dude-you are basically saying blondes are kind of ugly!

Not really. My theory is based on simple visual perception principles and a real-world knowledge of why women lighten their hair. Of course they do it to look prettier, and they look prettier for the rather mundane reasons that I've outlined. This is incidentally why older women lighten their hair too (this is very often in Greece, unlike younger women who quite often dye their hair black), since features deteriorate with age.

It would be quite easy to determine the relative facial beauty of women of different natural color, and their relative beauty with changing color, and thus test the proposed theory. I certainly believe strongly that southern Europeoid women are facially more attractive than northern Europeoid women whose blondness has the described benefit.

LOL! Northern European features, including blonde hair, blue eyes, and the facial types associated with such are universally recognized as the most beautiful in the world. Men from all over the world flock to ICELAND, not Greece, to observe the national beauty pagent there. Blondness is more refined, more delicate, and more beautiful. Clear blue eyes evoke the sky and the sea.

Ugly women don't seek to become blonde, ALL women do. Just look at the sales of hair coloring. Natural blondes, already at the height of beauty, rarely if ever resort to darkening their hair.

Why would they seek to resemble some stubby, unctuous, unibrowed Greek hag? ;)

I understand though that you are trying to either antogize Nordicists and/or convinve yourself of something.

I think you recognized very well just ONE reason why blondness is more attractive.
In fact, in many cases even very attractive women look more beautiful if they are naturally blond but it looks sometimes ridiculous if not naturally blonds with darker skin/eyebrows etc color their hairs.
And about face features its sounds absurd to me to say that southern women got better ones.
First they got some prominent bone parts too, especially in the south there are some regions were people dont have the ideal mediterranean nose.
And in fact, I personally think that the nordic (corded nordic/Teutonordic) type is very similar morphologically to Mediterraneans, especially the tall les say Atlantid ones.
The main difference is, that they are in part mor gracil, shorter, and sometimes more stocky.
Maybe thats sometimes more feminin on the one hand, but on the other it is more for older woman, not for young fertile ones.
Thats why nordic Teenage models are so popular.
Long legs are a sign for fertility, youth and physical strenght or at least a good condition.
Just compare the Tungid body type with the Ethiopian one, and you see what I mean.

From my point of view Nordics (corded type) are morphologically nothing else than depigmented, taller more lean and long legged Mediterraneans.
But of course, some faelic or borreby like types look sometimes less refined than Mediterraneans or (corded) Nordics.
But especially in American TV they like at the moment this harder type of vital women.
I think thats something cultural or at least of personal preference too.

Blond stands for youth, make a smoother frame and looks something like an Angel, let women look more innocent.
As we know this innocent teenie like look is something men prefer biologically because its good to know that they are fertile and you are the first - your children.
Today its partly culturally the opposite, but that was one of the reasons gentlemen preferred blonde.
I by myself love beautiful women no matter which hair they got, but this "angel-like" look is something Nordic blonds have more often.

Is there somethng wrong with my theory that blondeness is just a result of the declining levels of pigmentation as you move north through Europe? Wouldn't this explanation fit in best with the commonly accepted theory about whiteness as an adaptation for Vitamin D reception? Or is that theory on shakier ground than I assume it to be?

Is there somethng wrong with my theory that blondeness is just a result of the declining levels of pigmentation as you move north through Europe?

there isn't one gene that has pleiotropic effects on multiple color phenotypes, but rather multiple genes effecting multiple color traits. the light-skin adaptation makes sense, but eye & hair color is sketchier. after all, australian aboriginals are the one other population who have non-trivial levels of blondeness, and they have black skins, and the blonde tribes tend to concentrate in the deep deserts.

(#). Excess of bone is considered a "masculine" trait, while gracility is a more "feminine" trait.

As a result, northern Europeoids are generally taller and bonier than southern ones.

On average taller (however this varys by region(People from Skafakia Crete are among the tallest Europeans)but I would not say more gracile.Most of my Greek relitives both dark and lighter haired ones tend to be skelitally robust and stocky.I guess being a thick boned person over 6' and over 250 lbs I do not fall into this gracile category.Alot of so called nordic types (meaning the traditional definition which does not apply to all northern europeans) I know are slim and lanky with narrow sholders.Usually thick boned types heavy body frames are more of an Alpine type.Most Italian and Greek types I know tend to be more on the stocky then gracile side.Of course this do to the fact that Greeks and Italians have heavy Alpine type strains.

