
You make the claim that my post is sexist, but for no other reason than its
focus on women. Surely, this is not cause enough for doubt. Specialized
treatment of a topic along gender lines is something that is regularly
practiced in public discourse and intellectual sanctuaries of higher
education. But for the fact that the focus is on Black women, it is unlikely
that you would otherwise be inclined to protest my sentiments as
unpalatable, and, as you say, "suspect". An observation on my part that you
would be hard-pressed to deny. Quite simply, for brevity's sake, a
narrowed/specialized focus does not a bias invariably make. A logical
examination that fixates on Black women is no more sexist than one that
focuses on Black men. My post is not meant to treat the subject of men, but
specializes on the topic of Black females. Mayhaps your indignation is
entirely a result of the fact that a *man* is doing the reasoning, and that
by feminist mandate, this merits my indictment as "sexist"? Isn't this
always the case.
If one takes the time to read both my sentiments and the Newsweek article
with a perspective sterilized of prejudice, you find that there is no real
reason to consider any male interracial disparities from the standpoint of
physical symmetry. The statistical evidence provided by the NCHS
demonstrates that there is no significant disparity in obesity between
ethnic groups of men. However, NCHS make a point of explicitly noting the
girth in disparity between ethnic groups of women--noting the remarkable
figure of 52% of "Non-Hispanic Black women" as overweight. As i've stated in
other forums on the net, a significant disparity by any standard.
On the matter of my supposed inconsistency in claiming that physical beauty
has nothing to do with race, only later to go on to make my case in terms of
physical symmetry in a race context, well, again, you've misread what is on
the site. I argue my case along *ethnic* lines, not racial ones. And when i
examine the symmetrical quality of Black females as a group, i do so not
from the standpoint of facial symmetry--there is no evidence to support the
notion that *ethnic* African-American women lack facial symmetry more than
do, say, WASP women--, but from the standpoint of the average distribution
of weight about the body as a evident with NCHS figures on average body
weights per *ethnic* group and *sex*. The reality is that Black females are
considered to be generally less attractive than other ethnic groups of
women, particularly WASP women. But this perception is more a function of a
statistical truth regarding Black female "biological quality", and not any
societal fostered notion that Black American women are especially
unattractive in the face. As a group, the attractiveness of Black females is
fataled by their higher rate of obesity, which, as indicated by NCHS, ranks
over 50%. If over 50% of a population possesses the noticeable attribute of
physical mediocrity, then the perceptions of members of other ethnic groups
are necessarily incubated and corroborated ubiquitously. Unfair though this
may be, as it is quite typical of categorical human prejudice, such is the
reality that chiefly characterizes the human disposition to unfairly
generalize. D'nesh D'Souza calls it "rational discrimination". And rational
it is.
The Devil's Advocate©
exactly what it is he's trying to get at, but damn does he say it
well.
Roger Brown
AdvocateŠ) wrote:
>I've seen Danny's post on both usenet and other forums. I'm never sure
>exactly what it is he's trying to get at, but damn does he say it
>well.
If you don't get what he is writing about, then he isn't writing well.
He is basically conducting a form of eugenics, attempting to perform the
impossible task of creating a scientific basis for his racist beliefs about
black women.
- Roger
DD200
Are you a black man? You are starting to sound like a black man who
uses a study about an overweight problem among Afro Americans because
you assume that you need to justify dating interracially by proving Afro
American women unattractive, but I could be wrong. No matter what is
your race, I would like you to FINALLY answer my question as to why
there are black men with FAT WHITE women?
Also, you are mixing up at least two different studies to arrive at your
desired conclusion. There was a study on overweight and health, and an
unrelated different study on symmetry and beauty. The study on symmetry
focused on PROPORTION not SIZE. The study on symmetry and beauty focused
on facial proportions and examined female AND male faces.
You are confusing symmetry and proportion with SIZE. Fat is about SIZE.
