Do you have any explanation for why Slavic & Northern European women are so attractive ?

[Cheesesoldier]

Obviously beauty is in the eye of the beholder, all that, but it seems a recurrent if not redundant truth that these two types are very popular amongst men.

I've heard the argument Eastern European girls are all over fashion and the internet because they hail from poorer countries, but that seems terribly limited.

Also heard Eastern European women were more feminine and traditional making them more attractive, but that doesn't explain their sheer good looks.

Northern European women, think Dutch for eg, seem very popular too, tall blonde girls with doll-like facial features.

I dunno... any explanation on your part ?

[Anasxs]

I think It is personal but I always find in Big way more attractive White people with intelligence, good slimmer and athlethic body, healthy appearence (better if It is inside too) and good manners and fun and nice rich way to live Life. 

 

Of course, another people IS nice too, and interesting, and I don t discriminate for It, It is only my own tastes and not want that stupid wars about beauty or be better like another people do.

[Cheesesoldier]

14 minutes ago, Zinner said:

Slavic women also pay more attention to their appearance. They do more often and heavier make up.

They wear more feminine and fancier clothes. This could be explained by culture and/or the competition.

oh yeah but I'm talking pure genetics. Just facial structure, curves in the bodies, etc... the 6s or 7s over there are 9s or 10s over in other European countries.

[Cult Icon]

just by luck of natural selection I guess, that they have less flaws than other ethnic groups.

having kind of big face with strong features (good nose, good eyes, good cheekbones) helps a lot.

 

a lot of slavic models have this well balanced facial structure which is imho among the best

 

Daria Korchina

 

 

Tanya Mityushina 

 

 

Triss (Polish game)

 

[Anasxs]

I think thus cannon is nicer to me because not only because is my style, physic, biologic, etc is about the less of modesty, poor manners, good modals, different lifestyle, ugly mind, racism... I found in a lot of dark skin women to white women, pretending be alwaysnicer, prettier, good, well considered and less intelectual (Iman, Naomi Campbell, Tyra Banks, Georgina and Oluchi are exceptions... they seem nice, fun and not that type of racist...)

[mayhem04]

I think a lot of the attraction comes from the way Slavic and Northern European women are portrayed in fashion and media. Growing up, I noticed how many models and celebrities from those regions dominated the scene, and it definitely shaped what people consider beautiful. Plus, features like height and light hair are often highlighted, which might just resonate with a lot of folks. It’s interesting how our tastes are influenced by cultural vibes and personal experiences, you know?

[Cheesesoldier]

30 minutes ago, mayhem04 said:

I think a lot of the attraction comes from the way Slavic and Northern European women are portrayed in fashion and media. Growing up, I noticed how many models and celebrities from those regions dominated the scene, and it definitely shaped what people consider beautiful. Plus, features like height and light hair are often highlighted, which might just resonate with a lot of folks. It’s interesting how our tastes are influenced by cultural vibes and personal experiences, you know?

 

mmm, I dunno. This may play a role, but I think it's less being "taught" they're beautiful, and it's more innate and immediate in the brain. Like typical 80s style fashion models that did runways, I like many men never had an attraction for those because they were always robotic and cold and lacked feminine curves, so despite it being shoved down my throat as being the prototype of female beauty, it never caught on, and most men I know feel the same way.

 

Ofc I know guys who are attracted to almost exclusively non-white women, only asian or black for eg, so your genetics largely dictate what you're attracted to. But it's definitely a large scale phenomenon to see Nordic/Slavic women as being the most "feminine", and by that I mean the way they look: bodies, faces, eyes, hair etc... by and large, they visually seem to indicate that they're "breeders" to men, desirable to mate with.

[Cult Icon]

11 minutes ago, Cheesesoldier said:

 

mmm, I dunno. This may play a role, but I think it's less being "taught" they're beautiful, and it's more innate and immediate in the brain. Like typical 80s style fashion models that did runways, I like many men never had an attraction for those because they were always robotic and cold and lacked feminine curves, so despite it being shoved down my throat as being the prototype of female beauty, it never caught on, and most men I know feel the same way.

 

Ofc I know guys who are attracted to almost exclusively non-white women, only asian or black for eg, so your genetics largely dictate what you're attracted to. But it's definitely a large scale phenomenon to see Nordic/Slavic women as being the most "feminine", and by that I mean the way they look: bodies, faces, eyes, hair etc... by and large, they visually seem to indicate that they're "breeders" to men, desirable to mate with.

