PDA

View Full Version : The Science of Blonde Hair



Aberdeen
02-06-14, 03:54
Here's been a lot of speculation on this forum about the origins of blond hair in northern Europeans. Here's the abstract of an article by Guenther et al that addresses the issue with some new research.

"Hair color differences are among the most obvious examples of phenotypic variation in humans. Although genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have implicated multiple loci in human pigment variation, the causative base-pair changes are still largely unknown1 (http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ng.2991.html#ref1). Here we dissect a regulatory region of the KITLG gene (encoding KIT ligand) that is significantly associated with common blond hair color in northern Europeans2 (http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ng.2991.html#ref2). Functional tests demonstrate that the region contains a regulatory enhancer that drives expression in developing hair follicles. This enhancer contains a common SNP (rs12821256) that alters a binding site for the lymphoid enhancer-binding factor 1 (LEF1) transcription factor, reducing LEF1 responsiveness and enhancer activity in cultured human keratinocytes. Mice carrying ancestral or derived variants of the human KITLG enhancer exhibit significant differences in hair pigmentation, confirming that altered regulation of an essential growth factor contributes to the classic blond hair phenotype found in northern Europeans."
Unfortunately, the main article is behind a paywall. The abstract can be found here.

www.nature.com/ng/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ng.2991.html

Fire Haired14
02-06-14, 04:22
Only 14% of northwest European CEU has derived alleles in SNP rs12821256 even though over 50% of northwest Europeans(not counting Insular Celts) have some blonde influence on their hair. I am pretty sure when they say classic blonde hair they mean purely yellow hair.

Knovas
02-06-14, 10:28
Figure 2 says:

http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/vaop/ncurrent/carousel/ng.2991-F2.jpg

(a) A 17.1-kb region bounded by SNPs rs444647 and rs661114 defines the candidate interval for blondness2 (http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ng.2991.html#ref2). Within this region, a large block of mammalian sequence conservation (blue peaks) overlaps peak marker rs12821256.

The rest is behind the paywall.

I checked these SNPs for me and there you are the results:



intergenic
89328335
rs12821256 (https://www.23andme.com/you/explorer/snp/?snp_name=rs12821256)
C or T
TT








intergenic
89337963
rs661114 (https://www.23andme.com/you/explorer/snp/?snp_name=rs661114)
A or G
GG








intergenic
89320878
rs444647 (https://www.23andme.com/you/explorer/snp/?snp_name=rs444647)
A or G
AA






Dark brown hair, plain brown when I was a child. Does it match?

Angela
02-06-14, 14:01
From posts on 23andme, it appears that the "T" allele is the ancestral allele, the non-blond one.

This SNP only accounts for 3-6% of the observed variance in hair color. Each "C" allele doubles the odds of getting blonde hair. Pigmentation is the result of the combination of numerous snps.

This snp does not seem to affect other aspects of pigmentation as do some snps which seem to have effects across the board.

What they appear to be trying to show isthat the snp in question actually causes the pigmentation change. In other words, it's not just a question of linkage because it is in the correct area.

Knovas
02-06-14, 19:13
Ok, thanks. At least this SNP works for me, since the one listed by 23andme definitely doesn't. It maybe be possible to have blond hair by just having the appropiate genotypes on other SNPs though.

Sile
02-06-14, 23:24
The book, "The 10,000 Year explosion" says that the Vandals may have played a part in the distribution of the blue and
green-eye gene plus blond hair.

Fire Haired14
02-06-14, 23:42
The book, "The 10,000 Year explosion" says that the Vandals may have played a part in the distribution of the blue and
green-eye gene plus blond hair.

That guy wrote the book long before DNA was used for human genetics, and his theory is 100% false. There is no reason to even debate it.

Sile
03-06-14, 00:34
That guy wrote the book long before DNA was used for human genetics, and his theory is 100% false. There is no reason to even debate it.

Maybe you are right, we should not debate any historian prior to ..err,hmm say the year 2000

Aberdeen
03-06-14, 01:10
The book, "The 10,000 Year explosion" says that the Vandals may have played a part in the distribution of the blue and
green-eye gene plus blond hair.

I haven't read that book. Does the author think that the Vandals were descended from the people of the Andronov Horizon? Because they apparently had blond hair.

Until we have a better idea of exactly who the Vandals were and how much trace they left in northern Europe, I don't think we can draw many conclusions. Blond hair, although found elsewhere, is much more prevalent in the northern hemisphere, and I still wonder whether light levels affect the genetics of blondness, although that argument clearly falls down when one looks at groups like the Inuit. I don't think at this point we have a clear answer, even if we know what genes are most responsible for blondness. IMO, we need more data about population movements and when and where blondness appeared in large quantities. I suspect modern northern European blondness appeared on site in the Baltic and in Scandinavia, for reasons we don't yet fully understand, even though it has existed and does exist elsewhere. Look at all those blond haired blue eyed Balts and Scandinavians who seem to have skin that looks as much pale yellow as it does white (when compared to the whiteness of an Irish redhead, for example) and tell me if you think the answer is simple. Of course, given the probable time of blond emergence in the north, the Vandals could have been involved, but not necessarily.

Fire Haired14
03-06-14, 03:03
I haven't read that book. Does the author think that the Vandals were descended from the people of the Andronov Horizon? Because they apparently had blond hair.

What????!!!!! Vandals had nothing to do with the Andronovo culture just like how English have nothing to do with Russians even though both have high amounts of blonde hair.

Aberdeen
03-06-14, 06:28
What????!!!!! Vandals had nothing to do with the Andronovo culture just like how English have nothing to do with Russians even though both have high amounts of blonde hair.