Proportion is how parts relate to one another. For example, there are
hour glass shaped women. An hour glass means that her chest and hips
are a lot larger in PROPORTION to her waist. There are pear shaped
women who are PROPORTIONALLY a lot narrower on top than around the
hips. There are the straight figure women who seem to have a straight
line body proportion. There are top heavy women with wide shoulders
PROPORTIONALLY alot wider than the hips. A person's body SHAPE
(proportion) usually remains the same regardless of their SIZE (fat) for
example,a hour glass woman will be shaped like a wide hour glass when
fat or a narrower hour glass when thinner, ect. The hour glass SHAPED
women seems to be the most popular SHAPE among men. Have you not notice
how thin WHITE women (actresses, playboy type models, ect) get breasts
implants then pose sticking their butt out as far as they can to make it
look like they have more butt?
roz...@hotmail.com
your own pleasure, that's called MASTURBATION. In article
<364d69fa...@news.earthlink.net>, soca...@earthlink.netNO-JUNK wrote:
> I've seen Danny's post on both usenet and other forums. I'm never sure
> exactly what it is he's trying to get at, but damn does he say it
> well.
>
> --
>
> regards,
> The Devil's Advocate
>
> Currently Under Revitalization
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> "Your Warrant Is In Question"
> http://surf.to/advocate
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> remove "nojunk" to email
>
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Kathy
roz...@hotmail.com wrote:
> DA: The purpose of writing is COMMUNICATION. If you're writing simply for
> your own pleasure, that's called MASTURBATION.
You obviously remember him too, Roslyn. I was wondering how long it would take
you to remember him.
Kathy
> In article
> <364d69fa...@news.earthlink.net>, soca...@earthlink.netNO-JUNK wrote:
>
> > I've seen Danny's post on both usenet and other forums. I'm never sure
> > exactly what it is he's trying to get at, but damn does he say it
> > well.
> >
> > --
> >
> > regards,
> > The Devil's Advocate
> >
> > Currently Under Revitalization
> > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> > "Your Warrant Is In Question"
> > http://surf.to/advocate
> > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> > remove "nojunk" to email
> >
> >
>
Kathy
The Devil's AdvocateŠ wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Nov 1998 15:33:47 GMT, roz...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >DA: The purpose of writing is COMMUNICATION. If you're writing simply for
> >your own pleasure, that's called MASTURBATION. In article
>
> I just meant that he's quite linguistically articulate even though I'm
> not sure what his agenda is.
DA, it will soon become apparent. He did this in another forum about a year
ago. It didn't work then with Roslyn and myself and many others and it surely
ain't working this time. He feels by using the thesaurus to get his point
across it will confuse everybody to the point in agreeing with him. He
obviously feels our vocabulary isn't as big as his. I'm just wondering what
letter in the dictionary he's up to these days.
Kathy
The Devil's Advocate©
>DA: The purpose of writing is COMMUNICATION. If you're writing simply for
>your own pleasure, that's called MASTURBATION. In article
I just meant that he's quite linguistically articulate even though I'm
not sure what his agenda is.
--
roz...@hotmail.com
Looney Tunes on the usenet.
Roslyn
In article <3650DAFA...@san.rr.com>,
Kathy <mjac...@san.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
> roz...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > DA: The purpose of writing is COMMUNICATION. If you're writing simply for
> > your own pleasure, that's called MASTURBATION.
>
> You obviously remember him too, Roslyn. I was wondering how long it would
take
> you to remember him.
>
> Kathy
>
> > In article
> > <364d69fa...@news.earthlink.net>, soca...@earthlink.netNO-JUNK wrote:
> >
> > > I've seen Danny's post on both usenet and other forums. I'm never sure
> > > exactly what it is he's trying to get at, but damn does he say it
> > > well.