 

 

The blank slate theory /theory that attraction is 100% 'cultural' is basically a type of leftist socialist propaganda/disinformation TBH.  

 

Common sense would suggest otherwise, same with other studies in psychology.

 

The Soviet Union lost minimum 35 million people in WW2, which is a gross undercount of a pre-war population of over 200 million.  I believe poland lost 5 million people, and the losses in the slavic world were horrific during that time.  Communism also contributed to a high death toll.

 

A politically incorrect take I've heard is that the losses were extremely lopsided towards men, which completely ruined the male vs female balance in the population, leading to the phenomenon of the babushka - basically millions of leftover women.  

 

Also in the slavic world a woman's looks is really important for life outcomes, and one can speculate that this served as a social darwinian process as only the better looking women got to reproduce so the ugly women disappeared from the gene pool. 

 

In Siberia model scouting is a big deal as the region has some of the most beautiful women in Russia; I watched a program where the scouts said that it's because it's a melting pot of the multi-racial Russian peoples and somehow the women there were born better than average for Russian standards.

 

 Also in Chechnya the women are supposed to be quite good looking too (the region suffered catastrophic deaths of men as well in wars)

 

[Cult Icon]

I think also that there is innate attraction from different races to people of that race- eg. black with black, white with white, asian with asian etc. But there is definitely a racist white supremacy bias, perhaps that is natural.  White men and white women tend to have an advantage and there is white worship throughout Asia. 

 

In the West there is nothing similar, you wouldn't see many advertisements showcasing the beauty of Asian women or Muslim women, unless it is fake liberal ideological woke pandering.

 

Also the entire fashion industry is extremely biased to the tastes of women and homosexual men; their preferences would naturally not be the same as straight male preferences..

[Anasxs]

11 hours ago, Cult Icon said:

 

Also the entire fashion industry is extremely biased to the tastes of women and homosexual men; their preferences would naturally not be the same as straight male preferences..

What are the preferences of homosexual people? I thought they are the same, sometimes more stricted but sometimes less.

[Cheesesoldier]

17 hours ago, Cult Icon said:

 

 

The blank slate theory /theory that attraction is 100% 'cultural' is basically a type of leftist socialist propaganda/disinformation TBH. 

 

100%, no doubt about that whatsoever it's BS. I can't "teach" my body to get an erection for this or that. Attraction is the most genuine, instinctive thing there is. You can't help but feel a deep attraction towards someone, it has nothing to do with what society or anyone could've taught to you.

 

So you point to eugenics for Russian women. That may be in the case of Russian women specifically, but for eg Nordic women didn't undergo such drastic socio-economic circumstances and are still very largely seen as beautiful women. I don't think it's even the case in a place like Czechia, and their women are constantly among the more popular models.

 

And interestingly, in the case of Czech women, it's not even one particular type of women, it's ALL their women that do well. The brunettes, blondes, redheads etc...  I'd imagine this has a lot to do with women living in the "right" (healthy) conditions. It's still a pretty traditional, rural country, and on top of good genes these are women that probably benefit from the perks of generations of a natural diet and physical activity, as opposed to city folks that have gotten more and more sick (and probably uglier) over the decades. There's also Czechs are the ultimate continental european people, right at the crossroads in the middle of Europe, with most probably lots of mixing between germanic, slavic, hungarian, maybe a bit of latin.

[tkv93]

Eastern European women often fit traditional beauty ideals and showcase their styles online, while Northern Europeans have that tall, blonde stereotype.

[Cult Icon]

2 hours ago, Cheesesoldier said:

So you point to eugenics for Russian women. That may be in the case of Russian women specifically, but for eg Nordic women didn't undergo such drastic socio-economic circumstances and are still very largely seen as beautiful women. I don't think it's even the case in a place like Czechia, and their women are constantly among the more popular models.

 

a theory I have is that in Europe/Asia the areas that were cold and were 'barbarians' tend to produce better looking people.  less farming, higher death rates, smaller population etc.  In both regions the northerners ended up taller, whiter and with finer features.  This doesn't apply to mongolia though lol.

 

The han chinese and imperial rome were the dominant civilizations for thousands of years and neither the chinese nor southern europeans are good looking.  both ended up admiring the beauty of the 'northern barbarians', which lived in mud-huts & were backward while they were developing cutting edge technology and civilization.

