Blondes for Affairs, Brunettes for Marriage

August 16, 2004

Here's an article for Nordicists who think of blond women as a some sort of prize sought after for eugenic or "upbreeding" purposes. Exotic sex toy would be a more apt description of how they're perceived. And women aren't rushing out to "upbreed" with blond men either.

Men prefer blondes as lovers and mistresses


A survey has revealed men really do prefer blondes — at least as lovers and mistresses — while women least fancy ginger men.

Until they were asked to 'pick' a wife, more of the men polled by Garnier opted for a woman with blonde hair.

Second favourites for having an affair with were redheads.

Men's preferences change, however, with talk of marriage, with brunette emerging as the favourite hair colour for a bride.

The poll also questioned women on what colour hair they most liked in a man, finding dark-haired men are the most popular and gingers the least. Just 2% of women said they liked ginger hair best.

Instead, 37% of women said they preferred brunette men, followed by light brown, 29%, then blonde, 16%. Black hair was not included in the list.

The "blonde bombshell" myth seemed to be confirmed among the men who were questioned. Around 26% of men thought blonde women made the best lovers, 22% thought ginger, 20% light brown hair, and 10% brunette. Black hair was not given as a choice in any of the questions.

For mistresses, 37% of men said their ideal would be blonde, followed by 22% redhead, 13% brunette, and 6% light brown hair. But asked who they would like to walk down the aisle, 30% of men said brunette, 27% light-brown, 15% blonde, and 7% ginger.

Blondes were seen as less likely to have a successful career or earn a fortune. Almost a third of men — 31% — thought brunettes would also earn most, with 26% saying blondes, 11% brown haired women, and 9% redheads.

A psychologist at Portsmouth University, said: "What's interesting about this study is that men are now showing an overall preference for brunettes, suggesting that this colour provides a safe haven for men looking for longer-term relationships or making the ultimate life commitment — marriage."

Link

9 comments

Anonymous said...

U are really a racial hater. U seriously hate blond people. Why? Just becouse they were the only builders of civilisations on the world(blond- and red-hair, blue- and green-eye elyte of egipt, persia, india, china, aztecs, inca, greeks, roman, and europe-USA in before-war time) doesn't mean, that u have to feel smaller. Non-nordic are breeding so fast that soon it will be the only kind. Nordics where winning their survives with genius of creativity, which the only test is history, non-nordics are simply flooding the world with their breed. That's the answer typical in nature. So u shouldn't hate blonde so much, they are dying out in the times of postmodernic "idiot's civilisation", and soon it will be only non-nordic. Also the "religion of choice", northern(and nordic) christianity, will be soon replaced by islam - "religion of submission". U should be happy then, i don't understand why are u so angry?

Anyway, have a nice day!

Anonymous said...

Prince Charles married blond women, Tiger Woods has blond wife and i am pretty sure there are many more examples.

Blond women are not builders of civilization. Males generally are. And males with resources decide to give it usually to beautiful blond women. Blond women should be thankful to males being so giving and good to them.

Not all women are that lucky. I know one blond very beautiful women she use to receive so much compliments per day that I for example 'll never have for my entire life.

Lots of blond women are very lucky women.

Anonymous said...

This guy is basically a Nordicist and a complete dumb ass. First of all Southern Europeans are the founders of Western Civilization dumb ass. Greece, Rome along with Persia and Sumeria who where of similar racial stock to Southern Europeans founded the greatest civilizations on earth. The Romans literally taught the oh superior nordic aryan people how to read, write and dress, they brought civilization to a primitive tribal culture. DUMB ASS. If anyone tries to argue the superiority of white people I definitely won't be saying a people who descended from Barbarians are the superior ones. These people had predominantly fair-tan skin with mostly dark hair and eyes you dumb ass idiot. Eye color has nothing to do with race along with hair color, it was a genetic mutation in the Ice age because there wasn't much sun light in Europe.

Anonymous said...