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > regards,
> > > The Devil's Advocate
> > >
> > > Currently Under Revitalization
> > > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> > > "Your Warrant Is In Question"
> > > http://surf.to/advocate
> > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> > > remove "nojunk" to email
> > >
> > >
> >
roz...@hotmail.com
months ago. They seemed to reach common ground. Frankly, I haven't looked at
The Devil's Advocate the same since. Roslyn
In article <365118FD...@san.rr.com>,
> >
> > >DA: The purpose of writing is COMMUNICATION. If you're writing simply for
> >
> > I just meant that he's quite linguistically articulate even though I'm
> > not sure what his agenda is.
>
> ago. It didn't work then with Roslyn and myself and many others and it surely
> ain't working this time. He feels by using the thesaurus to get his point
> across it will confuse everybody to the point in agreeing with him. He
> obviously feels our vocabulary isn't as big as his. I'm just wondering what
> letter in the dictionary he's up to these days.
>
> Kathy
>
> >
> >
> >
> > regards,
> > The Devil's Advocate
> >
> > Currently Under Revitalization
> > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> > "Your Warrant Is In Question"
> > http://surf.to/advocate
> > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> > remove "nojunk" to email
>
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
The Devil's Advocate©
>Kathy: DA had his own Certs encounter with Danny over at INTERracial a few
>months ago. They seemed to reach common ground. Frankly, I haven't looked at
>The Devil's Advocate the same since. Roslyn
Whadda you mean? At first, I didn't know he was a troll, he was saying
that if men prefer thin women, and a dispropotionate amount of black
women are not thin(50%), then that could explain why many black date
out when they can. It sounded logical. As far as his other posts, I'm
not sure where he's trying to go.
Kathy
roz...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Kathy: DA had his own Certs encounter with Danny over at INTERracial a few
> months ago. They seemed to reach common ground. Frankly, I haven't looked at
> The Devil's Advocate the same since. Roslyn
He's still over there? He still hasn't got the message yet, huh?
Kathy
>
> In article <365118FD...@san.rr.com>,
> Kathy <mjac...@san.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > The Devil's AdvocateŠ wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, 16 Nov 1998 15:33:47 GMT, roz...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > >DA: The purpose of writing is COMMUNICATION. If you're writing simply for
> > > >your own pleasure, that's called MASTURBATION. In article
> > >
> > > I just meant that he's quite linguistically articulate even though I'm
> > > not sure what his agenda is.
> >
> > DA, it will soon become apparent. He did this in another forum about a year
> > ago. It didn't work then with Roslyn and myself and many others and it surely
> > ain't working this time. He feels by using the thesaurus to get his point
> > across it will confuse everybody to the point in agreeing with him. He
> > obviously feels our vocabulary isn't as big as his. I'm just wondering what
> > letter in the dictionary he's up to these days.
> >
> > Kathy
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > regards,
> > > The Devil's Advocate
> > >
> > > Currently Under Revitalization
> > > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> > > "Your Warrant Is In Question"
> > > http://surf.to/advocate
> > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> > > remove "nojunk" to email
> >
> >
>
Kathy
The Devil's AdvocateŠ wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Nov 1998 14:22:55 GMT, roz...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >Kathy: DA had his own Certs encounter with Danny over at INTERracial a few
> >months ago. They seemed to reach common ground. Frankly, I haven't looked at
> >The Devil's Advocate the same since. Roslyn
>
> Whadda you mean? At first, I didn't know he was a troll, he was saying
> that if men prefer thin women, and a dispropotionate amount of black
> women are not thin(50%), then that could explain why many black date
> out when they can. It sounded logical. As far as his other posts, I'm
> not sure where he's trying to go.
Half the times neither does he.
roz...@hotmail.com
In article <36521FD9...@san.rr.com>,
Kathy <mjac...@san.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
> roz...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > Kathy: DA had his own Certs encounter with Danny over at INTERracial a few
> > months ago. They seemed to reach common ground. Frankly, I haven't looked
at
> > The Devil's Advocate the same since. Roslyn
>
> He's still over there? He still hasn't got the message yet, huh?