That's kind of the point of my comment, genius. There's also no reason to think that the Vandals, a German speaking tribe who ended up in North Africa, have anything to do with modern Latvians.

Sile
03-06-14, 08:10
I haven't read that book. Does the author think that the Vandals were descended from the people of the Andronov Horizon? Because they apparently had blond hair.

Until we have a better idea of exactly who the Vandals were and how much trace they left in northern Europe, I don't think we can draw many conclusions. Blond hair, although found elsewhere, is much more prevalent in the northern hemisphere, and I still wonder whether light levels affect the genetics of blondness, although that argument clearly falls down when one looks at groups like the Inuit. I don't think at this point we have a clear answer, even if we know what genes are most responsible for blondness. IMO, we need more data about population movements and when and where blondness appeared in large quantities. I suspect modern northern European blondness appeared on site in the Baltic and in Scandinavia, for reasons we don't yet fully understand, even though it has existed and does exist elsewhere. Look at all those blond haired blue eyed Balts and Scandinavians who seem to have skin that looks as much pale yellow as it does white (when compared to the whiteness of an Irish redhead, for example) and tell me if you think the answer is simple. Of course, given the probable time of blond emergence in the north, the Vandals could have been involved, but not necessarily.

from the north caucasus to sweden ...............I am talking a very long time ago as per the book...........hair colour, eye colour etc does not happen overnight

Sile
03-06-14, 08:11
That's kind of the point of my comment, genius. There's also no reason to think that the Vandals, a German speaking tribe who ended up in North Africa, have anything to do with modern Latvians.

as the Vandals are on the baltic sea, I see no reason why they could not have sailed this spit of water ( baltic sea)

Aberdeen
03-06-14, 15:17
as the Vandals are on the baltic sea, I see no reason why they could not have sailed this spit of water ( baltic sea)

You're missing the point. The Vandals wouldn't have contributed to the development of blondism in modern Balts or Scandinavians because they didn't stay in that part of the world. If you're arguing that the Vandals may have been related to the ancestors of modern Balts and Scandinavians, that's a different argument that would justify dragging in just about any ancient population of blonds, but it may not be valid. And it doesn't really account for the high rate of blond hair among modern Balts, who are almost as high in N as they are in R1a. Unless you're arguing that the Vandals were a German speaking tribe that were high in N, and I don't see any proof to support that idea. My point is that blondism isn't dependent on haplotype, and we don't seem to know yet what causes the mutations that cause blondism, so I think it's significant that blondism is most common in northwestern Europe. I just don't know what the significance is, but I think the old arguments about blond hair being either being more likely to be selected for in northern latitudes or being caused by a mutation more likely to occur in more northerly latitudes still seem convincing.

Auld Reekie
03-06-14, 16:45
I was born with blonde hair, as my father was and a lot of my family. All of our hair turned dark brown close to black when we went through puberty. I always wondered why this happens?

Aberdeen
03-06-14, 18:52
I was born with blonde hair, as my father was and a lot of my family. All of our hair turned dark brown close to black when we went through puberty. I always wondered why this happens?

It's quite common, but I don't think science has the explanation for it yet. My paternal grandmother had very blonde hair, and my other grandparents had black hair. I had very blonde hair as a child, it darkened to medium brown during puberty, and it later darkened further to dark brown. Simply saying that blond hair is caused by a recessive gene doesn't explain that process, but other people have told me they went through the same cycle of having their hair's natural colour darken over time.

Angela
03-06-14, 20:17
I think these changes are rather the rule than the exception. Most European children are born with lighter hair than they will have in adulthood, in my experience. It seems probable to me that it is at least partly a function of the effect of hormonal triggers on the mutated genes involved, as two of the periods of greatest change are puberty, and, for women, pregnancy.

Eye color changes as well, with many children being born with blue eyes that gradually change color, although the transformation is usually complete relatively quickly.

Just as an example, both my children were born with blue eyes; my daughter's quickly turned brown, but my son's were blue for almost a year, and then gradually changed to a greenish hazel. My daughter's hair, when it finally came in, (thank goodness for those sticky bows!:smile:) was platinum blonde, and it stayed that way until her late teens, when it turned a darkish blonde/light brown, much to her dismay. My son, on the other hand, was born with a full head of black, wavy hair, but it inexplicably turned blonde without a single hair falling out. I've never heard of that with any other child. It then got dark again with puberty. (The result was that the children looked very much like each other when they were little, but not very much like me!)

So, these pigmentation genes don't seem very stable to me, at least not in a lot of people, although skin color does tend to remain rather constant, in my opinion.

Sile
03-06-14, 20:43
You're missing the point. The Vandals wouldn't have contributed to the development of blondism in modern Balts or Scandinavians because they didn't stay in that part of the world. If you're arguing that the Vandals may have been related to the ancestors of modern Balts and Scandinavians, that's a different argument that would justify dragging in just about any ancient population of blonds, but it may not be valid. And it doesn't really account for the high rate of blond hair among modern Balts, who are almost as high in N as they are in R1a. Unless you're arguing that the Vandals were a German speaking tribe that were high in N, and I don't see any proof to support that idea. My point is that blondism isn't dependent on haplotype, and we don't seem to know yet what causes the mutations that cause blondism, so I think it's significant that blondism is most common in northwestern Europe. I just don't know what the significance is, but I think the old arguments about blond hair being either being more likely to be selected for in northern latitudes or being caused by a mutation more likely to occur in more northerly latitudes still seem convincing.

I have not given my opinion on the vandals, I quoted the book and also the member who states that vandals are swedish in origin.

