Many New Jersey and New York residents* (more on that later) were at best temporarily displaced by Hurricane Sandy, and at worst still struggling months later after their homes or businesses were completely destroyed. Entire waterside and low lying neighborhoods remain torn apart, months after record high water levels have receded. So months later, a bit of awareness could be helpful in reminding people, like the congressmen who voted against giving federal aid money to hard hit states, that just because the storm’s fallen from the front page, the need hasn’t gone away.

Vogue‘s Fashion for Sandy Relief auction in partnership with the CFDA raised $1.7 million for the Mayor’s Fund to Advance New York City, so their hearts (and wallets) are mostly in the right place, but the entire concept is not. Sticking a model in luxury clothes with people whose photoshoot hours could have been better utilized restoring utilities (ahem, ConEd) or otherwise helping people cope with the fallout from the storm comes off as not well thought through at best and completely tone deaf at worst.

Nana Gouvea’s post Sandy shoot

Brazilian reality personality Nana Gouvea was the butt of many a joke after her impromptu photo shoot with downed trees in the city. While the photography and models in this case are undoubtedly superior, the sheer ridiculousness of using a natural disaster that left people homeless, hungry and cold as the theme for a photoshoot under the guise of awareness is just as silly for an A-list magazine as it is for a D-list media chaser.

Vogue editor Anna Wintour has first hand experience in being inconvenienced by the storm, as she was forced to temporarily relocate to a luxury hotel on Manhattan’s Upper East Side {NY Post} while her Greenwich Village home was without power. Perhaps bumping into fellow refugees like Carine Roitfeld, Marc Jacobs and Emma Stone didn’t offer an uncomfortable enough or long enough relocation to consider those who don’t have homes to return to; whose favorite photos – not just of models, but of mom, dad, grandparents and family – are gone; those who probably hoped they could recover enough dry, heavy clothes to make it through the cold days that followed the storm, or bundle themselves in enough donated blankets to live without heat at the beginning of winter. While beautiful, it’s doubtful that any of the sleeveless gowns and delicate dresses featured would be up to that task. Maybe the water damaged clothes strewn about in particularly hard hit areas weren’t fashionable enough for Vogue, though surely a story with survivors discussing particularly meaningful pieces that were damaged or gone would have been relevant to a fashion magazine and relevant to the reality of the situation.

Which brings us to one final point: New Jersey.

*Loss is loss, damage is damage and suffering is suffering. That said, often overlooked in fundraisers, relief efforts and even shoots to glamorize those things is New Jersey. While Sandy seems to have succeeded in making more people aware that New York City isn’t just Manhattan (we’re betting the photograph of Chanel Iman and Karlie Kloss with Far Rockaway firefighters is the first time Vogue‘s shot in Queens in… ever), not a single photo op was dedicated to New Jersey. Governor Chris Christie estimates his state suffered $36.8 billion in damage, while New York Governor Andrew Cuomo puts his state’s cleanup bill at $32.8 billion {Huffington Post}. Given it’s less fashionable reputation (not entirely deserved), it might not be as much of a draw as New York City, but the cleanup bill is at least equal to, if not greater than that faced by the city and surrounding New York areas.

Perhaps New Jersey’s electric workers and recovery crews had something else to do when invited to participate in the shoot.

Vogue is a brand that has plenty of experience with insensitivity: American Vogue published a puff piece on the Syrian first couple just as uprisings in North Africa and the Middle East were heating up, French Vogue published a blackface editorial and a piece with children dressed and made up as adults (the latter may have been behind Carine Roitfeld’s departure), but we’ve always held out a bit more hope for Vogue Italia.

Not only for the groundbreaking all Black model issue, which sought to highlight the lack of diversity on runways and in magazine spreads (and went on to sell more copies than any other issue to date), but because of the seeming commitment to carry a more inclusive take on fashion on a regular basis. Even though it was only online, Vogue Italia gave the web Vogue Black and Vogue Curvy, which celebrated two frequently sidelined groups in fashion. It even managed to do it by tapping some of our favorite fashion bloggers in a smart way – very ahead of the curve.

So it’s extra disturbing to see how they’ve handled a feature on hoop earrings.

Yesterday, Jezebel picked up on a piece that originally appeared in Vogue Italia’s jewelry section in March 2010. The title? “Slave Earrings.”

While the headline is enough to offend to start with, it’s the original writeup that really stinks.