>
> Kathy
>
> >
> > In article <365118FD...@san.rr.com>,
> > Kathy <mjac...@san.rr.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > The Devil's AdvocateŠ wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Mon, 16 Nov 1998 15:33:47 GMT, roz...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >DA: The purpose of writing is COMMUNICATION. If you're writing simply
for
> > > > >your own pleasure, that's called MASTURBATION. In article
> > > >
> > > > I just meant that he's quite linguistically articulate even though I'm
> > > > not sure what his agenda is.
> > >
> > > DA, it will soon become apparent. He did this in another forum about a
year
> > > ago. It didn't work then with Roslyn and myself and many others and it
surely
> > > ain't working this time. He feels by using the thesaurus to get his point
> > > across it will confuse everybody to the point in agreeing with him. He
> > > obviously feels our vocabulary isn't as big as his. I'm just wondering
what
> > > letter in the dictionary he's up to these days.
> > >
> > > Kathy
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > regards,
> > > > The Devil's Advocate
> > > >
> > > > Currently Under Revitalization
> > > > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> > > > "Your Warrant Is In Question"
> > > > http://surf.to/advocate
> > > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> > > > remove "nojunk" to email
> > >
> > >
> >
Roger Brown
>I've seen Danny's post on both usenet and other forums. I'm never sure
>exactly what it is he's trying to get at, but damn does he say it
>well.
If you don't get what he is writing about, then he isn't writing well.
Roger Brown
Well, I haven't met this wacky guy before ....
On Sun, 08 Nov 1998 13:14:56 -0600, Danny Tweedy <sha...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Increasingly, the explanation of race and race prejudice is becoming an
>inadequate one,--as our social progress renders it an illogical one.
wrong. We haven't progressed that far, in many areas. Therefore the rest of
your thesis falls flat as pancake.
>Something more fundamental is at the heart of the matter--something
>apparently incontrovertible.
You're trying to float a lead balloon here, in this unsustainable premise.
>The Biology of Beauty study provides us with
>evidence of how physical proportions not only impact the forming of
>relationships in general, but interracial relationships as well.
I'll let this one go, for the time being, but it is basicially horseshit.
>And judging
>from the remarks of many of my colleagues, who are experts in their
>respective fields of genetic/biological, social, and behavioral sciences,
Names, ranks, and serial numbers are requested here, as I suspect you are
refering to your inebriated companions in your frat house .... this is pure
crapola .. how about some peer-reviewed articles by these eminent souls?
>what i propose is entirely likely, and nothing short of intriguing.
No, it's just short.
(big snip of pretentious blather to get to the "point")
>The
>genetic reality is that there is but one physical form that is prodigious
>among humans--
look up "prodigious" : you are misusing the word. It means "large". We like
large forms? But then you contradict yourself ...
>one with a modest distribution of weight about the body and
>which is accompanied with all the other signatures of physical healthiness
>that are the hallmarks of attractiveness.
Of which there are many examples among black women.
What is your point, pompous one?
- Roger
Danny Tweedy
is still lost on you, i'm sorry.
"Dear sir, i can give you reasons, but i cannot give you understanding."
Thomas Sowell
> >one with a modest distribution of weight about the body and
> >which is accompanied with all the other signatures of physical healthiness
> >that are the hallmarks of attractiveness.
>
> Of which there are many examples among black women.
>
> What is your point, pompous one?
>
> - Roger
<center>
<A HREF="http://www.cdc.gov/nchswww/releases/97news/97news/fatmmwr.htm
">NCHS (NATIONAL CENTER FOR HEALTH STATISTICS)</A></center>
"Among adults, overweight prevalence increased approximately 9 percent between 1980
and 1994. One-third of men and 36 percent of women are overweight. The disparities
by race/ethnicity are not as great for men as they are for women. Among women,
one-third of non-Hispanic whites, 52 percent of non-Hispanic blacks and 50 percent
of Mexican Americans are overweight".