IMO, the vandals are a confederation of "east-germanic" tribes ( I have already presented all the tribes once before on this forum ), who where intially stated as wandals, wends and lived to the east of the longobards who are now classified as west-germanic ( they where once classified as east-germanic).

I agree with all your points, as for HG for Vandals ..........R1a, I1, I2, N with some R1b ..........

Sile
03-06-14, 20:47
I was born with blonde hair, as my father was and a lot of my family. All of our hair turned dark brown close to black when we went through puberty. I always wondered why this happens?

same as you......my eye brows where also so so blond they could not be visible from 5 metres away.
I guess they should measure the colour of hair only around years of peoples mid-teens .............which I would not qualify anymore.

Many Australian aboriginals are also born pure blond and stay like that until about 6 to 9 years of age, then go black

In regards to eye colour.............it basically sets by when a child is 6 months old

Auld Reekie
03-06-14, 21:36
I live in an overcast area that rains or snows most of the year. When I'm exposed to the sun for long periods, especially going into saltwater at the beach my hair will lighten up. I'm sure that's true for a lot of people. I've noticed (along with my grey hairs) my hair will turn a slight copper reddish blonde that I've never had.

Angela
03-06-14, 22:16
I live in an overcast area that rains or snows most of the year. When I'm exposed to the sun for long periods, especially going into saltwater at the beach my hair will lighten up. I'm sure that's true for a lot of people. I've noticed (along with my grey hairs) my hair will turn a slight copper reddish blonde that I've never had.

Pheomelanin, the pigment responsible for a "reddish" tint in hair, breaks down slower than eumelanin. That's why when women with brown hair get "highlights" or bleached strands, the strands come out looking rather reddish, and, unless that's the woman's preference, they have to apply a "toner" to the hair to get rid of the red. The sun (and salt) bleach the hair just as peroxide does. The chlorine in a pool will also do a number on hair...lifeguards who have very fair hair can develop a radioactive sort of green "glow" to their hair if they don't constantly rinse the chlorine out with fresh water.

motzart
07-06-14, 05:16
I was born with blonde hair, as my father was and a lot of my family. All of our hair turned dark brown close to black when we went through puberty. I always wondered why this happens?

Blondes are known for being dumb so perhaps as you grew older and gained intelligence your hair color changed.

Fire Haired14
07-06-14, 05:47
I was born with blonde hair, as my father was and a lot of my family. All of our hair turned dark brown close to black when we went through puberty. I always wondered why this happens?

The same is true for most people in my family. The majority of pre school kids have blonde hair and by the time their in 8th grade a pretty small minority does. The same is also true for Oceania people, many have blonde hair(caused by differnt mutations than west Eurasian blonde hair) as children and all have dark hair by puberty. Everyone's hair probably darkens during puberty, just it is easy to see in blondes.

Radek
22-06-14, 06:46
What????!!!!! Vandals had nothing to do with the Andronovo culture just like how English have nothing to do with Russians even though both have high amounts of blonde hair.

English amount of blonde hair is clearly overstated by internet bookies..

Its no more than 1 in 10 english people with real blonde hair, past their teens.. And if you talk about pure blonde hair the amount goes to the single digits..

MOESAN
22-06-14, 16:07
I think these changes are rather the rule than the exception. Most European children are born with lighter hair than they will have in adulthood, in my experience. It seems probable to me that it is at least partly a function of the effect of hormonal triggers on the mutated genes involved, as two of the periods of greatest change are puberty, and, for women, pregnancy.

Eye color changes as well, with many children being born with blue eyes that gradually change color, although the transformation is usually complete relatively quickly.

Just as an example, both my children were born with blue eyes; my daughter's quickly turned brown, but my son's were blue for almost a year, and then gradually changed to a greenish hazel. My daughter's hair, when it finally came in, (thank goodness for those sticky bows!:smile:) was platinum blonde, and it stayed that way until her late teens, when it turned a darkish blonde/light brown, much to her dismay. My son, on the other hand, was born with a full head of black, wavy hair, but it inexplicably turned blonde without a single hair falling out. I've never heard of that with any other child. It then got dark again with puberty. (The result was that the children looked very much like each other when they were little, but not very much like me!)

So, these pigmentation genes don't seem very stable to me, at least not in a lot of people, although skin color does tend to remain rather constant, in my opinion.

Fair hair tend to darken with age :


the typical dark blond of Germanics ? Celts and others (not the whitish flaxen blond of West Finns) at 20 years age become regularly a just light brown at the 40 years age, before become grey or white (by the way I observed the red hairs people become white sooner than others a s a rule)

the blondism of children is another thing and depends on other genes I believe (metabolism ones?), than the basic ones which regulate the (partly) steady hair colours : it is something which occurs frequently among animals : the pets have as a rule a different colour from the adults colour – I think I constated the future very dark haired babies are born with already dark hairs (uneasy to observe because very often their rare wet hairs are sticked on their skulls) BUT between birth and one year age these hairs grow lighter before a longer process of darkening unti puberty – this phenomenon was also studied on Czech children some years ago -
this is a rough observation : in the very dark pigmented Europeans populations, the children become very often brown and not blond – it is possible that the rarest future dark brownish blackish haired adult people who keep blond long enough time in childhood are the ones who carry some recessive blond or fair hairs ? -

&: when we speak of a « blondperson » or a « dark pigmented person » we speakabout the more visible : the head hairs ; but, maybe bydiverse crossing-overs or for other reasons, all the hairs of thebody are not always of the same colours : we can observe evident« sub-regions » : top head, peri-ears and neckregion and vertical branch of beard, moustaches and the triangleunder the mouths, the remainig beard region (the principal one),eyebrows, limbs, breast/chest , pubis and armpits... the more thecountry people is dark or light haired, the more often thepigmentation is homogenous, but some parts as the pubis and beard area bit more reddish very often too whatever the country – the verymixed pigmented populations show more heterogenous pigmentation onthe individuals -

