Blondes are not sexier: What the theory predicts and the data say

Share on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someoneTweet about this on Twitter

Steve has an interesting post on assortative mating in which he purports, in passing, that blondes have greater sex appeal, citing Peter Frost’s hypothesis that blonde hair was sexually selected in Northern Europeans (I’ll post on the assortative theme later). A danger in discussing which traits might be sexually selected is that the ponderer will likely go with what they personally find sexy and ask why such things might be sexually selected, rather than work from an independent angle. For example, I am very picky about the upper eyelids — if they have that half-moon shape, that really does it for me. I’ve heard Michael say once that he likes this feature too — but then, we’re probably weirdos, or at least that’s the conclusion until someone can show that a large fraction of guys prefer this feature, and that there’s good reason to think it was sexually selected. Unlike half-moon eyes, blonde hair color receives lots of attention as a potentially sexually selected trait, but is a key prediction met — are blondes sexier?

Below the fold, I briefly review some theory but mostly present data from all winners in three beauty contests, which indicate no overrepresentation of blondes. I conclude that hair color is of weak importance at best in accounting for sexiness, that the role of sexual selection in accounting for hair color variation is also weak at best, and that the perception that men are more likely to find blondes sexy is due to a passing fad for blondes during the decade from the mid-1970s to the mid-1980s.

First, Steve notes:

One of the most common storylines in movies is this: the blonde debutante gets engaged to the blonde fraternity president, but then she falls hard for the tall, dark, and handsome boy from the wrong side of the tracks.

The idea again is that blonde hair is sexy in females, not males. But just as common as the above scenario is the guy whose feelings for his fair-haired maiden waver once he becomes enchanted by a woman with coal eyes and raven tresses. For instance, in The Hunchback of Notre Dame (see here starting at line 57), the once pure priest Frollo describes how, after watching the gypsy Esmeralda dance and sing, he became so bewitched that he could not stem the tide of lust rising within him and fell madly in love with her. Shakespeare’s “Sonnet 147″ expresses a similar predicament: the speaker’s got it bad for a bad girl! Not the first, nor the last. Interesting though literature and film may be, let’s get to the theory and data.

Starting with the predictions from theory, the hypothesis that icy climes select for greater sex appeal is probably wrong. Gangestad & Buss (1993) showed that people in more pathogen-wracked areas emphasize “good looks” more strongly, and these are generally not icy areas. Think about the rest of the animal kingdom: where are the sexy, showy specimens with the most ornate song patterns? Same answer: mostly pathogen-infested areas, the tropics, etc. Consider the quintessential animal with exaggerated sexually selected traits — the peacock — whose rarer variant is native to Southeast Asia, and whose more common variant is native to the world’s germ-cauldron (South Asia). Hamilton & Zuk’s (1982) explanation was that these traits signaled better health to mates, no small feat in such areas. So, the prediction is that sexual selection will be very weak in Northern Europe (defined as the non-Mediterranean countries), where blondeness reaches substantial frequencies.

But even if sexual selection were a strong pressure there, what independently motivated evidence is there that blondeness is sexy, so that males who are sexually selecting would choose it over brunette hair? Again, the only good guess people have made is that sexually selected traits signal lack of being parasitized. For hair, though, this has mostly to do with the texture, lustruousness, and so on, not color — although I’m willing to be corrected if someone knows of studies showing that blonde hair is more likely than dark hair to thwart the entry of pathogens into the scalp area. In any event, the main problem remains: in general, pathogen pressure is relatively very low in areas where blondeness is prevalent.

Turning now to the data, I recently posted about the list of who Maxim magazine ranked the hottest women for 2006, and there was no evidence of overrepresentation of blondes. The same is true for the other “lad mags” that you see in drug stores. Now I look at two other datasets that are probably more informative than who Maxim thought was hot in 2006: the winners of the Miss Universe and Miss USA beauty pageants. (The Miss America competition is not primarily a beauty pageant, as looks account for just 35% of the score). Such lists are preferable for testing the “sexy blonde” hypothesis since the individuals represent a very elite level of eminence. I looked up galleries of the winners, and if a girl’s hair color wasn’t clear from that, I did a Google image search for her. I judged overrepresentation based on the frequency of light hair according to Peter Frost’s map at the Wikipedia entry for hair color.

For Miss Universe (gallery), there are 56 data points: 12 (21.4%) have light hair, 43 (76.8%) have dark hair, and 1 (1.8%) is pretty in-between. Now, 21.4% is surely a greater fraction of blondes than there are worldwide, but remember that Miss Universe doesn’t represent the entire world — it’s mostly Europe and its offshoots, plus the white and mestizo populations of Latin America, and a tiny handful of East Asian countries (not China). For the non-Mediterranean areas of Europe, 21.4% is on the low-end of normal, but on the high end of normal for the Mediterranean (and so, for the mostly Mediterranean-looking Latin Americans who compete). I interpret this as supporting the null hypothesis of no effect of hair color on sexiness.