I do agree however that most males associate feminity with slenderness(gracile)and blond hair.Another words a women 5.6 ish 120 lbs slender with long blond hair is probably the American standard of female beauty.The attractive blonds that get the attention are the slender ones not the stock thick boned ones.Stocky type heavy boned women with notable exceptions are not symbols of female beauty whether dark or blond haired.

Nordic and Mediteranean women tend to slender that seems to be why both Iberian women (representing mediteranean female beauty) and Scandinavian women (representing nordic feminity) tend to known for their physical looks.It seems that symbols of female beauty in the caucasian race are usually associated with slim Iberian types -dark hair contrasted with pale skin and tight bodies very common in Spain or Nordic Scandinavian types usually -tall slender with shapely legs ,tanned skin (many Scandinavian women can tan quite well) and blond hair with hazel eyes.

>> LOL! Northern European features, including blonde hair, blue eyes, and the facial types associated with such are universally recognized as the most beautiful in the world.

Obviously you need to get up to date on your ethnographic knowledge. I know that preconceptions are more comfortable (and comforting) than hard knowledge, but make the effort ;-)

>> Why would they seek to resemble some stubby, unctuous, unibrowed Greek hag? ;)

You can't annoy me, so don't waste my webspace please.

>> Wouldn't this explanation fit in best with the commonly accepted theory about whiteness as an adaptation for Vitamin D reception?

The Vitamin D theory is contested and does not apply directly to hair, but only to skin. Skin hypopigmentation is usually associated with some degree of hair/eye hypopigmentation, but there are other factors involved as well.

after all, australian aboriginals are the one other population who have non-trivial levels of blondeness

The Vitamin D theory is contested and does not apply directly to hair, but only to skin. Skin hypopigmentation is usually associated with some degree of hair/eye hypopigmentation, but there are other factors involved as well.

I assume that aboriginal blondeness *is* a sexually selected trait. European blondeness OTOH just seems to increase in a very straight-forward relationship as overall pigmentation decreases as you move northward through Europe. Again I think that blondeness is a *side-effect* of Vitamin D depigmentation (just as blondeness occurs along with albinism), not a direct selection for it. It doesn't even need to have a 1:1 relationship, as long as hair pigmentation is simply statistically related to skin pigmentation,it would just make sense to see increasingly lighter hair color as the cline gets paler. (if the skin color is what was being selected for.)

.....this is very often in Greece, unlike younger women who quite often dye their hair black.....

>> LOL! Northern European features, including blonde hair, blue eyes, and the facial types associated with such are universally recognized as the most beautiful in the world.

Obviously you need to get up to date on your ethnographic knowledge. I know that preconceptions are more comfortable (and comforting) than hard knowledge, but make the effort ;-)

Right.

>> I assume that aboriginal blondeness *is* a sexually selected trait. European blondeness OTOH just seems to increase in a very straight-forward relationship as overall pigmentation decreases as you move northward through Europe.

Not really. Skin pigmentation decreases, roughly northward, while hair pigmentation has a cline centered in the Baltic. E.g., the Irish are significantly darker-haired than Balts, yet they are as light-skinned.

So are Balts bony faced while the Irish are not?

So are Balts bony faced while the Irish are not?

wow, believe it or not, there might be something to this now that i think about it-i do have a mental image of irish as "softer" featured that germans or scandinavians.

oh well.

Dienekes read Eickstedt or Coon you just took pictures from norwegian women which are predominantely UP types or lets call them generalized Dalofaelic types.
The typical counterpart of the dark narrow faced, dolichocephal and gracile Mediterraneans is the narrow faced, dolichocephal and tall/lean (corded) Nordic.
There are more bony Mediterraneans too, f.e. in some parts of Greece, Spain or North Africa.
If you took the gracile Mediterranean as example, take the (corded) Nordic/Teutonordic as counterpart.
Because blondness in general is not associated with such an heavy boneness like in this cases.
If you take models as characteristic types of the Mediterraneans which is absurd, do the same with Nordics, and dont take heavier boned than average Dalofaelic ones.
Look at this examples which are as typical for Nordics as are your Greek models for Mediterraneans.

Note I like Mediterraneans, but I like Nordics too, maybe the average of (corded) Nordics is a little bit better, but both races are some of the most beautiful ones in this world.
So dont take such plump Dalofaelics as examples and on the other side hypergracile Mediterranean models...thats ridiculous.

http://www.nordicmodels.net/
is just one example with many Nordics.