<font color=red>BLACK FEMALE BASHING or STATISTICAL TRUTH</font>
Were anyone to make the claim that African-American women were on the whole simply
unattractive, no sooner than such a statement had been made than the inherent
prejudicial nature of it would be apparent. Discrediting so extreme and
indiscriminate a claim wouldn't be terribly difficult. One need only provide a
single example to the contrary, which would be easy enough to do. But what if the
claim were not that Black-American women were on the whole unattractive, but that
they were perhaps less attractive for some very provable reasons, reasons that were
not exotic but simply fathomable with common sense and statistical evidence? Would
it necessarily be the case that stating so facile a truism would be Black Female
bashing? It might construed as such, but the perception isn't incontestable evidence
that it is so. Being offended at the truth isn't clear cut evidence that the truth
is being used questionably to diminish. Being offended is quite often, and quite
simply, a matter of the mettle of individual equalitarian sensibilities being tested
by the realities of life, which serve as evidence to the contrary.
As indicated above in the statistics compiled by The National Center For Health
Statistics, a whopping 52 percent of non-Hispanic black women and 50 percent of
Mexican American women are overweight. Significant disparities by any standard. And
if the symmetry study can be considered sound--and it most certainly can--the
implications of such statistical evidence are clear. The "biological quality" of
these two particular groups of women is significantly impaired. Purely as a matter
of weight distribution about the body, on average it seems, these two groups of
women possess less symmetry, and thus physical attractiveness, than other ethnic
groups of women who are lower in percentage in terms of being overweight. But does
this mean that Black women on the whole are unattractive by physical symmetry
standards? Of course not. But it certainly suggests that 52 percent of them lack
one-half of the components necessary for base physical attractiveness--a prime
waist-to-hip ratio as facilitated by a modest distribution of weight about the body.
Both the statistical evidence and the findings of the symmetry study don't in the
end lend themselves as clubs for Black female bashing if responsibly
considered--that is, if the claim being made is sensible and free of personal motive
and prejudice. And mine surely is, for it is not my claim that Black women are not
attractive and that this explains the scant number of IR's involving them, but that
they happen to be a group who demonstrates a higher rate of being overweight [as
well as obese] than do other ethnic groups of women, and that this is contributory
to their diminished desirability. A sensible claim for sure. And about as unbiased
as is possible.
Consider the other fact provided by NCHS: "The disparities by race/ethnicity are not
as great for men as they are for women". With this you have evidence in support of
why the interracial desirability of Black men has not been as diminished as that of
Black women. It is not so much that they are more open to IR relationships [as they
surely are] than are Black women which explains their higher rates in such
relationships, but that they are more desirable as they possess a higher level of
attractiveness. Apparently, "biological quality" is as much a matter of gender
difference as it is ethnic difference.
As a nice segway to the next item of focus, lets give thought to something I allude
to earlier--that it is possible to possess one of the two requisites for physical
attractiveness. Doubtless, some individuals possess both, while others possess
neither.
<font color=red>SOME ARE MORE BLESSED THAN OTHERS</font>
As stated on other occasions, the possession of physical symmetry is not entirely a
matter of having symmetrical facial features, it is also a matter of the
distribution of weight about the body. Considering the fact that human physiques
vary widely, as do shapes of the human face, it is reasonable to think that we all
approximate mother nature's ideal to different degrees, and that the tail ends of
the distribution represent outliers were some individuals either possess both of the
requisites for physical attractiveness to a high degree and others possess neither.