As for Miss USA (gallery), there are 60 data points: 17 (28.3%) have light hair, 38 (63.3%) have dark hair, and 5 (8.4%) have borderline hair. Although the fraction is larger here, remember the US is much blonder than the Mediterranean and Latin American countries who are also big contenders in the Miss Universe competition. Because the vast majority of the US population has been Northern European since the pageant began in 1952, we should determine overrepresentation based on the Northern European areas of Peter Frost’s map. Doing so, we see that 28.3% is easily at expectation, and if anything is a bit on the low-end of normal for a predominantly Northern European population. Again, this result supports the null hypothesis.

In sum, we note that when put to a stringent test, blondes appear no sexier or uglier when compared to brunettes. Datasets such as Miss Universe and Miss USA are particularly instructive since the bar is set rather high. Then whence the perception that men find blondes sexier? There is an interesting temporal wrinkle in the data — blonde winners are not evenly distributed in either dataset. For Miss Universe, from 1952 – 1974, 17.4% of the 23 winners are blonde; from 1975 – 1984, 60% of the 10 winners are blonde; and from 1985 – Present, either 8.7% or 13.0% of the 23 winners are blonde (depending on whether you are generous and code the 1 borderline girl as blonde). There thus appears to be a general lack of interest in blondes (and if anything, a dispreference for them), punctuated by a decade where blondes were very fashionable. Does the same pattern show up in the Miss USA dataset? Pretty much. From 1952 – 1973, 25% of the 24 winners were blonde; from 1974 – 1986, 50% of the 14 winners were blonde; and from 1986 – Present, 18.2% of the 22 winners were blonde. We note again the spike in blonde fashionableness from the mid-1970s to the mid-1980s.

I suggest that those who came of age during this Blonde Decade — those who were born between roughly 1955 and 1970 — may have unwittingly projected their perception of the sexiness of blondes onto time periods for which the view is not true. Combine this with the theoretical problems noted earlier, and it seems likely that sexual selection’s role in increasing the frequency of blondeness is weak at best. That still doesn’t answer the question of why blondeness evolved — though I’ll leave that for another post (or someone else can take it up). The explanation that I (and others) find most convincing for now is based on Jerome Kagan’s work, starting in the mid-1980s, which has showed that light irises correlate with behavioral inhibition, suggesting that in Northern Europeans there was selection for different values of certain personality traits, which happened to also affect their eye & hair color.

Appendix: Hair color data for Miss Universe and Miss USA winners

Miss Universe (L = light, D = dark, M = borderline)

L 1952-Armi Helena Kuusela Kovo-Finland
D 1953-Christiane Magnani (Martel)-France
D 1954-Miriam Jacqueline Stevenson-USA
L 1955-Hillevi Rombin-Sweden
D 1956-Carol Laverne Morris-USA
D 1957-Gladys Zender Urbina-Peru
D 1958-Luz Marina Zuluaga-Colombia
D 1959-Akiko Kojima-Japan
D 1960-Linda Jeanne Bement-USA
L 1961-Marlene Schmidt-Germany
D 1962-Norma Beatriz Nolan-Argentina
D 1963-Ieda Maria Britto Vargas-Brazil
D 1964-Kiriaki “Corinna” Tsopei-Greece
D 1965-Apasra Hongsakula-Thailand
L 1966-Margareta Arb Arvidsson-Sweden
D 1967-Sylvia Louise Hitchcock-USA
D 1968-Martha Maria Cordeiro Vasconcellos-Brazil
D 1969-Gloria Maria Diaz Aspillera-Philippines
D 1970-Marisol Malaret Contreras-Puerto Rico
D 1971-Georgina Rizk-Lebanon
D 1972-Kerry Anne Wells-Australia
D 1973-Maria Margareta Moran Roxas-Philippines
D 1974-Amparo Muñoz Quesada-Spain
L 1975-Anne Marie Pohtamo-Finland
D 1976-Rina Messinger-Israel
D 1977-Janelle “Penny” Commissiong-Trinidad/Tobago
L 1978-Margaret Gardiner-South Africa
D 1979-Maritza Sayalero Fernández-Venezuela
L 1980-Shawn Nichols Weatherly-USA
L 1981-Irene Lailin Sáez Conde-Venezuela
D 1982-Karen Dianne Baldwin-Canada
L 1983-Lorraine Elizabeth Downes-New Zealand
L 1984-Yvonne Ryding-Sweden
D 1985-Deborah Carthy-Deu-Puerto Rico
D 1986-Bárbara Palacios Teyde-Venezuela
D 1987-Cecilia Carolina Bolocco Fonck-Chile
D 1988-Porntip Nakhirunkanok-Thailand
L 1989-Angela Visser-Holland
D 1990-Mona Grudt-Norway
D 1991-María Guadalupe “Lupita” Jones Garay-Mexico
D 1992-Michelle McLean-Namibia
D 1993-Dayanara Torres Delgado-Puerto Rico
D 1994-Sushmita Sen-India
D 1995-Chelsi Pearl Smith-USA
M 1996-Yoseph Alicia Machado Fajardo-Venezuela
D 1997-Brook Antoinette Mahealani Lee-USA
D 1998-Wendy Rachelle Fitzwilliam-Trinidad/Tobago
D 1999-Mpule Keneilwe Kwelagobe-Botswana
D 2000-Lara Dutta-India
D 2001-Denise Marie Quiñones August-Puerto Rico
D 2002-Oksana Fyodorova (Oxana Fedorova)-Russia (dethroned)
D —Justine Lissette Pasek Patiño-Panama
D 2003: Amelia Vega Polanco-Dominican Republic
L 2004: Jennifer Hawkins-Australia
D 2005: Natalie Glebova-Canada
D 2006: Zuleyka Jerris Rivera Mendoza-Puerto Rico