I personally like women like Giselle Bündchen most, but just look at the top 50 models or at the fashion TV page and say again that Nordics are not as beautiful as Mediterraneans.
http://models.com/model_culture/50topmodels/index.cfm
They are both the most beautiful races of mankind (which doesnt have to mean that others are cant be beautiful too) and just individuals are sometimes more or less attractive.

Lets get one thing straight. Of coarse Blondes are universally considered the most beautiful in the world, why do you think we are discussing this right now. Why do you think that other discusion boards select this same topic as opposed to 'Are African women the most beautiful?' Why do you think that the likes of Anna Kournikova are so popular? for her tennis? Show me one other tennis player that is half as popular.
Truth is that Blondes are more attractive. They have always made the biggest bucks whether at strip clubs or fan clubs. Blonde dye outsells all other colours, Blondes appear on Playboy and other magazines more than any other type of woman. In scientific tests on racial attractivness where whites and blacks were polled, blondes came out on top even with blacks. In other tests, kids of all races who were left with dolls of different races to play with, always opted for the blonde doll.
By the way, this is not racist as I am of Indian origion. But even I can see that blondes are superior.

I just stumbled upon your site, Dienekes. The theories and the evidence you produce is both historical and logical. Waay to go. Keep up the good work. Everyone should be fair and logical when commenting on the history of man. Someone had posted a comment rearding blondeism among nords and austrailian aboriginies. While you are right, Dienekes, that ones pigmentation, or lack of, in the skin is not related to the shade of ones hair, I can't help but think about the fact that, with the exception of austrailian aboriginies, the greatest propensity of such occurs in the northern, cool climates areas associated in particular within the scandinavian region. Is it possible that the lightening of human hair occurs on a much longer timeframe than that of the skin? Could this, along with the fact that Ireland is warmer than the skandinavian and baltic areas explain the reason why blonde hair occurs more in scaninavia, despite the light skin factor which occurs all over peoples of northern europe (including Ireland). It is also interesting that many redheads burn easily, while many, not all, blonde nordics can tan somewhat easier. As far as the aborigines go, im not convinced that blondeism, or rufosity is an isolated genetic mutation. 1)This occurs among individuals in austrailia. I have not heard of such cases among related australoids in the south pacific. 2) both have a genetic tendency to occur within cold-climate areas, not in tropical enviroments. 3)If such genetic isolation was even remotely possiible(with or without a racial admixture) wouldn't all these years in a tropical enviroment stifle this trait (only allowing occasional blonde or readhead "throwback traits"). As I understand it, blondeism and rufosity are common occuring traits among aboriginals.

>> Lets get one thing straight. Of coarse Blondes are universally considered the most beautiful in the world, why do you think we are discussing this right now.

Your capacity for rational argument sends chills up my spine.

>> By the way, this is not racist as I am of Indian origion.

So, a person of Indian origin cannot be racist?

Dienekes, Why is my argument irrational when everything I said is true and based on fact. If u dont believe me just go to any blond v brunette poll now to see who comes up top. The fact is that blondes are universally recognised as being the most beautiful, thats why blondness sells. Barbie dolls outsell any other toy, almost all the heroines from fairytales are blonde, blonde models charge more than brunettes, blonde egg donors are easily more highly paid than brunettes. Blondes always have and always will be regarded as the symbol of female beauty. As I said before, why do you think these disscussion forums are always disscussing the topic of blonde beauty as opposed to 'Are Africans or are Indians the most beautiful', Get my point ? Even though I'm Indian I'll grudgingley admit that white women with blonde hair and blue eyes are the most beautiful, beacause it's true.

one wonder is this Indian propensity for blonde women is a motivating factor for the "include us, we're cogntive elitists" spiel from the Gene exp site.

Gotta have those blonde women, eh, Indians?

Rienzi. What are you talking about. Your comment dosent make sense. What site are you talking about. Are you agreeing or disagreeing with me?

1) Blonds are percieved as uncommon.
2) Blonds are percieved as memebers of a socio-economic overclass.
3) A man who can claim possession of a sexual/procreative object of an "exotic"(read-rare, uncommon) variety calls attention to his economic status in a community.
4) A man who can claim "breeding rights" to females seen as socially high ranking attracks the friendship and patronage of other high-class males.
Result: Gentleman prefer blondes.
BTW, I believe this is recent phenomenon spurred by American domination of the world economy. I believe blondness as a trait is merely a phenotypic "paleolithic survivor", transmitted from ancient populations of cold-adapted northern europeans to their modern descendents. And I certainly don't believe that long legs are a sign of high fertility. Hip-to-waist ratio is the big factor, and perhaps women with longer legs can more easily create the illusion of a high hip-to-waist ratio. Also, height is considered a phenotypic marker of high social status in mosts cultures. Such tall individuals usually have longer legs than most of the population. Ever seen a really tall person who was all torso?