“Jewellery has always flirted with circular shapes, especially for use in making earrings. The most classic models are the slave and creole styles in gold hoops.

If the name brings to mind the decorative traditions of the women of colour who were brought to the southern United States during the slave trade, the latest interpretation is pure freedom. Colored stones, symbolic pendants and multiple spheres. And the evolution goes on.”

-Anna Bassi for Vogue Gioiello

First “jewellery has always flirted with circular shapes”? That’s like saying books have always flirted with paper. Moving on, while there may be some historical accuracy to the shape of “slave and creole” earrings being hoops, we’re pretty darn sure they weren’t a welcome gift from kindly plantation owners who brought them over for tea and fireside chats.

While historical origins are historical origins, there are some things that will never be in fashion. Involuntary slavery is one of those things. There’s a reason military styles aren’t described as “fascist fashion” and gold stars aren’t presented to people as “gas chamber chic.”

Vogue has since backpedaled and changed the headline to “Ethnic Earrings” and completely removed the writeup, after previously editing it to remove specific references to slavery. Still, is it any better?

Fashionista points out that “itâ€s equally frightening that the high fashion magazine, would find the two words–slave and ethnic–interchangeable.” So no, not really any better.

While we’re not sure of the exact type, earrings and ear piercing date back to ancient Greece, and are even mentioned in the Bible in various contexts (one of which is in reference to slaves), so which “ethnicity” are we talking about? Ancient Jewish people? Ancient Greeks? Perhaps Ancient Germans, considering a quick stop at Wikipedia turns up a pretty old looking hoop from the 6th or 7th century (that pre-dates American slavery, in case your math is off) that was discovered at the grave of a girl from the Alamannic (Germanic) tribe.

The most recent statement on the article reads

“WE’VE DECIDED TO REMOVE THE ARTICLE FROM THE SITE TO PROVE OUR GOOD FAITH AND TO SHOW IT WASN’T OUR INTENTION TO INSULT ANYONE.”

And a simple update to title the piece “Circular Earrings” would be nice too.

Besides being of questionable legality, there are a number of common sense problems here.

For one, while BlackBerry may have been the preferred communication device among protesters, news of and plans for riots largely spread to Twitter and more public channels. Public channels that police could easily monitor to determine where outbreaks of violence might occur next, to better coordinate their efforts. Even on BlackBerry’s network, there’s nothing to suggest that police who may have had BlackBery devices themselves were banned or restricted from accessing more open forum posts, or submitting their own numbers to organizers looking to rally as many people as they could.

The most secure BlackBerry messages – ones with end-to-end encryption are typically not even available to users not on the type of enterprise plan normally used by large companies and government. {Deutsch Welle} So if everyone else is sending messages that can be unencrypted by any other BlackBerry device, would it not make more sense to simply buy the police department a few BlackBerry handsets so that they could monitor chatter on the network?

That’s to say nothing of more open networks like Twitter or Facebook, who are also coming under fire.

So instead of oh, say, putting a few tech savvy officers on the networks to create profiles, and monitor and potentially engage people suspected of plotting criminal activity, you instead shut down their profiles, forcing them to move to secondary accounts which are further under the radar, or onto methods that are more difficult to monitor, like in person conversations.

Then you not only have plots that are more difficult to trace, but less evidence to actually prosecute people with as well.

Brilliant.

Say what you will about their ethics, but maybe we should get News Corp. on this – they seem to be the one London organization who can figure out how to monitor a person and gather information. A group of anonymous UK residents (ex-News of the World?) created Zavilia.com, a site that uses Facebook to get photos of rioters, and has crowd sourced identification of people in the pictures. Once multiple IDs come in on the same person, the name is forwarded to police. Some particularly bold rioters are posting photos of themselves with their loot on social networks, sites where they can sell the merchandise and doing other things online that are easily traceable and identifiable. All this to say that if a random developer with a few spare hours can figure out how to use social media to identify and potentially stop looters, fame seeking criminals with more braggadocio than criminal genius are openly posting photos, surely the entire UK government can figure out how to prevent and prosecute crimes with the help of social media, not in spite of it.

While there is a real need to review the plans for dealing with sudden and unexpected outbursts of criminal activity, Mr. Cameron’s anti-social media strategy is unlikely to have any real effectiveness within it. BBMs don’t cause criminal activity, for all the credit they’ve received, neither Twitter or Facebook caused revolutions. They may facilitate the planning, but for both good and bad, killing a communication method doesn’t kill the spirit behind the messages.