Miss USA

D Jackie Loughery 1952
D Myrna Hansen 1953
D Miriam Stevenson 1954
L Carlene King Johnson 1955
D Carol Morris 1956
D Leona Cage 1957
L Charlotte Sheffield 1957
M Eurlyne Howell 1958
D Terry Lynn Huntingdon 1959
D Linda Bement 1960
D Sharon Brown 1961
D Macel Wilson 1962
L Marite Ozers 1963
L Bobbie Johnson 1964
L Sue Downey 1965
D Maria Remenyi 1966
D Sylvia Hitchcock 1967
D Cheryl Ann Patton 1967
D Dorothy Anstett 1968
L Wendy Dascomb 1969
D Debbie Shelton 1970
D Michele McDonald 1971
M Tanya Wilson 1972
D Amanda Jones 1973
L Karen Morrison 1974
D Summer Bartholomew 1975
D Barbara Peterson 1976
L Kimberly Tomes 1977
L Judi Andersen 1978
M Mary Therese Friel 1979
L Shawn Weatherly 1980
L Jineane Ford 1980
L Kim Seelbrede 1981
D Terri Utley 1982
D Julie Hayek 1983
D Mai Shanley 1984
D Laura Martinez-Herring 1985
L Christy Fichtner 1986
D Michelle Royer 1987
D Courtney Gibbs 1988
D Gretchen Polhemus 1989
D Carole Gist 1990
M Kelli McCarty 1991
L Shannon Marketic 1992
D Kenya Moore 1993
D Lu Parker 1994
D Chelsi Smith 1995
D Shanna Lynn Moakler 1995
D Ali Landry 1996
D Brook Lee 1997
D Brandi Sherwood 1997
M Shawnae Jebbia 1998
D Kimberly Ann Pressler 1999
D Lynnette Cole 2000
L Kandace Krueger 2001
D Shauntay Hinton 2002
D Susie Castillo 2003
L Shandi Finnessey 2004
D Chelsea Cooley 2005
L Tara Elizabeth Conner 2006

Labels: ,

61 Comments

  1. I read a paper (useless me – can’t remember reference) that said in Europeans sexual selection was probably for rareness, i.e. if blondes were rare then they were considered desirable. This was given as the explanation for why there is so much variation in hair colour in Europeans – whatever was more unusual was desirable. In other geographic populations hair colour is much more uniform. 
     
    I also read something (again no reference) quite a while ago that claimed that 90% of people are most attracted to people of their own race and 10% are more attracted to people of different races. 
     
    No idea, me. I recall the old saying from the blonde decade “Blondes have more fun.” I doubt it’s true, though.

  2. For example, I am very picky about the upper eyelids — if they have that half-moon shape, that really does it for me.  
     
    ?Picture please. 
     
    AJ

  3. One thing about sexual selection that should be kept in mind is that it will vary thru time and population is very likely culturally mediated. 
     
    Looking at present beauty contests doesn’t tell you much about what may have been sexually selected in Northern Europe from, say, the third Milleneum BC to middle of the first Milleneum BC increasing the prevelance of blonds from 18% to 40%. (Numbers, of course, are just made up). Selective advantage, s, is a variable, not a constant. 
     
    Sexual Selection also should be thought of as a way of reinforcing natural selection. Natural selection may have favored certain traits for logical reasons and sexual selection takes those traits conferring natural advantage and makes them more sexually attractive thru cultural mediation. For sexual selection to make any sense as something distinct from natural selection it cannot be hard-wired. 
     
    That’s my take, at least.

  4. I really doubt that beauty contests count as data. They’re a particular small niche in the entertainment biz, and most winners don’t amount to anything afterwards — the pageant itself is the product, the winner of the pageant is realy a nothing.  
     