LeBrok
22-06-14, 17:07
Fair hair tend to darken with age :
&: when we speak of a « blondperson » or a « dark pigmented person » we speakabout the more visible : the head hairs ; but, maybe bydiverse crossing-overs or for other reasons, all the hairs of thebody are not always of the same colours : we can observe evident« sub-regions » : top head, peri-ears and neckregion and vertical branch of beard, moustaches and the triangleunder the mouths, the remainig beard region (the principal one),eyebrows, limbs, breast/chest , pubis and armpits... the more thecountry people is dark or light haired, the more often thepigmentation is homogenous, but some parts as the pubis and beard area bit more reddish very often too whatever the country – the verymixed pigmented populations show more heterogenous pigmentation onthe individuals -
Hair is a beautiful example about differences in our gene expression in body parts. Every cell has exactly same DNA, yet it is expressed differently on top of the head, in eyes, beard, or ears. Some people might have only blond genes expressed in their eyes but not in hair cells. Unfortunately DNA tests can't tell you which genes are expressed and where, therefore you will always get answer in probability. To make matter even more complicated some genes are turned off or on with age, some with faulty methylation process.

joeyc
22-07-14, 18:58
The HirisPlex system uses 24 SNPs to predict hair colour with a very high rate of success (70-90% among Europeans).

The system will surely improve in the next years. A few more SNPs and a better algorithm are needed to reach a 95% rate of prediction.

vigilantexplorer
10-12-14, 22:49
Albinism -also called achromia, achromasia, or achromatosis- is characterized by a reduced or lack of pigment that normally gives color to the skin, hair, and eyes due to absence or defect of tyrosinase, a copper-containing enzyme involved in the production of melanin.

google: Why Little Maria is Blonde While Her Roma Parents Are Not

vigilantexplorer
10-12-14, 22:56
(OCA1B) is responsible for blonde hair

LeBrok
11-12-14, 06:42
google: Why Little Maria is Blonde While Her Roma Parents Are Not
Unless you are strong on believing in miracles it should occur to you, that this is not their natural child.
There was also a virgin Maria who had a child, but I'm not sure if he was blond.

vigilantexplorer
12-12-14, 03:52
Unless you are strong on believing in miracles it should occur to you, that this is not their natural child.
There was also a virgin Maria who had a child, but I'm not sure if he was blond.
just google "DNA test confirms that Bulgarian woman IS the natural mother of blonde-haired ‘Maria’ found living with Roma couple"

vigilantexplorer
12-12-14, 03:55
OCA1a: Those with this type of albinism have no pigment and no active tyrosinase
OCA1b: Those with this type of albinism have some residual tyrosinase activity and so have some pigment. Although they have decreased pigmentation at birth, it may increase slightly throughout their lives. People in this group may even have the ability to sun tan.
Vision of Tomorrow Foundation

this is scientific

Individuals with OCA1A have white hair, white skin that does not tan, and fully translucent irises that do not darken with age. At birth, individuals with OCA1B have white or very light yellow hair that darkens with age, white skin that over time develops some generalized pigment and may tan with sun exposure, and blue irises that change to green/hazel or brown/tan with age. Visual acuity may be 20/60 or better in some individuals.

so actually no, i prefer science over miracles..

holderlin
15-12-14, 07:18
long before DNA was used for human genetics

Damn, that was a long time ago. Probably interdimensional. Pre-stardust

JS Bach
18-01-15, 05:58
Another poster posted this on another thread here: http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/30619-36-200YBP-European-genome?p=446247#post446247

“I think blond hair is likely the product of mixture of different depigmentation genes that occurred among different populations - possibly for different reasons. For example say it takes three components and some populations only have two. ANE could have brought one of the components.”

So what the poster’s suggesting is that blond hair was the product of multiple populations ultimately coming together, with each population bringing their depigmentation mutations that only manifested themselves in blond hair when brought together. So in effect, this would speed up the evolution process by taking mutations from multiple sources, similar to parallel processing in computers. Then sexual selection would have probably taken its course, as men appear to have a significant preference for blondes – what’s the most popular colour that women dye their hair? - as blonde hair signals youth and fertility, as hair tends to get darker with age. Plus whatever survival benefits it would bring in their environment - better camouflage, synthesis of vitamin D, etc.

Fire Haired14
18-01-15, 07:07
Another poster posted this on another thread here: http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/30619-36-200YBP-European-genome?p=446247#post446247

“I think blond hair is likely the product of mixture of different depigmentation genes that occurred among different populations - possibly for different reasons. For example say it takes three components and some populations only have two. ANE could have brought one of the components.”

So what the poster’s suggesting is that blond hair was the product of multiple populations ultimately coming together, with each population bringing their depigmentation mutations that only manifested themselves in blond hair when brought together. So in effect, this would speed up the evolution process by taking mutations from multiple sources, similar to parallel processing in computers. Then sexual selection would have probably taken its course, as men appear to have a significant preference for blondes – what’s the most popular colour that women dye their hair? - as blonde hair signals youth and fertility, as hair tends to get darker with age. Plus whatever survival benefits it would bring in their environment - better camouflage, synthesis of vitamin D, etc.