Andreos
This is absolute nonsense. Peoples, who created first great civilizations (Sumer, Egypt, etc.- along with Cro-Magnons, Alpines nad Armenoids) were authentic White Mediterraneans. But these ancient White Mediterraneans are NOT the same people like present-day "Mediteraneans", who are mixed with populations from the North Africa and the Near East (Berbers, Semites, etc.) and not purely White. For example, according John Baker (Race, 1974), in ancient Egypt lived White Mediterranean type, which is already extinct - he is not living today. These were really White Mediterraneans, who created ancient civilizations not nowadays "Mediterraneans", who are living in present Mediterrranean.
The last nation of the authentic White Meditarranean type are Baques, and genetic researches indicate that their genetic pool is almost purely White - thus ancient White Mediterraneans related to Basques were different than todays racially mixed "Mediteraneans".
And in some of these civilizations, there were also important other White sub-racial types - not only Meditaraneans. In Sumer, there was also an Armenoid element, in Egypt was in elites a strong Cro-Magnon element (minimally in the Old Kingdom - Malkowski, 2007).
Moreover, not all ancient civilizations were build by ancient White Mediterraneans - in ancient Rome and Greece civilizations were strong Nordic element in their elites (I am not a Nordicist - there were also others White subtypes, of course. Especially in Greece - for example Socrates was an Alpine racial type. But Nordics were probably a majority in these elites - minimally in Rome - ancient resources imply, that first 18 racially unmixed Rome emperors were of Nordic type /light eyes, fair hair/).

Racial Reality said...

@Andreos: Stop spamming my blog with White Nationalist nonsense from "March of the Titans".

Anonymous said...

Andreos
to Racial Reality
Calm down, dear Mr.
Yes, when you have no arguments, you must stop discusion with your opponents. You probably thing, that your blog is a sacred place, where only the "right" oppinion is acceptable. This is not reliable and scientific approach - this approach is typical for religious fanatics.
If you thinking so, I dont understant, why you oppened discusion on this blog. If you want to discuss, you must appease, that people have different opinions.

There are proofs, that in the elites of ancient Greece and Rome were some Nordics - for example ancient resurces like Suetonius refer about light pigmenation of Roman emperors. (But a have never said, that only Nordics maked ancient civilizations.)
And there are proofs, that ancient Mediterraneans and todays Mediterraneans are not the same poeple.
And I really doubt, that people which created from nothing first great civilizations like Sumer or Egypt are the same people, which are today living in the south Europe. Its clear, that they must be different.
We can only see on these lands today - relatively poor and backward countries with huge debts, a problem for EU and Euro - although they for decades obtained aid from richer european countries, they have at disposal their ancient cultural heredity, they have big incomes from tourism, they have at disposal modern technologies etc. Ancient White Mediterraneans had nothing of this - and despite this they build great civilizations from nothing.
Great civilizations of the past are not your task.

So, you should stop with these endless excuses on "environmental factors" - for example the decay of ancient Rome causes a coulder climate - is this a joke?? - and what the "Little Ice Age" in 16. and 17. century - falied to permament decay states in Europe?? - no. Or what the much more serious "environmental factor" - the Great Plague? - one third of Europe died - and failed Europe to permanent decay after it? - no. And soon flourished into Renaissance era.

Problems in the south Europe are your problems, because you - south-Europeans are different than other Eurpeans.
Whole Europe and even the whole world sees just in these days, how you closed up.

Racial Reality said...

>>> "If you want to discuss, you must appease, that people have different opinions."

I'm not interested in opinions, especially those of a racialist like you. I'm interested in facts and evidence from reliable sources. You have neither, so there's nothing for us to discuss.

Anonymous said...

People like to marry what is most like them. Having a preference to something else that exceeds the availability many times over says it all.

Also yes the basques are what the whole mediterranean used to be, coming out of the ice age.

Caesar was son of a trojan prince and both had red/auburn hair like the basques. The carthaginian reconstruction on another post would look perfect for a basque if you made the hair reddish.

All this "basque" Y-DNA all through the mediterranean didn't come from nowhere, that's the substrate that all the invaders (including nords and indo europeans) intruded on.

annika larsdottir said...

Im redhead and Im stole blonde woman husband, cause I hate dumb blonde slut, even I know they're not dumb, I just say that they are dumb blonde bitch