    To know what the greater viewing population (not just the judges and people who run pageants)likes, your best data would be movie stars and female singers, especially the less talented ones. Even then, your sample will partly just test the people in the music biz — the tastes of Hollywood were formed in part by a small handful of Polish Jews (and others) who often only promoted women who slept with them. Obviously if there had been a movie producer with a kink for fat women with mustaches his movies would have failed, but I bet that these guys put a skew into the data even though it remained within the normal range. 
     
    A peculiarity of contemporary male fantasy tastes is a preference for slender women with large breast. Most historical European taste was for heftier women (even more so in Africa, the Middle East, and the Pacific Islands), and East Asian taste seems to be for slender but not especially busty women.  
     
    This seems to have no connection with health or fertility. Large breast don’t breastfeed better, and slender women can have problems in childbirth. 
     
    Some blame the slenderness fetish on 1.) the way the camera “adds pounds” and 2.) gay fashion photographers.

  5. having lived in various countries, I noticed that the local men usually like whatever coloring is rare and thus exotic – i.e., Northern Europeans find dark haired girls sexy, and many Middle Easterners like blondes. 
     
    perhaps the blonde preference in America is because most people are brown haired, so blondes are stil la bit exotic. – although with increasing immigration, maybe darker latina looks are exotic too

  6. Fair hair isn’t a signal of health, but it is a signal of youth. Many women who are quite blond at sixteen are brunettes twenty years later. So you do have a framework (other than disease resistance) within with sexual selection for blondeness could take place. 
     
    As for general preferences, it’s entirely possible for most men to prefer dark hair while blondes still get a disproportionate amount of attention. Blondes just have to be rare enough. If 20% of men prefer blondes in an environment where only 10% of the women are blonde, you can see what will happen.

  7. According to the rigorous, objective, and universally agreed upon standards of recent Miss Universe contests, fewer blondes win. Ergo, they are not truly “sexy” and they were a passing fad of the 70s and 80s.  
    I know there are those whose existence on this planet does not predate 1975, but surely they’ve cracked an art book or two, seen an ancient film? Read a classic? Glanced in at an art gallery during their summer vacation Euro-jaunt? Botticelli was guilding his lillies 600 years ago. 
    This is a science blog, but when the discussion turns to social history, you do need to consider these sorts of things if you’re going to bring Miss Universe contest into the study. 
    Sometimes, in literature, blondes were sulky losers–often the black haired, or hazel haired, or even (very rarely) the red-haired won the holy grail, got the front page status. But blondes have always had their fans, as well as their detractors. Passing fad indeed.

  8. Getting from magazine or beauty pageant ideals to what most people would consider sexy seems like a rather implausible leap. (When have panels of expert judges ever agreed with the people? The fads and fashions in the media also rarely agree with what you find on the street: how many metrosexuals have you actually met in real life and are they popular with the ladies? and so on.) 
     
    I’d suggest looking at dating sites for the best not-too-serious data. Comparing self-reported colours to the actual distributions gives you an idea at least about what people *believe* to be attractive. I actually have some numbers I took from a Finnish dating site a while ago (yeah, I really need new hobbies). On this site there’s a choice to give your eye/hair colour or leave it unreported. Let’s see… the 343 women / 741 men reporting their eye colour had the percentages 
     
    blue 52 % / 51 % 
    gray 5 % / 8 % 
    green 32 % / 24 % 
    brown 11 % / 17 % 
     
    There’s big overrepresentation in male brown eyes (in Finland women have brown eyes 2-3 times more commonly than men; in men they’re well below 10 % in the surveys I’ve seen), so one thing’s very obvious: brown-eyed men really like to advertise their eye colour, brown-eyed women aren’t so eager. Apparently brown eyes are at least *believed* to be an advantage for men. 
     
    For hair colour, the 329 women / 685 men reporting it have the proportions 
     
    black 8 % / 7 % 
    dark brown 35 % / 48 % 
    light brown 17 % / 33 % 
    blond 26 % / 11 % 
    red 14 % / 2 % 
     
    Again, men report themselves to be darker. Of course, this is badly warped by dye (14 % of the local women are definitely not natural redheads!) and perceptions (anyone light brown here would be blond almost everywhere else), but the sex difference is clear (men are much less likely to go for lighter hair and are unlikely to want red hair, which is one of the popular choices for women).

  9. I hate to belabor the statistically obvious but it clearly slipped by the poster: 
    Looking at the role of blondness only among the set of women who make it to the top of International Beauty contests is doing ocular regression without a license. You’ve probably used up the explanatory power of blondness in getting to this. The differences at this level are second or third order. 
     