All we know through ancient DNA is that all Euros ancestors at recent as 6,000 years ago had vast majority dark hair, and that somewhere in between 6,000-4,000YBP light hair, light skin, along with blue eyes(which were already popular in WHG-ANE) rose in popularity, especially for north Euro's ancestors. I suspect that the bronze age Corded ware, Bell Beaker, and Unetice genomes Reich has will show the same light pigmentation the bronze age Andronovo samples did. We know that a Lithuanian-type pops spread their genes to west Europe during the bronze age, and I suspect they also made west Europe lighter.

I think sexual selection defiantly could have been apart of the bronze age color change. Most men in the world would agree north European women are the most attractive in the world. It's not because of modern makeup or whatever, if you go to an isolated people non-Americanized people in northern Europe, like the Sami or Lithuanians, you see the same features.

LeBrok
18-01-15, 07:40
Most men in the world would agree north European women are the most attractive in the world. Did you ask the world?
http://destinationspoint.net/misc/top-11-countries-with-the-most-beautiful-women-in-the-world/

1. Brazil
2. Russia
3. Colombia
4. Great Britain
5. Philippines
6. Spain
7. Australia
8. Bulgaria
9. South Africa
10. Canada

Fire Haired14
18-01-15, 08:19
Did you ask the world?
http://destinationspoint.net/misc/top-11-countries-with-the-most-beautiful-women-in-the-world/

1. Brazil
2. Russia
3. Colombia
4. Great Britain
5. Philippines
6. Spain
7. Australia
8. Bulgaria
9. South Africa
10. Canada



I see that as baseless. It's based on stero types and personas, and was probably a bad survey. Compare how many female actors/anchors and models who are only used for their looks, who are north European or other. Women of all backgrounds dye their hair blonde. But that's just my impression and I shouldn't assume it's law.

LeBrok
18-01-15, 09:37
I see that as baseless. It's based on stero types and personas, and was probably a bad survey. Compare how many female actors/anchors and models who are only used for their looks, who are north European or other. Women of all backgrounds dye their hair blonde. But that's just my impression and I shouldn't assume it's law.
Maybe it is baseless, but on other hand we just have your subjective opinion. Can you find a more scientific survey into this subject to substantiate your claim?

Maleth
18-01-15, 09:45
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6iTWaKoZ5U&list=RDJ6iTWaKoZ5U#t=113

......but women in pic has Dark (Black hair hmm) :/

Aberdeen
18-01-15, 16:09
I think beauty is a very subjective thing. In the list LeBrok found, Finipino women rank fairly high, but I don't generally find them attractive - there's just something about their features I don't like. But some other people may think that Filipino women are very attractive. And a lot of people think blondes are very attractive but I don't, perhaps because opposites attract. I have brown hair that used to be blond, blue eyes and fairly pale skin, and although I'm attracted to pale redheads, I'm otherwise most attracted to women with dark hair and a bit darker complexion. But lots of people love blonds. So I don't think it's possible to make a list of certain types of women that everyone finds attractive. It's more subjective than that.

JS Bach
19-01-15, 03:21
Maybe it is baseless, but on other hand we just have your subjective opinion. Can you find a more scientific survey into this subject to substantiate your claim?

There are online rankings of celebrities like this one: http://www.ranker.com/crowdranked-list/the-beautiful-people-the-hottest-celebrities-of-all-time?page=2 where all you have to do to vote is click the thumb-up or thumb-down button. So at least it seems democratic in some ways. Of the top 100 in this list, I counted half as being blondes, and I don’t think any country - even Finland - has proportionally that many blondes. I’d be interested to have these celebrities tested for Eurogenes7 or Eurogenes8 to see what proportions they have of EEF, WHG, ANE, etc.

There was a rating system described in the movie “The Social Network” that had Harvard students rank women in pairs for looks, and which was calculated using the standard rating system used by the U.S. chess federation. That would seem like a pretty accurate measuring system to me, if sampled widely and accurately, and maybe with tweaking a parameter or two. I don't know if one has been done though.

LeBrok
19-01-15, 03:48
There are online rankings of celebrities like this one: http://www.ranker.com/crowdranked-list/the-beautiful-people-the-hottest-celebrities-of-all-time?page=2 where all you have to do to vote is click the thumb-up or thumb-down button. So at least it seems democratic in some ways. Of the top 100 in this list, I counted half as being blondes, and I don’t think any country - even Finland - has proportionally that many blondes. I’d be interested to have these celebrities tested for Eurogenes7 or Eurogenes8 to see what proportions they have of EEF, WHG, ANE, etc.

There was a rating system described in the movie “The Social Network” that had Harvard students rank women in pairs for looks, and which was calculated using the standard rating system used by the U.S. chess federation. That would seem like a pretty accurate measuring system to me, if sampled widely and accurately, and maybe with tweaking a parameter or two. I don't know if one has been done though.

It would be interesting to see preference of Chinese, or Amazonian Indians for example.

Aaron1981
19-01-15, 04:49
Did you ask the world?


1. Brazil
2. Russia
3. Colombia
4. Great Britain
5. Philippines
6. Spain
7. Australia
8. Bulgaria
9. South Africa
10. Canada



Wow..that list? It's horrible. In no universe should UK women be anything more than the top 10 foogliest. I'm a little biased against my own I suppose.

Fire Haired14
19-01-15, 06:53
I think beauty is a very subjective thing. In the list LeBrok found, Finipino women rank fairly high, but I don't generally find them attractive - there's just something about their features I don't like. But some other people may think that Filipino women are very attractive. And a lot of people think blondes are very attractive but I don't, perhaps because opposites attract. I have brown hair that used to be blond, blue eyes and fairly pale skin, and although I'm attracted to pale redheads, I'm otherwise most attracted to women with dark hair and a bit darker complexion. But lots of people love blonds. So I don't think it's possible to make a list of certain types of women that everyone finds attractive. It's more subjective than that.