From the mean, were most of us fall, working out to the right, the level of physical
attractiveness possessed in terms of both facial symmetry AND distribution of weight
about the body increases to the point of near perfection. Here you might find
individuals in possession of the stunning and seemingly flawless facial features
complemented by physiques demonstrating a perfect waist-to-hip ratio as those in the
possession of women like Tyra Banks, Cindy Crawford, and Veronica Webb. From the
mean working to the left of the distribution, individuals in possession of both
requisites of physical attraction dwindles to the point were it can be said with
confidence that some are absent both facial symmetry and a healthy distribution of
weight about the body entirely. Admitting that these individuals exist is one thing,
making sport of them for their poor luck of the draw is quite another. But what does
all this mean? What does it matter?
It seems that some humans are more blessed with beauty than others. A casual
observation of individuals walking in any park, on any day of the week, in any part
of the country, would provide the observer with sufficient evidence of this. But it
begs the question: Can one be in possession of one of the two requisites of physical
attractiveness and still by the standards of symmetry be considered attractive?
Well, as it turns out, yes--but with the caveat that it is only possible within
specific social circles, and not generally. A 300 lbs woman with a symmetrically
proportioned face will only be appreciated by men who find the anomaly of obese
women attractive by some strange, no doubt culturally manifest, fixation. But
generally speaking, as far as most human males go, such a woman is not at all
desirable. There are always exceptions to any given social rule, but in the end they
are only exceptions. In no way do they invalidate the rule. And the rule among human
males is that they prefer women who far better approximate mother nature's ideal
than do 300 lb women. No matter how perfectly symmetrical a woman's face is, if she
lacks a modest distribution of weight about the body it turns out that she is not
quality enough for most men.
In that very same light, is it possible to possess the requisite of a modest
distribution of weight about the body without having a symmetrical face and be
considered generally attractive? Again the answer is yes--but again with the caveat
that it is only possible within certain social circles with men who specialize in
this "type" of female. A woman with an exceptionally supreme physique but an ugly
mug will likely attract males enticed by the quality of sexual health given off by
her well above average physique. But these males generally will not consider her
attractive. And she is likely only to inspire the amorous cajoles of males whose
only interest is to partake of her highly arousing physique, as they suspect that
her sexual prowess is too above average. Again, generally speaking, she will is not
likely to be considered attractive by most human males.
So, the verdict seems to be that to be considered generally attractive by symmetry
standards--as the study indicates--requires that an individual be in possession of
at least a modest amount of both facial symmetry and distribution of weight about
the body. Again, bear in mind that above and below this thresh-hold humans differ in
terms of the amount of both attributes of attractiveness possessed.
<font color=red>ASSORTIVE MATING: FURTHER MAKING THE CASE</font>
<center><i>"The old saw notwithstanding, opposites do not really attract when it
comes to love and marriage. Likes attract. In one of the classic papers, originally
published in 1943, two sociologists studied 1,000 engaged couples in Chicago,
expecting to find at least some traits in which opposites did indeed attract. But
out of fifty-one social characteristics studied, the sign of correlation was
positive for every single one. For all but six of the fifty-one traits, the
correlations were statistically significant. Modest but consistently positive
correlations have been found for a wide variety of physical traits as well, ranging
from stature(the correlation from many studies average about +.25) to eye color
(also averaging about +.25, even within national populations)".<i>
Source: The Bell Curve -- Herrnstein and Murray
Page 110.
</center>
The authors of The Bell Curve go on to demonstrate that one other trait is
positively correlated--I.Q., and that persons of like I.Q. tend to seek each other
out. Not so difficult to believe. Though there are certainly exceptions, most people
pursue mates with comparable levels of intelligence to their own. Educated people
tend not to seek happiness with non-educated people. Assortive mating is yet another
one of those rule of thumbs that humans abide by. But I'll leave proving assortive
mating along the lines of I.Q. to Murray and Herrnstein,--they certainly make the
case in this regard very well. It is my desire to explore another plausibility of
assortive mating. That another trait which is highly correlative is that of physical
attractiveness, and that this correlation reasonably explains IR disparities
involving women of ethnic groups with lower degrees of "biological quality" than
others.