    This is equivalent to the bogus education studies about the relative importance of SAT scores vs hs grades in college education. Conditional upon acceptance into college, SAT scores don’t usually do as well as grades in predicting performance. However, this does not imply that SAT scores are less important because they were already used as a filter to get the set of acceptances. The right question is to ask: If you knew NOTHING about 2 random students (or which school they attended) except one had a B- average and scored a 780 on the SAT Math and the other had an A average and scored a 580 on the SAT Math, which one would be more likely to do well at Caltech or MIT? 
     
    Similarly the right question that needs to be asked about blondness is the following: If we take an average healthy young woman, how would men rate her attractiveness if she were blond vs brunette holding EVERYTHING else constant? I confess I don’t know the answer, but the “test” proposed is simply absurd.

  10. Okay. How many dark-haired young women dye their hair blonde, vs. how many blonde-haired young women dye their hair dark? Easy to poll the hairdressers. 
     
    High status dark skinned men go for the blondes often enough to suggest that novelty attracts.  
     
    As the commenter stated above, blonde hair darkens with age, and turns white earlier. Age 14 through 24 the blonde hair stays relatively blonde, but is already starting to darken. That’s also prime childbearing years, biologically speaking. Historically, wealthy men wanted younger women to give them more children. A blonde wife might give them added prestige if it was rare.

  11. So three quantitative analyses are unreliable, which vague impressions from Western painting, literature, and film call into question? Puh-lease. Of course a beauty pageant with zero “talent” or other component is an accurate, though imperfect, gauge of what’s considered attractive. And remember, the first analysis was from Maxim magazine — they provide the raw material for male masturbation. If it was blondes that guys wanted, there’d be a clear overrepresentation of blondes among Maxim’s most popular girls. 
     
    Speaking of which, the analogy to SAT / college performance is wrong — if you looked at college students, there’d be a clear overrepresentation of people with a 115 IQ, and far less variance among themselves than in the population at large. So, if blondeness : attractiveness :: high IQ : academic performance, then we’d see an overrepresentation of blondes among those judged very attractive, and less variance than in the general population. To the contrary, I’ve offered three analyses that show no such overrepresentation — though no clear underrepresentation either. Again, hair color seems to play a weak role at best: it’s an idiosyncratic fetish, like guys who like feet vs those who like fingernails. 
     
    Contrast this with a proper analogy — lustruous hair, large eyes, or full lips. If you look through the Miss Universe gallery, you’ll notice that they all score very highly on these traits, and that there’s far less variance in these traits than in the general population. Conclusion: hair luster, eye size, and fullness of lips are strong predictors of attractiveness. 
     
    The hypothesis that rarity of a trait, per se, makes it attractive is also wrong: pronounced asymmetry is also rare, but unattrctive, and similarly for many other rare traits. That’s why I stressed that there is little independent motivation for the assertion that blondeness is more attractive. The only decent proposition is that it signals youth — but that’s not true in non-blonde populations, as Europeans were before blondeness evolved. Before blondeness rose to appreciable frequencies, how could anyone have known that blonde hair was a correlate of youth? The proposed cause antedates the change. Again, contrast that with larger eyes and clearer less wrinkled skin, which babies have everywhere.

  12. And obviously I realize that I don’t have data on beauty contests (or other measures of sexiness) from early agricultural Europe — but then, neither do the cheerleaders for blonde sexiness, and the onus is clearly on them. The best we can do is judge from what good data we do have, and that’s mostly from the present. The only putative evidence that agricultural-era Europeans found blondes sexy is the high frequency of blondeness there — but then that’s begging the question.

  13. I really doubt that beauty contests count as data. They’re a particular small niche in the entertainment biz, and most winners don’t amount to anything afterwards — the pageant itself is the product, the winner of the pageant is realy a nothing.  
     
    To know what the greater viewing population (not just the judges and people who run pageants)likes, your best data would be movie stars and female singers, especially the less talented ones. Even then, your sample will partly just test the people in the music biz — the tastes of Hollywood were formed in part by a small handful of Polish Jews (and others) who often only promoted women who slept with them. Obviously if there had been a movie producer with a kink for fat women with mustaches his movies would have failed, but I bet that these guys put a skew into the data even though it remained within the normal range. 
     
    A peculiarity of contemporary male fantasy tastes is a preference for slender women with large breast. Most historical European taste was for heftier women (even more so in Africa, the Middle East, and the Pacific Islands), and East Asian taste seems to be for slender but not especially busty women.  
     
    This seems to have no connection with health or fertility. Large breast don’t breastfeed better, and slender women can have problems in childbirth. 
     
    Some blame the slenderness fetish on 1.) the way the camera “adds pounds” and 2.) gay fashion photographers.