According to a post by Christian Oestlien, whose profile lists him as The Google+ Project Ads Guy (ironic), it never occurred to any of the brilliant minds in the Googleplex that brands, businesses, groups or other organizations that are larger than one person would want to participate.

“There may be a tiny handful business profiles that will remain in the meantime solely for the purpose of testing how businesses interact with consumers…The platform at the moment is not built for the business use case, and we want to help you build long-term relationships with your customers. Doing it right is worth the wait. We will continue to disable business profiles using regular profiles. We recommend you find a real person who is willing to represent your organization on Google+ using a real profile as him-or-herself,” says Oestlien.

Really? After the massive success of Facebook pages, it never once occurred to Google that if Google+ was going to offer itself up as an alternative to the dominant social network, a business option might be needed? And the solution is just “find a real person”? We can’t recall a single brand telling users to find them on Facebook and add their marketing manager as a friend.

Not to mention, when Google does open up to the public – which is expected to be much sooner than “a few months,” longterm usage and success will probably hinge on less tech savvy users being able to find and follow their favorite singer, or sports team, or news network, or favorite restaurant or any number of other accounts that really just don’t make sense on a personal profile – no matter how advanced or easy to use filters may be.

Recognizing that, Google reinstated Ford’s account, and made arrangements with Mashable’s Pete Cashmore to have him use the Mashable profile as a personal one. Apparently there’s no love for Big Bird and Elmo, because Sesame Street continues to return a 404. News Stream, a program on CNN International still has a profile, as does the Next Web so we assume they’re two of the arbitrary “tiny handful” of business profiles deemed suitable for testing. Meanwhile, the brands and businesses not deemed important enough to participate – Signature9 included – have been left wondering how something so obvious was overlooked in the first place.

Oh, and it’s pissing off the early adopters who’ve been helping Google+ achieve such rapid growth. Lisa Barone at Outspoken Media offers a summary of why playing favorites after creating a messy game isn’t the best move.

Can we at least convince a graphic design over at Google HQ to slap a beta label on this project?

The Codie Young photo that prompted criticism of Topshop

Our first problem is that this photo is generally unflattering, and looks Photoshopped into oblivion. While they don’t specifically call out heavy-handed retouching, a Topshop spokesperson alluded to it when defending Young to the Daily Mail.

“We do recognise regretfully that the angle this image has been shot at may accentuate Codieâ€s proportions making her head look bigger and neck longer in proportion to her body,” said spokesman Andrew Leahy. “While we recognise that Codie is a slim young woman, she is a size eight, not a size zero. The clothes she is wearing are a sample size ten so in some instances they may look a little looser than normal.”

The replacement image of Codie Young, where clothes appear to be styled to actually fit her

Angles, Photoshop bobblehead brush – at least there’s some acceptance of responsibility for a photo that’s bad, no matter what the size of the model. The fact that a photographer, and a stylist, and a creative director couldn’t be bothered to shoot, style or retouch the clothes so they appeared to fit properly and not make Young look like a lollipop is ridiculous.

Moving on to the second problem; when much of the outrage erupted, groups chastised Topshop for using a “size zero” model. That would be a US size 0, which is equivalent to a British size 4 or 6 (US vanity sizes can vary that wildly). So a UK size 8 would be a US size 2 or 4. And Young could very well be perfectly healthy at a US size 2 or 4, but trying to make it seem as if she’s so much bigger than critics were complaining about is disingenuous.

Then there’s the problem of the Scarlet A (anorexia) being brought out for every girl or woman who’s thin.

We’ve stated before that faux health concerns over “plus size” models (who are often not overweight for their height to start with) being some paragon of poor health, or encouragements of obesity are bunk. So are statements that thin models aren’t real, or are all sick. It is possible to be overweight and still be healthy, and it’s equally possible to be underweight and healthy. Are there anorexic models? Definitely, but thinness is usually accompanied by sunken eyes, poor skin and a number of other symptoms that are a better indication of health problems than body type alone.

On her blog, Young writes:

“Firstly this is very hurtful to me as I am naturally skinny; and anyone who knows me would know that I have been naturally skinny my entire life as my dad is 6’5 tall and skinny an my mum is also skinny, not to mention that my entire family on my dads side are all tall and skinny like me!…

You know what some people are just naturally skinny and even if I tried to put on weight it wouldn’t matter, because it doesn’t matter what I eat, I dont put it on. sorry to dissapoint you but why should I be accused of something so awful as being anorexic when I’m most definitally not. I love food as anyone who actually knows me would know!!!”