I agree that's true but there are laws to it. In some ethnic groups women might fall under these laws more than others. The subjective thing is true when people say there's a huge difference between "hillbilly women", french women, Russian women, Czech women, British women, etc.

Fire Haired14
19-01-15, 06:57
It would be interesting to see preference of Chinese, or Amazonian Indians for example.

You'll probably mostly find that preference in east Asia and native Americans. There's oftnly a biased, where people from a certain ethnic-cultural group are more attracted to their own.

LeBrok
19-01-15, 17:14
You'll probably mostly find that preference in east Asia and native Americans. There's oftnly a biased, where people from a certain ethnic-cultural group are more attracted to their own. If this is true then I'm not sure how you can claim that half of men on this planet prefers blonds?

Angela
19-01-15, 17:58
You'll probably mostly find that preference in east Asia and native Americans. There's oftnly a biased, where people from a certain ethnic-cultural group are more attracted to their own.


I think that's true to a certain extent. The ancient Greeks were certainly aware of differences in pigmentation by area, but, having a healthy sense of self esteem, they held that unlike the too pale northerners and the too dark "Ethiopians", they were "just right". :laughing:

However, as Aberdeen said, for others it's a question of "opposites attract". Then, there's the fact that elite groups who are an intrusive force with perhaps a different "phenotype" will favor their own phenotype, and people in lower social groups will come to favor it too, as a sign of privilege. That was partly the case for the preference for blonde hair in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, I think.

You might want to pick up a copy of the book "The White Lotus" by John Hersey to see how it would work in a future world where the Chinese conquered the West:

It also changes with time and fashions...the ideal of beauty in the high Middle Ages was for women to be as hairless as possible (perhaps for a contrast with men) so they plucked out a lot of hair along their foreheads, and even their eyelashes and eyebrows.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/38/e1/c2/38e1c2a9903490477d811022c282563f.jpg

They also prized women being pregnant so the pregnant silhouette was preferred; if you weren't pregnant you wore a sort of cushion under your dress. I don't think that it's at all a look that would appeal to men today.
http://blogs.getty.edu/iris/files/2011/06/liberal_arts1.jpg

For a time in the nineteenth century, the "Circassian" woman was held to be the epitome of female beauty. Hucksters and marketeers made a fortune selling products guaranteed to make you look like one. I'm partial to that look myself, but then I think everybody looks better with dark hair...a better contrast with pale features, for sure. I've even been known to put a darker rinse in my hair just to get that effect. :smile:
http://arinndembo.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/tumblr_m71l57idPp1rask25o9_500.jpg



That's not to mention the changes in preference over the twentieth century for large mouth versus small mouth, a tan versus indoor pale, a boyish figure versus a voluptuous one and on and on. Or, what about the influence of advertising and the mass media? I can tell you for a fact that the decisions made by a very small group of people dictate what we consider "attractive", whether we know it or not. That partly explains the difference in the number of actresses sporting blonde hair versus dark hair now, or how "a 4 became the new 6, and the 2 the new 4". (It's from The Devil Wears Prada, a movie I'm sure you didn't see. I was there, and I could see it happening. The sample sizes came in a size 6, so that's the size you had to be to be a model. Then, they decided it had to be a four, and then sometimes a two...that's why models are anorexic...they have to starve to get to that size when they also have to be 5'10.)

It's all complicated, and, indeed, subjective.

Fire Haired14
19-01-15, 18:17
I understand some of what I said might be offensive, and I was quick to assume.

Aberdeen
19-01-15, 18:28
I agree that's true but there are laws to it. In some ethnic groups women might fall under these laws more than others. The subjective thing is true when people say there's a huge difference between "hillbilly women", french women, Russian women, Czech women, British women, etc.

I have no idea what you're trying to say. There are cultural preferences, and they do change over time, as Angela pointed out. IMO, some of those cultural preferences would seem bizarre in other times and places - I recently read an article on the BBC News talking about how at one point the ancient Greeks thought that women were more attractive if they had facial tattoos and shaved heads. But individual preferences can and often do override cultural preferences.

Angela
19-01-15, 19:47
I understand some of what I said might be offensive, and I was quick to assume.

I certainly wasn't offended FireHaired. All I was trying to point out is that if you take a broader view, taking into account not only other cultures, but also different time periods, it becomes pretty clear that things like this are not only very subjective, they're also culture and time period specific.

Fire Haired14
19-01-15, 20:08
I have no idea what you're trying to say. There are cultural preferences, and they do change over time, as Angela pointed out. IMO, some of those cultural preferences would seem bizarre in other times and places - I recently read an article on the BBC News talking about how at one point the ancient Greeks thought that women were more attractive if they had facial tattoos and shaved heads. But individual preferences can and often do override cultural preferences.

It'll be hard find a guy who prefers women with short hair over long hair. The eras of women having short hair, was probably driven by women(same thing with skinny models), who didn't understand what men were attracted to. Most pre-15th century depictions of women have long hair.

Well, when my older relatives look at old videos they say they looked weird with mullets and puffy hair, but looked like they do now to themselves. I've had the same experience when I get a hair cut. If I went back in time to 1984 and lived until 1988, the 80s styles would start to look normal to me, because my mind would adapt. There are specific laws of attraction, that can be expressed using different styles. The "ideal" woman ancient Romans depicted, Upper Palaeolithic depictions of women from Europe and Siberia, Neolithic depictions of women from Hungary, depictions of women from ancient Mesopotamia, etc., etc. are all very attractive and show the same features. I don't think its mostly subjective and cultural.