  14. So three quantitative analyses are unreliable? 
     
    I would have to say yes. You clearly are setting out to prove something; for example your claim that 30% blondes (from the top ten in Maxim) is not overrepresentation I find someone contrived. Walk down any street in the US and see if 30% of the people you see are blondes. Maybe in the Twin Cities. Given that Maxim is trying to present something resembling a smorgasbord it would be more reasonable to ask ‘given the ethnicities of these women, how many blondes would we expect?’, not ‘is the number of blondes here more or less than we would find in a random sample of the white population of the US’. 
    Dienekes has a similar axe to grind. You can look on his site if you want to find some writings by a kindred spirit :-P

  15. Okay. How many dark-haired young women dye their hair blonde, vs. how many blonde-haired young women dye their hair dark? Easy to poll the hairdressers. 
     
     
    bingo.

  16. I’ll resubmit the opinion that at the most rarefied levels blonde hair is too bold an individual feature to easily integrate into a total aesthetic. A squirt of yellow mustard improves a hot dog, not [canonical upper class food].

  17. Lighten up (so to speak). How about enjoying this posting as 1) a “let’s think about sex and girls” evo-bio lark, and 2) an  
    “if you got a better way to do this then go ahead” look at some of the (obviously not all of the) data? Maxim and beauty pageants don’t tell us everything, but they’re something. Besides, only the seriously humor-impaired would attack the posting as though it’s meant to be a serious scientific argument that wants to be bulletproof.  
     
    Though there’s a serious challenge in it too: addressing the “blondes are considered highly desirable” backers, Agnostic is saying, “Where’s your proof?” And he’s offering some actual evidence that contradicts the “blondes are automatically sexy” thing. That isn’t the definitive workd, but it’s a contribution. 
     
    Anyway … Just dropping into culture and personal experience … I dunno, as far as I’ve seen, blondes often make a real impact. My blonde sister visited Japan — outside of Tokyo, crowds of Japanese children would gather round her and try to touch her hair. Check out Tanizaki’s “Naomi” for a good novel about how encountering Western physical types affected the Japanese erotic psyche. 
     
    I once traveled around Morocco with a blonde gal friend — you shoulda seen how she was regarded by the natives. (Intense mixture of covetousness, anger, moral indignation, fascination, lust, etc…) Hard to know what to make of this. Part of the anger/lust thing so many 3rd world dark people feel towards blondes is that “blonde” often seems to mean some combo of “American,” “rich,” “dumb,” “winner,” “naive,” “amoral,” “not bound up in traditional worries,” and “lucky.” And blonde means all that largely because America is #1 and we have a lot of blondes (and peddle a lot of blondeness in our very successful popular culture). “Blonde” means “American.” On the other hand, maybe one of the reasons our popular culture is so successful is that it features a lot of blondes. Who knows? How could you tell?  
     
    I think Steve’s main point back in posting Agnostic linked to is a very good one: that people don’t just mate up with people like themselves, they’re often very attracted to people who are unlike themselves. Additional differences can heighten and dramatize the basic male/female difference, and what’s not sexy about that? Drama and heightening are two of the big reasons we bother with the arts, after all. Contrast is a way of making life seem more interesting and exciting than it usually does.  
     
    I’m a fair-ish complected guy, and when I met my first dark Mediterranean-style gals, boy oh boy did my libido get a boost. Grrrrr, woof. Earthy, funky, wised-up, direct, robust … (Blonde gals can be a little more touchy, nervous, and physically delicate, it seems to me. Literally thinner-skinned.) After I’d calmed down a bit, I remember asking one Jewish gal I was boffing why she was boffing the likes of semi-Wasp me and not some Jewish guy. She shook her head and said, “I know ‘em too well. Fucking a Jewish guy would be like fucking my brother.” And for years that’s what dating fair-complected cornfed girls was like for me — cute and sexy and sweet though they could be (and although I liked them and got along with them well) … Well, it was maybe all a bit too familiar. Inevitably, I guess, I married a blonde. It turns out that heightening and contrast can also be exhausting, and that familiarity can have its own kind of sexiness.

  18. agnostic says 21% is greater than the share of blondes worldwide but then seeks to minimize this because the contest is mostly Western Europe plus a bunch of outliers. 
     
    But a cursory examination of a recent year suggests that about half of the contestants are from countries which either have no blondes or where blondes are a vanishingly small part of the population. Then, of the remaining Western and South American countries where blondeness is non-trivial, I seriously doubt that 40% of those populations are blond. [Indeed, I bet that the light haired contestants from Latin-America are vastly overrepresented relative to their share of the populations.] Put another way, I don’t think the population of women in the world — even if we weight for their country’s participation in Miss Universe pageants (by entry, not victory)comes anywhere close to 20% or 10% for that matter.  
     
    Hence I think that even in the highly unrepresentative universe of Miss Universe contestant winners, blondes/light haired winners are certainly overrepresented though I wouldn’t take results in any direction as strong evidence in this debate.