Well, one one of the messages righ here didn´t please me...

" LOL! Northern European features, including blonde hair, blue eyes, and the facial types associated with such are universally recognized as the most beautiful in the world. Men from all over the world flock to ICELAND, not Greece, to observe the national beauty pagent there. Blondness is more refined, more delicate, and more beautiful. Clear blue eyes evoke the sky and the sea.

Ugly women don't seek to become blonde, ALL women do. Just look at the sales of hair coloring. Natural blondes, already at the height of beauty, rarely if ever resort to darkening their hair.

Why would they seek to resemble some stubby, unctuous, unibrowed Greek hag? ;)

I understand though that you are trying to either antogize Nordicists and/or convinve yourself of something. "
by: Costes

I´m thinking... Are nordic people so beautiful as Costes sayd ?? Well, generally top models and actresses are nordic. Here in Brazil, our most famous top model is Gisele Bündchen and our most famous actress is Vera Fischer. But with men, things are a little diferent. Generally Hollywood´s handsome actors in the 40´s, 50´s or 60´s were Mediterranean as Rocky Hudson, Marlon Brando, Sean Connery and Marcelo Mastroianni. Still now a lot of Hollywood handsome actors are meds, like Tom Cruise, George Clooney and so on. In Brazil, all handsome actors or models are mediterranean like Reynaldo Gianechinni. So, nordic women are seen as the most beautiful ones, but Mediterranean man are seen as the most handsome ones. Why ??

One more thing, Costes. I saw a research with tourists all over the world. They ellected the countries with the most beautiful people:

1- Italy
2- Brazil
3- Sweden
4- France
5- Spain
6- U.S.A.
7- Argentina
8- Greece
9- Canada
10- Israel

Well, as you can see... in 10 countries 7 of them have huge med populations. So your theory that says that "Northern European features, including blonde hair, blue eyes, and the facial types associated with such are universally recognized as the most beautiful in the world."
is VERY questionable...

Bruno !!!

Of course lighter skins are to do with vitamin D reception, but I would suggest that blondeism and rufosity were brought about as hunting camouflage adaptions before the advent of farming. Just take a look at the population distribution of blondeism and rufosity in Europe. Incidece of blond hair is highest in southern Sweden and the baltic region, and fans out from there. Rufosity has it's highest concentratons in North West Europe and again fans out from there.
So boreal forests, snow sitting on the ground large parts of the year- Sweden and the Baltic. He who caught the most protein just before Winter survived to produce more children, blondes had an advantage hiding in the snow.
However in the deciduous forests of North West Europe, this crucial time before Winter set in saw the forests covered in russet leaves. So here redheads got the food to survive and multiply.

Bernie, all this depends on whether camouflage was actually useful. Did people actually get attacked more if they had the wrong hair color? And if this was a factor, then people would probably cover their head.

Exactly what I was trying to say. In the harsh Northern European Winters, every slight advantage was crucial to survival. Yes camouflage from being attacked to a certain extent, but more importantly camoufage from your prey spotting you and running off before you can get near enough to spear it.
This argument is supported by the blond aboriginal phenomena. Again a map of the distribution of blond aborigines in Australia reveals that it is exclusively concentrated in the desert areas of the Australian outback, the more the area is desert, the more blondeism occurs. Non desert areas of Australia have no blondeism amongst the Aboriginals. Plainly a camouflage against the desert yellows for that all important Kangaroo meat.

"I'm indian so I'm not racist." That has got to be one of the silliest and funniest things I've heard the whole day.
What does one have to do with the other? Faulty logic.

Anyhow, you are taking characteristics of one part of the human race and grafting onto the rest of humans acting like it's a universal truth. It never fails to amuse me how humans think anything that has been around for 200+ years is eternal since they only live to about 80.

Slender Nordics? Ha ha ha! I went to North Germany this year, the amount of fat Brunehildes tramping around was simply amazing. And bones were definitely on the strong side.