LeBrok
19-01-15, 21:00
It'll be hard find a guy who prefers women with short hair over long hair. The eras of women having short hair, was probably driven by women(same thing with skinny models), who didn't understand what men were attracted to. Most pre-15th century depictions of women have long hair.

Well, when my older relatives look at old videos they say they looked weird with mullets and puffy hair, but looked like they do now to themselves. I've had the same experience when I get a hair cut. If I went back in time to 1984 and lived until 1988, the 80s styles would start to look normal to me, because my mind would adapt. There are specific laws of attraction, that can be expressed using different styles. The "ideal" woman ancient Romans depicted, Upper Palaeolithic depictions of women from Europe and Siberia, Neolithic depictions of women from Hungary, depictions of women from ancient Mesopotamia, etc., etc. are all very attractive and show the same features. I don't think its mostly subjective and cultural.
Certainly there is cultural aspect and a genetic aspect of what we perceive as feminine beauty. Then we have few other elements interacting and overlapping with each other, like how women see themselves attractive, how society describes attractive women, (by fashion or other social trends), how men perceive women sexy. There is enough things in the mix to blur the picture and make it confusion to understand.

Personally I never understood fashion and prefered to stay true to my natural inclinations. If I find clothes making me look good. (the looking good part is hard to define though, lol). I can wear them to the end of my life. Fashion should be very personal, matching clothes, hair, tan to the body shape and size. To make people look good in a Universal (genetic) sense of beauty. However I realise that personal fashion is an oxymoron. It is a personal style I'm after.
There was something about fashion few years back that made half of girls walking around with muffin top look.
http://howtolosebackfat.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/muffin-top.jpg

Angela
19-01-15, 21:37
Certainly there is cultural aspect and a genetic aspect of what we perceive as feminine beauty. Then we have few other elements interacting and overlapping with each other, like how women see themselves attractive, how society describes attractive women, (by fashion or other social trends), how men perceive women sexy. There is enough things in the mix to blur the picture and make it confusion to understand.

Personally I never understood fashion and prefered to stay true to my natural inclinations. If I find clothes making me look good. (the looking good part is hard to define though, lol). I can wear them to the end of my life. Fashion should be very personal, matching clothes, hair, tan to the body shape and size. To make people look good in a Universal (genetic) sense of beauty. However I realise that personal fashion is an oxymoron. It is a personal style I'm after.
There was something about fashion few years back that made half of girls walking around with muffin top look.
http://howtolosebackfat.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/muffin-top.jpg

:startled::startled:They're called "low rise" pants...an unfortunate fashion trend, added to which , in this case, they're being worn way too tight. Pictures like this are what convince me that some people don't look in mirrors before they go outside. To all our gentlemen posters, if your female significant other asks if this look makes her appear fat, please tell her yes, it does. I know that comment doesn't usually benefit you, but you owe it to the rest of us.:laughing:

Angela
19-01-15, 21:52
Fire Haired14: It'll be hard find a guy who prefers women with short hair over long hair. The eras of women having short hair, was probably driven by women(same thing with skinny models), who didn't understand what men were attracted to. Most pre-15th century depictions of women have long hair.

Well, when my older relatives look at old videos they say they looked weird with mullets and puffy hair, but looked like they do now to themselves. I've had the same experience when I get a hair cut. If I went back in time to 1984 and lived until 1988, the 80s styles would start to look normal to me, because my mind would adapt. There are specific laws of attraction, that can be expressed using different styles. The "ideal" woman ancient Romans depicted, Upper Palaeolithic depictions of women from Europe and Siberia, Neolithic depictions of women from Hungary, depictions of women from ancient Mesopotamia, etc., etc. are all very attractive and show the same features. I don't think its mostly subjective and cultural.

You could say, I think, that women getting their hair "bobbed" in the twenties, and the sudden craze for a more "boyish" silhouette (even to the point that some women "bound" their breasts) could have something to do with the fact that women wanted more "freedom" and it was felt short hair required less grooming time (although, in fact, longer hair you can bundle up into a chignon is lower maintenance) and women didn't want to be relegated solely to a "motherly" role. (Of course, during more conservative periods like the 1950s, the hour glass silhouette once more came into fashion.)
http://blog.fidmmuseum.org/museum/2010/03/1920s-silhouette.html

Even today, as a professional woman, it's easier to be taken more seriously and to avoid the office "lech" if you don't dress in a very "figure enhancing" or feminine manner.

However, I can tell you emphatically that most women today absolutely hate the fact that they're supposed to have what they consider to be totally unrealistic body shapes.

Also, there were in fact differences in the female form as memorialized in the UP/Neolithic in Europe, the Metal Ages in other places, and the Greco/Roman era. The "goddess" figurines from the UP and the early Neolithic in Europe (and Anatolia) are pretty similar (and obscenely and unattractively fat in my opinion-a walking advertisement for not spending your reproductive years perpetually pregnant). However, it's hard to know whether that was their idea of the ideal female form, or just their idea of a "fertility" goddess, pictured perhaps realistically for their time as a woman who had endured many, many pregnancies. I say that because there are other figurines which show a more "normal" form, which might be the goddess when "young" perhaps.

UP figurines:The Venus of Willendorf
http://www.dominiquenavarro.com/imagesdom/Venus%20of%20Willendorf/Venus-of-Willendorf_03.jpg

Neolithic figurine from Cucuteni:
https://img1.etsystatic.com/000/0/5500705/il_570xN.222918505.jpg

Things were different by the Greco/Roman Classical Era:

The Venus de Milo:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/MG-Paris-Aphrodite_of_Milos.jpg

I personally don't find the proportions of some of the Greek and Roman statues of the goddesses particularly aesthetically pleasing...a little too heavy on the bottom for the size of the top, to be delicate about it.