For sure, as Murray and Herrnstein demonstrate, and as most sociologists already
know, for the most part, likes attract--be it culturally, ideologically,
politically, or religiously. Most of us form social bonds and build associations
with people of like mind and interest. But we also seek people with a comparable
level attractiveness to our own, if not better. Assortive mating is as much a matter
of beauty as it is of political ideals, cultural foundation, or religious
persuasion--and, of course, I.Q.. Though the goal of human beings is to acquire an
optimum level of attractiveness in a mate, we generally settle for individuals who
in the very least meet the thresh-hold of being generally considered attractive.
Most men might ideally want to be with a woman like Tyra Banks, but we realize that
her kind are extremely rare. So, a woman that is reasonably attractive will do. Of
course, beauty is not everything to a woman, and it certainly is not the only thing
a man wants in a woman. But mother nature predisposes human males in general to
prefer women who possess attributes that sufficiently indicate that they are
sexually healthy and preponderantly fertile. If during the era of early man, the
environment demanded that mother nature select an obese physique as one best
supportive of human survival, today we might all be larger, and we might generally
prefer such a physique. But this design was not the optimal one. The successful
design is the one that most humans exhibit today. It is one that is symmetrical and
that is the type of preference for most humans.
As a matter of necessity, assortive mating is indicative of the power of biological
hardwiring. Not only do humans select themselves in a way that perpetuates optimal
genes for intelligence, but also in a way that perpetuates optimal genes for health.
The current and most widely apparent model of symmetry best exudes the signals of
health and indicate genetic quality. Symmetrical people are attractive people, and
attractive people tend to want to be with other attractive people. And unattractive
people--though they may not think it a reasonable goal--also want to be with
attractive people. Desiring a physically unattractive mate is hardly the norm. But
the laws of assortive mating tend to direct the attractive to the attractive and the
unattractive to the similarly unattractive. What evidence do we have for this among
modern humans? Well, that design that is apparently the most successful one, a
symmetrical one.
<font color=red>IS THE SYMMETRY STUDY A FLAWED, BIASED, AND FALLACIOUS ONE?</font>
<center><i>"No responsible historian of antiquity would deny that it is possible to
misinterpret the facts, either through ignorance or malice; but the open discussion
of scholarly research has made it difficult to conceal or to manufacture facts
without arousing the skepticism or the scorn of colleagues. There are, after all,
canons of evidence and standards of argument…"</i>
Mary Lefkowitz -- Black Athena Revisited (pg. 5)
</center>
The classicist Mary Lefkowitz is certainly correct. Any study that has any potential
whatsoever of being considered seriously would have its findings, premise,
conclusions and data inspected fastidiously by the scholarly community. It may be
nieve to think of academics as objective to the bone in this regard, but objectivity
is a prized virtue among them, and one that is obliged to the best capacity
possible. So, all ground-breaking studies that are published attract the critical
eye of those who comprise the academy. Being either widely discredited or in essence
found sound is the invariable fate of most serious studies. A study presumed to be
not subject to the rigors of evaluation by the experts is not in any capacity
promoted as serious body of work. And so it is not given much credence.
The findings released first to the scientific community and then to the general
public of the symmetry study were years in the making. Having been released for well
over 2 years now, its conclusions, data, and premise have long since been put "under
the microscope" for critical evaluation and the study itself has since been found by
the scientific community to be both fantastically intriguing and scientifically
sound. For sure it has its skeptics among academics, but what serious body of work
does not.