You silly people, you are talking about models, actors, acting as if they are reliable examples of normal human beings like they are the representatives of the normal Big Mac chomping blonde (or brunette, red haired, black haired) being walking in the street. They are not like you and I. Don't fool yourself.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I personally don't find the half starved hip bones sticking out figure of Gisele Bundchen and so many models beautiful. I listen to fashion commentaries about the gorgeous flat chested starved models (Anorexic girls have often been targeted by fashion scouts) and think people have definitely flipped. It must be second hand smoke or all the chemicals we are ingesting in our food slowly eating away our brains.

Then people are talking about the beauty of the Slavic, I'm guessing because of their blondeness once again, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. There are ugly Slavic people, and beautiful Slavic people.
Read what people were saying 100/ 150 years ago and they didn't find Slavs beautiful. They found them quite ugly in fact.

I personally don't care, pretty is pretty. The Romans didn't have such a high opinion of the Nordic races. In fact in Rome, prostitutes had to wear blonde wigs to differentiate them from the decent Roman women. And they regarded the Ethiopians beautiful not as beautiful as Romans of course. Everyone in power thinks they are the most beautiful. (Here I'm using groups, not induhviduals). Ancient racism. Things change, people, and surprise, surprise even attitudes about beauty change. But humans stay the same. Like in thinking others have the same standards as they do.

I'm quite curious about the angelic qualities of blonde people. If since babyhood, a person is bombarded by angels and blonde, it's not surprising they will equate blonde with angels and regard that as an established fact. And dolls, oooh, what a scientific test our resident non-"racist" Indian.

Honestly people, you think you come to your conclusions all on your pathetic own but all you are, are puppets to media stereotypes.

I think I will change my job and become world dictator, it will be so easy. All you do is feed people pap on TV and magazines. And the silly sheep nod their heads. Get them when they are young, I say.
4 legs good, 2 legs baaad.

Snow heat, you point out some very important flaws that other people have posted, however, you basically have gone to say that people will make up their own mind about good looking people, which in a way, i agree with, but what i think some of these posts are trying to point out is what hair colour does to a persons apperance, the idea about frames, to me, makes a lot of sense. The way we humans see things is very universal and we have all see optical illusions, having blond hair (on white girls) does have the effect of taking attention away from the facial features. Women with dark hair and light coloured eyes (i found) that your attention is taken straight to the eye's and then outward from there until the hair like a frame (as stated earlier). It's all well and good for you to come here stating we are all idiots and that you "don't care", but if you don't, why are you posting here? nothing better to do? I thought this site brought forward some good points and others not so good.

My own thoughts of beauty as far as women go, is based on both society and evolution. Soceity puts forward a lot of these 'beautiful' people and, just like you, snow heat, people are very influenced in the young part of their lives, and if you think you weren't, i believe you have a lot of delusions of self-grandeur. The evolution side of this has been pointed out with the hip to waist ratio which i think is a big thing. Breasts i think are a big thing mainly because of society, in america it is rediculous with their thoughts of 'bigger is better' no matter how big it seems.

There is a lot of detail in the face and that is why it is the most attractive part of a womens body, however to say 1 group of people are more attractive than others, is going a bit far. Just because it might be in the majority that people have said 'these people are more attractive' and polls say that these group of people are more attractive, you are putting a lot of faith in statistics. Who are taking these polls? Are they on the internet? Who are the most likely people to visit the site with the poll on it? Even though a lot of countries are multi-cultural (like mine, Australia) non-white people are still in the minority and therefor have less power in these polls, i have found people of same race tend to be attracted to their own group, be this by societies presures or nature, i cetainly understand this myself.

I only just stumbled on this site, but found it quite a good read, so thought i would add my thoughts as well, good read mostly. Thanks.

Anyone defending the hair color blond saying that it is superior and all that bull shit, is probably not even a real blond!!! Fake blonds piss me off.

Why is it that nobody has any factual information or research about redheads, but everybody is happy to share their comments and make their jokes, and discriminate against people with redhair.