Fair enough. There are plenty of people out there who, for various reasons, don’t put on weight even when eating normally. There are some people out there who, for various reasons, carry more weight than average even when eating normally. Throw in the fact that the model is 18, an age when many people just don’t gain weight like they do at 30 or 40 and it’s certainly not impossible for her to be thin and healthy.

Then we got to this:

“And finally yes okay I maybe an American size 0-2 and a UK size 8 so what. There are overweight/obese people who are a size 34 or 18 but know one says anything to them because you don’t want to affend them! Just because someone eats a lot doesn’t make them healthy. Just like not eating anything doesnt make you healthy. And funny enough saying I’m anorexic affends me just as being called obese affends overweight people, but the differences is that im not anorexic!” {Codie Young blog}

Before we lay into our last problem, can we revisit this whole size conversion thing again? Because while vanity sizing in the US can trend towards the seriously vain, a US 0 being the same as a UK 8 just doesn’t happen that often. Young admits that for whatever Topshop calls an 8, she is indeed a US size 0, which is what led to the initial criticism. No, it’s not right that people accuse her of being anorexic because she’s a size 0, but let’s not play size games and try to make it seem like “oh no! you’re crazy, she’s much bigger than a size 0.”

We digress though: Codie, dear, have you been on the internet? No one says anything to overweight people? Really? Here’s one example.

And after 8 paragraphs trying to hammer home that skinny =/= anorexic, you’re ready to offer the expert opinion that overweight = obese? Because being skinny without being anorexic is possible, but being overweight without being obese or having weight related health problems isn’t?

Frankly, the multiple spelling and grammar errors throughout her blog post concern us far more than her weight. Eating disorder, no, but have we ruled out a learning disorder?

Pics, or it didn't happen

Considering that Prince William and (the former) Kate Middleton’s wedding was one of the biggest media events in recent memory, how do you take advantage of lingering royal interest? If you’re Newsweek, you raise the dead – in this case, Princess Diana, mother of the groom.

Supposedly in commemoration of what would be her 50th birthday, Tina Brown pens a royal fan fiction piece in the current issue of Newsweek that imagines relationships with everyone from Dominique Strauss Kahn to a Pakistani military general.

“Always so professional herself, she would have soon grown exasperated with Dodi Al-Fayedâ€s hopeless unreliability. After the breakup I see her moving to her favorite city, New York, spending a few cocooned years safely married to a super-rich hedge-fund guy who could provide her with what she called “all the toys”: the plane, the private island, the security detail. Gliding sleekly into her 40s, her romantic taste would have moved to men of power over boys of play. Sheâ€d have tired of the hedge-fund guy and drifted into undercover trysts with someone more exciting—a high-mindedly horny late-night talk-show host, or a globe-trotting French finance wizard destined for the Élysée Palace. I suspect she would have retained a weakness for men in uniform, and a yen for dashing Muslim men. (A two-year fling with a Pakistani general, rumored to have links to the ISI, would have been a particular headache to the Foreign Office and the State Department.)” {Newsweek}

Well then, with her love life settled, how would Diana have received Duchess Catherine?

“The rising public adoration of Kate would have afforded Diana some tricky moments. Pleased, yes. But, like Frances Shand Kydd—who, days before Dianaâ€s wedding, suddenly burst out, “I have good long legs, like my daughter”—Diana would have had to adjust to a broadening of the limelight. Her edge over Kate, of course, was her own epic of princessly suffering, which would always make Dianaâ€s story more interesting. (“Happily ever after” will never have the same allure to the press as “It all went horribly wrong.”) Diana, rejoicing in her flawless Spencer pedigree, would have positioned herself as a firm defender of the Middletons against the palace snobs and ostentatiously made Carole Middleton, Kateâ€s dynamic mother, her new BFF.”

While “what would have Diana thought” was a common question around the time of the royal marriage, detailing her hypothetical love life and besties, and raising her from the dead (Photoshop is getting really advanced these days) for the cover of a magazine is a bit… uncomfortable, considering the circumstances surrounding the reason Princess Diana isn’t around for magazine covers or interviews.