  19. Two large datasets from an online dating network and a speeddating service were recently analysed that looked at hair color. They are valuable because they don’t guage stated preferences, but actual behavior. First the network study (PDF): 
    Finally, regarding hair color (using brown hair as the baseline), we find that men with red hair suffer a moderate outcome penalty. [see here also – JM] Blonde women have a slight improvement in their outcomes, while women with gray or “salt and pepper” hair suffer a sizable penalty. Men with long curly hair receive 18% fewer first-contact e-mails than men in the baseline category, “medium straight hair.” For women, “long straight hair” leads to a slight improvement in outcomes, while short hair styles are associated with a moderate decrease in outcomes. 
    The speeddating study (PDF) on the other hand found no hair correlations they felt worth reporting: 
    Our data set contains information on other physical traits (such as eye and hair colour), which have not been used in our analysis so far. When we include partnerÂ’s eye and hair colour indicators in our regressions, the estimates in Tables 3 and 4 remain broadly unchanged. However, for both men and women, these additional physical attributes are correlated neither with education nor with occupation 
    These papers are probably consistent with some sort of small blonde advantage. Someone recently told me that blonde women are more fertile, but I am unable to find a reference. (does the GSS include hair color?)

  20. Walk down any street in the US and see if 30% of the people you see are blondes 
     
    Wouldn’t be hard. Again, look at Peter Frost’s map: in most of England & Scotland, light hair is 50-79%, higher still in Scandinavia, and 20-49% in Ireland and the rest of northern Europe. That’s where the vast bulk of the US population comes from. Readers of this blog, I’m guessing, live in metro-areas where there’s more dark-haired people (Italians, Jews, etc.). Most of the country doesn’t resemble these large metro areas, though. 
     
    How many dark-haired young women dye their hair blonde, vs. how many blonde-haired young women dye their hair dark? 
     
    I think it’s safe to say that the fraction of brunettes who bleach is greater than the fraction of blondes who darken, but few brunettes dye their hair at all. So again, we have a very weak effect — that’s my main point: that sexiness of blondes is very overrated. I don’t see any effect, but perhaps I’m wrong and it’s a very weak but significant effect. 
     
    Contrast this with a strong effect — Af-Am women who do various things to obtain straight hair (chemical treatment, weaves, etc.). A huge fraction do this, and the fraction is even huger at higher levels of beauty. (And needless to say, zero straight-haired women take action to make their hair into an afro hairdo.) So, again, straightness, luster, texture, etc. of the hair play a strong role, but the role of color is weak at best. 
     
    A squirt of yellow mustard improves a hot dog, not [canonical upper class food]. 
     
    OK, but again, you’re positing a very weak effect. What if the beauty contestants happened to represent a random sample for hair texture, luster, etc. You couldn’t say, “Well, straightish, lustruous, full hair would improve an ugly girl, but not these beauty contestants.” 
     
    Jason’s link confirm what I’m saying. Again, the point is that the effect size of blonde hair on sexiness is very weak — perhaps it’s not 0 (though I’m sure the 95% CI would include 0), but that would be closer to reality than suggesting that blondes enjoy some special level of sex appeal.

  21. Dienekes has a similar axe to grind. 
     
    If I had an axe to grind or was trying to push my own preferences as universal, then I’d posit a strongly negative correlation between blondeness and sexiness, and rig the data to reflect that, rather than suggest a correlation that’s close enough to 0 not to worry much about.

  22. More from here
     
    In an experiment in which the same women were portrayed either as blondes or as brunettes, blondes were rated as more attractive, feminine, emotional, and pleasure seeking, whereas brunettes were seen as more intelligent (Cunningham et al. 1997). The authors suggest that blondness serves as a cue to neoteny. 
     
    Cunningham. M. R.. P. B. Druen, and A. P. Barbee (1997). Angels, Mentors, and Friends: Trade-offs among Evolutionary Variables in Physical Appearance. In Evahitionary Social Psychology, J. A. Simpson and D. T. Kenrick, eds. Pp. 109-140. Mahwah. New Jersey: Lawrence Eribaum Associates. Cunningham
     
     
    And here (small N): 
     
    The effects of female hair color on maleÂ’s perception of intelligence, promiscuity and attractiveness were examined. Sixty-two males rated photographs of women pictured as blonde or brunette. The females were rated as more attractive, less intelligent and more promiscuous when pictured as blonde. 
     
    Did the dumb blonde joke beget the blonde preference? Perhaps men just think the dumb chick is more likely to put out. Therefore she just seems hotter. 
     
    (I vaguely remember reading about a study showing dark hair preference in Northern Europe and light hair preference in Southern Europe, suggesting preference for the rare. I can’t find the evo psych website I saw it on several years back)

  23. I forgot, maybe it’s not just a joke: 
     
    Of the 50 subjects with learning disabilities, 10 (20%) were blond. In contrast, 121 of 1067 subjects without learning disabilities were blond (11%) 
     
    And that blondes are more likely to “put out” is a stereotype with an old pedigree.