Sincerley
Carrot head

whether or not you look attractive as a blonde or a brunette has a hell of a lot to do with coloring. yes, many people color their hair blonde, but they generally tan as well, altering their skin tone. people with naturally blonde hair generally look attractive as blondes. the same generally is true for brunettes. this is because your natural hair color, or a slight variation on it, is what will flatter you best. going blonde isn't going to disguise an ugly brunette. if anything, it's going to make her look washed out and hideous. women today who dye their hair blonde, as i said, usually also tan a bit. the combination of a tan, which makes you look slimmer, and blonde hair makes you look more athletic and healthy, even if you're not. i have naturally dark blonde hair. i've tried going light blonde, and it looks terrible with my skin tone unless i tan. i've tried dark wigs to see how i'd look and again, unless i alter my skin tone to work with the wig, it looks fake. my natural hair color suits me best. some people have a skin tone which works well with a variety of hair colors. good for them. many caucasian people start out blonde as children, and blondeness is attached to the idea of youth. that's why many older women color their hair blonde. blondeness is not a cover-up or even a deflector of ugliness. it's a bit harder than that to hide a hideous face.

Hmmmm...ask yourself how many "real" blondes you know. Most natural blondes have dog faces.

The most beautiful women are exotic women. ASIAN WOMEN...and ahem, they are NOT blond - thank god.

Brunettes tend to be more attactive, the MOST beautiful blondes out there, ARE TRULY brunettes who "dye" their hair lighter...

This is why I find it hard to believe that you people actually think blondes are superior and beautiful when MOST of the blondes you are know ARE BRUNETTES, lol.

Maryiln Monroe, Pam Anderson, Jennie McCarthy, ALL brunettes.

Hmm, natural blonde? DARYL HANNAH, ick..I rest my case.

So, I guess blonde women want to be ethnic since tanning so so popular?

Geez people, WAKE UP, it isn't the 80's anymore, NO ONE BLEACHES their hair anymore.

BLONDE = TRAILER PARK :)

Dear Dienekes: what is the percentage of blondism in Greece? Show some pictures of Greek people, the average individual, so that others might engage further in slow argument with you.

Dienekes: please send me an e-mail on information I requested if you could.

Just for your info Carrot Head:
Misc:
The nation with the most redheads is Lebanon.
The percentage of redheads in Ireland is 4%.

Personally, I find brunettes far, far more attractive than blondes and I know many men who feel the same way. The contrast or "frame" does accentuate their features in a unique way. Of course, this is just a personal preference. We all have them for a variety of reasons.

I think that there are obvious signatures of attractivness, i.e. smooth clear skin, toned bodies, strong hair. "Attractiveness" varies from culture to culture and person to person but we are all attracted to vitality and youth. As far as a preference for blondes, I believe that many people are attracted to that which is "exotic" and blondeness is probably considered exotic in more parts of the world than brunettes because there are more dark complected ethnicities.

On a personal note, I can say that my lack of attraction to blondes probably stems from their overuse in commercial culture. I feel that "blondes" have been used too often to sell cars, chewing gum etc. and have lost their "exotic" nature to me. I was actually born a blonde and I have been both a redhead and brunette since then. While I received more male attention as a brunette than a blond, I get the most attention as a redhead.

LMFAO!!!!! BHAHAHAHAH I just love stumbling upon these types of message boards and read how all these filthy niggers, arabs, chinks etc. talk about how Blondes are repulsive,dog-faced or what not.

I can understand the jelousy, afterall the White race is the ONLY race with the varying eye and hair colors that make us DIVERSE, something all you other filthy muds can never hope to be. notice how all other races exhibit homogeneous traits of INK BLACK eyes and BLACK hair, only the WHITE race can have hair of Red,brown, black,and different shades of blonde complimented by eyes of, blue, emerald, gray, brown, etc.

As for Asian women being exotic? LMFAO!!!! whot he fuck are you muds kidding? Go to Asia and look at what the Average chink looks like, Any women who is not White and is considered attractive is only regarded as such because of an OVERWHELMING ammount of WHITe genes, ask the negroes about this hint: halle berry, vanessa williams, beyoncee etc. etc.

Your jealous mud bitches keep displaying your utter rage for the fact that you weren't fortunate enough to be White, maybe you'll start to believe all this bulshit that pull out of your asses.

i agree with u /Monica Belluci /Catherene Zeta jones ,Ashley Judd the sexiest women on the screen explain what u wanna say.

I think Red Heads...The good looking ones with pretty faces...Are much Hotter and more exotic then brunetts or Blonds...Red Heads Rule !!! And If You dont think so....Then FUCK YOU !!! hahaha :.)

Ethiopian/Eritrean women are the world's most consistently beautiful group of women. You all probably haven't seen enough of the world to know this. Beautiful women are produced also by Scandinavian countries and the Mediterranean. I have found the most genuinely beautiful women to come from these places:

1)Ethiopian/North African
2)Swedish/Scandinavian
3)Mediterranean