Heels from 5-year-old Suri Cruise's $150,000 shoe collection

We’ll start with Suri Cruise‘s $150,000 shoe collection, because it’s actually the least disturbing of the grown-up gifts trend. Katie Holmes and Tom Cruise obviously have more money than most parents, so it’s probably not too much of a surprise that little Suri has some expensive things. What is a little bit of a surprise is how far the couple goes to satisfy their daughter’s sartorial wishes. It’s not that Tom and Katie stocked up on a walk in closet full of regular kids shoes; Suri’s starting her race to knock Imelda Marcos from her Shoe Queen throne on custom Christian Louboutin and Marc Jacobs shoes. {ABC News} We’re assuming those weren’t cheap.

While we’d normally recommend using a different color for any shoe sole add-ons, this is one situation where we have to say stickers or paint are probably the best way to go for any red soled shoe desires. Especially if the person who really wants the shoes is five and will likely outgrow the shoes in a year.

Further up the awkward meter is the Trendy Monkeys Salon and “Princess Parlour.” The English salon caters strictly to a 13 and under crowd, and offers mani/pedis, fruit smoothie facials and hair styling. All of which seems like it might be fun for little girls who want to have a little princess experience, but don’t have parents who can splash out for bespoke heels. Here’s where it gets a little weird: the salon also offers makeup and spray tan booths, which would seem to push things into that awkward child-pageant territory where you’re not quite sure how to feel about what you’re seeing. The youngest patron so far was 16-months old. {Daily Mail}

We’ve all been in that uncomfortable situation where someone whips out a baby picture and is like “isn’t little ____ so gorgeous?” and you’re like “ummm… awww!” because you don’t want to be the person to point out that the little guy or gal is still growing into their looks. Still, we’re pretty sure slathering a toddler in fake tanner and layers of makeup is not the answer.

7-year-old Poppy Burge, who also pole dances with her mother, with her birthday boob job voucher. Happy birthday?

Finally, in full on awkward gifts for girls, UK mom Sarah Burge gifted her 7-year-old daughter Poppy with a plastic surgery voucher that she can apply to a boob job when she turns 16. {Huffington Post} We were never great with the anniversary gifts, and aren’t sure if there’s something similar for birthdays, but hopefully the voucher for therapy is the appropriate gift for age 8.

The elder Burge has had over 100 aesthetic surgery procedures and calls herself the Human Barbie. If you’re thinking “this won’t end well,” you’re probably right. Closer, the UK magazine that reported this story previously covered the story of a 12-year-old who asked her mother for a boob job for her 13th birthday. The mother in that case had undergone 50 surgeries, and supports her daughter’s plastic surgery aspirations. While she did say she’d want her daughter to wait until her 16th birthday, that was in 2008, so her plastic dreams may have come true. {Daily Mail}

Also, this isn’t Sarah and Poppy Burge’s first time dancing with controversy for publicity. Little Poppy and her mom pole dance together, and Sarah gives her 16-year-old daughter Botox injections. {Daily Mail} Unlike the previous “Botox Mom,” this one seems to be legit.

Youth sure does look a lot different these days.

And we were weirded out by the jewelry that looks like little human bones. If gold and silver vertebrae don’t satisfy your fascination with kinda creepy accessories, you can now sink your teeth into a piece of jewelry with real bite. We’re not kidding – it’s a ring made of actual human teeth. {the Gloss} Or, a necklace with human hair thrown in if you’re not sure about rings, but absolutely want in on some toothy adornments.

Tell us the tooth - would you wear human teeth and hair jewelry?

Van der Glas, an Australian Etsy seller, offers the ring pictured above for $1000 AUD (approximately $1070 USD at current exchange rates), but also has necklaces and earrings featuring human teeth, some combined with human hair. You can send in your own teeth for a 10% discount, or go with the designer’s pre-selected teeth at regular retail price.

Now these might make an amazing gift for the dentist who has everything, or the stylish boxer who wants a trinket representing his latest win that’s more discreet than a flashy belt, and admittedly we’re slightly interested in seeing what a Lil’ Wayne (or a similarly bling toothed rapper) version of this would look like; but for anyone else who isn’t a cannibal or serial killer on the side the ick factor kind of takes away from the style credibility.

Not to mention the price tag – while the pieces do have a pretty cool presentation, our tooth fairy returns maxed out at $5: the least expensive tooth trinket in this collection is $500 AUD. Then there’s maintenance: do you have to brush your jewelry with a fluoride toothpaste to keep it from getting a cavity? If you get the necklace that includes hair, do you have to shampoo and condition one part, and brush the other? Granted it says that the pieces have been sterilized, but for $500 you could probably find a respectable dentist to clean your entire mouth so that you aren’t losing teeth and have money left over for jewelry that won’t creep people out.