<font color=red>IS ATTRACTIVENESS A FUNCTION OF CULTURE OR BIOLOGY?</font>
Well over 50 years ago, the father of social psychology, Emile Durkiem, coined the
phrase <i>reality sui-generis</i>. He described it as a pre-existing reality that
was external to the individual and to which he/she was powerless. Though Durkiem is
best known for his pioneering work on suicide, he lies at the foundation of most
modern philosophical treaties that treat the subject of reality and social/societal
indoctrination. Social and psychological studies on the process of cultural
imbuement that all humans go through have, in essence, been premised on the
Durkiemean notion of <i>reality sui-generis</i>. That is to say, social theorists
have for many years now used the notion of reality sui-generis to describe social
and cultural indoctrination and make sense of various social dynamics. Conflict
theorists in particular make good use of the social inculcation of the individual as
a function of pre-existing societal reality. For them, nothing could be more true
than Durkiem's insistance that "social reality is social fact".
Undoubtedly, Durkiem was correct in his estimation that humans are nurtured
according to society's pre-existing set of norms and inevitably condemned to
internalize those norms as guiding references which bridle their behavioral
instincts. It is most certainly the case that things like human taste, perceptions,
and desire are all culturally tweaked, and that much of our natural instincts are
checked by social norms--no doubt largely for our own good. But does the fact that
humans are shaped to some degree by society necessarily invalidate the reality of
our biological instincts? Well of course not. Humans are not entirely ruled by
either culture or biology. As a higher order species, we've the luxury of having
some control over our impulses. But only to a degree. Human moral sense can but
feebly check our drive to selectively pass on our genes in fashion that produces the
best possible outcome in terms of genetic quality. If it were any other way the
human species would have become extinct with the inception of <i>civilization</i>
and the agricultural revolution. Durkiem certainly understood this duality of human
existence. After all, he was an empiricist--a scientist who pioneered the very
introduction of the use of empirical data and scientific method into the realm of
social examination, henceforth making social study social science.
With these things in mind one could hardly deny that to some extent human
attractiveness is culturally manifest,--but also one could hardly deny that it is to
a significant degree biologically ground as well. And it seems that the latter force
is the stronger of the two, and most responsible for our specialized preference for
symmetry over non-symmetry. That we have culturally ground preferences for
superficial things like eye color is not really imperative to our survival.
Apparently, cultural prejudice for impertinent items of human identity merely give
relevance to our penchants for giving ourselves a place in the social environments
that we occupy. Identity may provide us with a significance to our existence, but
It's not especially integral to our raw biological survival.
<font color=red>WHY THE EVIDENCE SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED DAMAGING TO BLACK FEMALE
SELF-ESTEEM</font>
A belief in equality is by nature one that fosters a false sense of security.
Believing that you are equally as good as everyone else certainly provides an
elevating feeling. The reality however is frightening, and one that we are not
particularly prone to acknowledge. That is, that we are not all equally endowed and
equally as good as everyone else. Some of use are not as smart as others, and some
of us are not as athletically gifted. And yes, it is true, some of us are not as
attractive as others. For historically marginalized groups, the truth would
seemingly mean doom. Assuming that it were true that inequality of endowments [both
mental and physical] meant that failure, misfortune, and a lesser quality of life
were inevitable. But this is hardly the case. For success in life is largely a
matter of determination and resilience. Yes, the gifted have an unfair advantage
over the disinherited. But winning the biological lottery has never invariably meant
success or even survival. In and of itself, "biological quality" is useless without
a tenacious human spirit, and one need not be in possession of it in admirable
capacities to live well.
For Black women who are interracially involved, as well as those partial to such
relationships, the evidence must strike you as disturbing. Obviously, your first
response would be to deny its legitimacy and shield your ego with your opinion. To
meet with the possibility that men outside of your race would overlook you merely
because you--as a group--lack the level of health and symmetry possessed by other
ethnic groups of women is most certainly discouraging. We all want to feel supremely
desirable, and when meet with the contradicting truth, it's prostrating. It's
important to your self-esteem that you feel universally desired, if not supremely
desired by the type of man you most fancy. But the evidence merely provides
explanation of your current circumstance, it doesn't seal your fate.
Read <A HREF="http://hss.fullerton.edu/sociology/orleans/symmetry.txt
"> the biology of beauty.</A>