The most beautiful female form I can off hand remember from ancient art is this representation of Ishtar...
http://garyosborn.moonfruit.com/communities/2/004/005/471/112/images/4585746524_328x443.jpg

That and the "wasp waisted" ladies of ancient Crete:
http://www.nmia.com/~jaybird/ThomasBakerPaintings/images.html/necklace_bearer_%20hi_res.jpg

Of course, that's totally subjective on my part :smile:, and impossible for some women to achieve naturally. Probably something like the Venus de Milo is, in fact, achievable, and would be healthy as well for the majority of women, but it's not what the fashion industry or Hollywood are currently promoting.

Aberdeen
19-01-15, 21:57
:startled::startled:They're called "low rise" pants...an unfortunate fashion trend, added to which , in this case, they're being worn way too tight. Pictures like this are what convince me that some people don't look in mirrors before they go outside. To all our gentlemen posters, if your female significant other asks if this look makes her appear fat, please tell her yes, it does. I know that comment doesn't usually benefit you, but you owe it to the rest of us.:laughing:

There is no question a married man dreads more than "Do these jeans make me look fat?" Because any woman self-aware enough to ask that question already knows the answer. And if the man says "no", she knows he's lying and thinks he doesn't love her enough to risk her anger in order to have her back. But if he says "yes", he's an insensitive jerk. When a woman asks that question, she's really asking the man to perform a miracle by altering reality so the jeans don't make her fat. And if he won't do that one little thing for her, he doesn't really love her.

It's a good thing women are so fascinating, because they aren't always easy to live with. But I guess the challenge keeps things interesting.

Aberdeen
19-01-15, 22:08
It'll be hard find a guy who prefers women with short hair over long hair. The eras of women having short hair, was probably driven by women(same thing with skinny models), who didn't understand what men were attracted to. Most pre-15th century depictions of women have long hair.

Well, when my older relatives look at old videos they say they looked weird with mullets and puffy hair, but looked like they do now to themselves. I've had the same experience when I get a hair cut. If I went back in time to 1984 and lived until 1988, the 80s styles would start to look normal to me, because my mind would adapt. There are specific laws of attraction, that can be expressed using different styles. The "ideal" woman ancient Romans depicted, Upper Palaeolithic depictions of women from Europe and Siberia, Neolithic depictions of women from Hungary, depictions of women from ancient Mesopotamia, etc., etc. are all very attractive and show the same features. I don't think its mostly subjective and cultural.

The slim figures and bobbed hair of the women of the 1920's was a reaction to the voluptuous but conservative "Gibson girl" of the preceding decade and men liked the "new women" or "flappers" of the 1920s because they were seen as more independent and more interesting. The same thing happened in the 1960s when skinny models with bobbed hair and skippy clothes replaced the voluptuous but conservatively dressed models of the 1950s. So new fashion trends are often just a reaction to the previous trend. But individual preference will always play a part. If you prefer the Venus of Willendorf, you're what they call a "fat chaser".

Angela
19-01-15, 22:15
There is no question a married man dreads more than "Do these jeans make me look fat?" Because any woman self-aware enough to ask that question already knows the answer. And if the man says "no", she knows he's lying and thinks he doesn't love her enough to risk her anger in order to have her back. But if he says "yes", he's an insensitive jerk. When a woman asks that question, she's really asking the man to perform a miracle by altering reality so the jeans don't make her fat. And if he won't do that one little thing for her, he doesn't really love her.

It's a good thing women are so fascinating, because they aren't always easy to live with. But I guess the challenge keeps things interesting.

Well...by and large I think you've analyzed the situation pretty well....:grin:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emHSO5dr6dk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoFNoLW1XCg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emHSO5dr6dk)

LeBrok
19-01-15, 23:18
You could say, I think, that women getting their hair "bobbed" in the twenties, and the sudden craze for a more "boyish" silhouette (even to the point that some women "bound" their breasts) could have something to do with the fact that women wanted more "freedom" and it was felt short hair required less grooming time (although, in fact, longer hair you can bundle up into a chignon is lower maintenance) and women didn't want to be relegated solely to a "motherly" role. (Of course, during more conservative periods like the 1950s, the hour glass silhouette once more came into fashion.)
http://blog.fidmmuseum.org/museum/2010/03/1920s-silhouette.html (http://blog.fidmmuseum.org/museum/2010/03/1920s-silhouette.html)

In my eyes, it doesn't matter how long the hair needs to be for woman to be sexy. It is more important how it goes with her face. Some faces look better with longer some with shorter hair, or curled or bobbed. Probably I won't be far from the truth saying for all men, that we live in very exciting times in hair fashion. One month we can have a brunet with long hair, in another curly blond, and yet she being the same wife or girlfriend.


The Venus de Milo:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/MG-Paris-Aphrodite_of_Milos.jpg
Classical Greek beauty is more of my thing.


what the fashion industry or Hollywood are currently promoting. Perhaps, because fashion designers are mostly gay men, and as such don't feel what sexy women should look like? Other thing is the straighter the silhouette the easier to make cloths. I wish it was more about women and men who are going to wear them, and less about art, cosmetics and clothes, the products themselves.

Norvila
21-01-18, 19:33
I would recommend article about blonde hair, pale skin and light eyes
http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/looks.shtml
Please note South East Baltic were there is a max of these features has sharp increase of archeological artifacts dating 1-2c AC. Scandinavia with UK had big impact of the Migration period that followed with Vendel.