Maybe that’s just our take though; what say you? Would you wear human teeth in your fine jewelry?

Images via Van der Glas Etsy shop

Men's crystal penis tattoos: in case you were wondering what to wear with your shiny underwear.

The Daily Mail {via Gawker} reports that 40% of the customers requesting genital crystal decoration in UK salons are men. Vajazzle crystal suppliers are responding with designs specifically for men. An Iron Cross and red lips crystal design apparently top the male design best seller list.

Okay, first we have to address the general ridiculousness of this trend as a whole. When did people start stepping out of the shower, looking down and going “just not sparkly enough”? It’s bad enough when things get hot an heavy with a partner and you lose an earring – what happens when one of the crystals falls off? That’s got to be a really awkward scavenger hunt to figure out if the crystals have ended up between sheets or… elsewhere. Not to mention, aside from 12-year-old girls, Paris Hilton and certain rappers, who’s really that into sparkly things that they go “you know, everything is just better when it’s shiny.”

Now, onto the unique ridiculousness of this spreading over to guys. Gay or straight, it’s tough to imagine anyone pulling a guy’s pants down, seeing red a red crystal lip design and doing anything but laughing (and laughter is a completely acceptable reaction). Then you’d have to explain that you’re laughing at the crystal tattoo, and not the guy’s other jewels…

We’ll take a pass on both versions of this sparkly mood killer, but would you bling your private bits?

According to Psychology Today, black women are scientifically comparatively unattractive and masculine looking. We think they're insane, scientifically and in general.

Psychology Today has removed an article on  “Why Black Women Are Less Physically Attractive Than Other Women,” but many – us included – are wondering why it was published in the first place.

The entire article is no longer available on the Psychology Today website, but has been screencapped in its entirety at Buzzfeed. Aside from the blatant racism, what we really have a problem with is the junk science behind the “study,” and the fact that no editor at Psychology Today saw fit to withhold such a controversial article in consideration of the fact that the entire study is based on very subjective opinions. Let’s go through a few, shall we?

To start with, the supposedly “subjective” rating of attractiveness is done by interviewers of undetermined racial backgrounds. Assuming these are all totally open minded interviewers, there’s still not much that can be done to make preferences objective. Beauty is and always has been in the eye of the beholder, and statistical procedures don’t change that at all.

So already this “study” is treating the opinions  of three people as fact. As non-scientists, that seems like reason enough to discard this article at the outset, but let’s continue on for more of  Kanazawa’s gems.

Then there’s the interesting note that Black men and women consider themselves more attractive than the interviewers do. Which is again the problem with this junk science in the first place. If you poll 3 Republicans about President Obama’s job performance, you’d probably get different results than you would if you polled 3 Democrats. This is no more “interesting” than noting that Democrats subjectively think liberal policies are better for the country when holding Republican opinions up as the “objective” base point.”

Not one single chart presented proves that black women are “objectively” less attractive than anyone else. Continuing on the basis of the opinion of 3 people – we assume none were black women – as fact makes everything else pretty worthless.

Then there’s the full on racist crap. The first paragraph posits that black women are comparatively fat and stupid compared to women of other races – but don’t get down on yourself about that black ladies: your unattractiveness isn’t tied to either of those!

It’s also not to the mutant African genes that black men and women possess. So that just leaves the “fact” that black people have too much testosterone which means men and women look more manly, and it doesn’t work in the favor of black women. While we’re on the subject of facts, we should also note that African and black are not always the same thing. Moroccan, Tunisian and North African people look different than those in Western Africa, who look different from those in East Africa, who look different from those in Southern Africa, and black people in America and the Caribbean (among other places) can look like a combination of all or none of the above. Thus making this ridiculous bunch of crap even more ridiculous.

There are fat, unattractive people of all races, and last we checked there’s no single race that can claim ownership of androgyny or women with masculine features.

While this study is offensive, it’s even more offensive that not a single person at Psychology Today thought that publishing a glorified Hot or Not survey based on the opinions of three men who aren’t that into black women as a factual study on the attractiveness of black women as a whole was a good idea. Note for the future: charts do not make idiocy scientific or factual, they just highlight the fact that even highly educated, supposedly scientific people can be idiots.