[Cheesesoldier]

11 minutes ago, Cult Icon said:

 

a theory I have is that in Europe/Asia the areas that were cold and were 'barbarians' tend to produce better looking people.  less farming, higher death rates, smaller population etc.  In both regions the northerners ended up taller, whiter and with finer features.  This doesn't apply to mongolia though lol.

 

The han chinese and imperial rome were the dominant civilizations for thousands of years and neither the chinese nor southern europeans are good looking.  both ended up admiring the beauty of the 'northern barbarians', which lived in mud-huts & were backward while they were developing cutting edge technology and civilization.

 

Interesting. I'd say the part that resonates with me most is the part about 'less farming'. Perhaps there's a correlation between good looks and having been free-roaming paleo diet type, non sedentary populations. I'm conflicted about it, though, as Russians/ central Europeans don't come across to me as that. They seem like the products of pretty early agriculture. But there may be a correlation between great civilizations and relative ugliness from living in those "advanced" conditions, namely a lack of physical activity and shit diet, but other things unhealthy in general associated with that lifestyle, mental/spiritual too, and biochemical from unnatural products like perfumes and other chemicals even back then.

[Cult Icon]

8 minutes ago, Cheesesoldier said:

 

Interesting. I'd say the part that resonates with me most is the part about 'less farming'. Perhaps there's a correlation between good looks and having been free-roaming paleo diet type, non sedentary populations. I'm conflicted about it, though, as Russians/ central Europeans don't come across to me as that. They seem like the products of pretty early agriculture. But there may be a correlation between great civilizations and relative ugliness from living in those "advanced" conditions, namely a lack of physical activity and shit diet, but other things unhealthy in general associated with that lifestyle, mental/spiritual too, and biochemical from unnatural products like perfumes and other chemicals even back then.

 

the main aspect with civilized agrarian societies is that they manage the reproduce the most compared to tribal barbarians- China had the most people in the world and chinese people are the opposite of good looking..

 

northern europeans, russians, central europeans were totally backward peoples/regions until relatively recent history, where the tables had turned.  All have relatively small populations compared to china.

[Cheesesoldier]

4 hours ago, Cult Icon said:

 

the main aspect with civilized agrarian societies is that they manage the reproduce the most compared to tribal barbarians- China had the most people in the world and chinese people are the opposite of good looking..

 

northern europeans, russians, central europeans were totally backward peoples/regions until relatively recent history, where the tables had turned.  All have relatively small populations compared to china.

 

Interesting. So you think there's a direct correlation between the amount of a population; how much they breed; and how good looking they turn out ? That's possible. Some sort of diluting of the "good genes" within a massive population. But in this case, how do the genetics tell the difference, if I have say 2 children or 10 ? MAYBE, but I've never looked into this... maybe children get uglier the more you make em lol ? So if you're the first child, your chances of being good looking are pretty good, but then if you're child no. 8 in that family, your chances dwindle ? I mean it would make sense from the sheer principle that your later children come when you, yourself, are an older person, and this is particularly a problem for women as, being mothers, they are the physical bearers, and maybe a woman's womb eventually "wears out" when it's her 6th or 7th child. This would be a natural eugenics principle, as nature would essentially be making the comment "tone down on the child-making, or else they'll be ugly". But again I have no idea, I'm just thinking out loud. It could be ONE factor that plays in.

[Anasxs]

2 hours ago, Cheesesoldier said:

 

Interesting. So you think there's a direct correlation between the amount of a population; how much they breed; and how good looking they turn out ? That's possible. Some sort of diluting of the "good genes" within a massive population. But in this case, how do the genetics tell the difference, if I have say 2 children or 10 ? MAYBE, but I've never looked into this... maybe children get uglier the more you make em lol ? So if you're the first child, your chances of being good looking are pretty good, but then if you're child no. 8 in that family, your chances dwindle ? I mean it would make sense from the sheer principle that your later children come when you, yourself, are an older person, and this is particularly a problem for women as, being mothers, they are the physical bearers, and maybe a woman's womb eventually "wears out" when it's her 6th or 7th child. This would be a natural eugenics principle, as nature would essentially be making the comment "tone down on the child-making, or else they'll be ugly". But again I have no idea, I'm just thinking out loud. It could be ONE factor that plays in.

Are you perfect? The BEST one? NO! So let membets enjoy, maybe you are an uglier person.