  24. There seems to be confusion here between my EHB paper on hair and eye color diversity in Europeans and my earlier papers on the sex difference in skin color (men are browner and ruddier than women because their skin has more melanin and more blood circulation in its outer layers).  
     
    I never claimed that blonde hair was more strongly preferred than other hair colors. My argument was that preference for hair color increases as a function of its rarity, i.e., when one hair color becomes too common, the pressure of sexual selection shifts to less common variants. The result is a balanced polymorphism that tends to maximize hair color diversity.  
     
    This “rare color effect” was shown in an experiment by Thelen (1983): three series of slides were prepared featuring attractive women: one with 6 brunettes; another with 1 brunette and 5 blondes; and a third with 1 brunette and 11 blondes. Male subjects then had to select the woman in each series they would most prefer to marry. For the same brunette, preference increased significantly from the first to the third series, i.e., in proportion to the rarity of the brunettes.  
     
    The “rare color effect” has been documented in non-human species, but it only seems operational for brightly colored traits (perhaps because color rarity and color brightness more effectively stimulate certain sub-algorithms of mate choice). So I would not expect to see it for something like body asymmetry. It also seems to occur only under conditions of strong sexual selection, i.e., when there are no other criteria that may be used for choosing one potential mate over another. For more info, please check my website at: http://pages.globetrotter.net/peter_frost61z 
     
    Reference: 
     
    Thelen, T.H. 1983. Minority type human mate preference. Social Biology, 30, 162-180. 
     
    P.S. I am unable to post comments to this website from my office computer. Am I being blocked by my server or by someone at GNXP?

  25. I’ve been having trouble posting too and I’m a regular here.

  26. haloscan is having hiccups today, so i suspect that is the issue. if you were banned or blocked it would give you an explicit message. also, you’re IP might be within a blocked range. i’ve purged the ban list for now, so that shouldn’t be an issue.

  27. I wonder if there might also be a factor of blonde and fair males being particularly *UN*-desirable…not necessarily because of the blondness and fairness per se, but because of the factors correlated with it. Fair, (natural) blond, blue-eyed people seem to have a tendency towards shyness (see many of the posts in GNXP’s archives and elsewhere) as well as alcoholism and addiction (though I tend to see this mostly as a *symptom* of social undesirablity, rather than so much a cause — I am a strong believer in the self-medication hypothesis of alcohol and drug [over]use). I say this as a blond, fair, blue-eyed male who is a virgin well into his twenties, has serious social anxiety issues, and finds alcohol, cigarettes, Robitussin, Vicodin, and marijuana irresistable in large part because of their anxiolytic and self-confidence boosting properties.

  28. Wouldn’t be hard. Again, look at Peter Frost’s map: in most of England & Scotland, light hair is 50-79%, higher still in Scandinavia, and 20-49% in Ireland and the rest of northern Europe. 
     
    You’ve clearly not been to any of those places if you think that those are the proportions of blondes. I’m from the region painted as “80+ % light” in that map and have traveled mostly in it and it’s obvious that either the map is complete nonsense or their definition of “light” is “not black”. Unless those people you see in the Wikipedia entry for brown hair are very blond, there’s no place on earth with even a blond majority. 
     
    (But then, the map is nonsensical for Finland. It’s coming from either their few data points or from using sources where it’s just assumed that lightness in Finland comes from the Super Aryan Germanic Master Race and hence is more common in the southwest (in reality, the southwest is a darker corner).)

  29. aggers, I’ll toss another thought at you. This is my personal crackpot theory – light reflectance is an important factor in photography. Not so important in real life because the eyes/nervous system/brain don’t capture the same images as a camera, but it is important in film, TV, etc.

  30. there’s no place on earth with even a blond majority. 
     
    c.s. coon asserted that the only place on earth with more than 50% blonde hair & blue eyes (the intersection of the two traits) is south-central sweden. depends on how you define “blonde” though i suspect.

  31. also, one thought. does blonde hair within population correlate with fecundity? because if not, one would expect males to develop counter-strategies to this deception (in other words, pretending to be more fertile than not by exhibiting neotonous traits). but, assuming blondes are more fecund within population, this can only apply to europeans (let’s exclude oz aboriginals since there aren’t many of them), so blonde preference should only exist among this group unless there is a “peacock effect” at work (that is, a strong sensory bias). historical surveys suggest that the blonde preference in places like japan is strongly correlated to european hegemony and cultural expansion in the 19th century.

  32. Razib writes: “Historical surveys suggest that the blonde preference in places like japan is strongly correlated to european hegemony and cultural expansion in the 19th century.” 
     
    Which is a great point of course. But can this kind of thing ever be overcome? Do you dig the gals you dig *strictly* because of the color of their hair? Or is it at least partly because of the poetic/emotional/cultural/associational overtones the haircolor conveys? The dark girls who fascinated me for years … Well, let’s say that the associations I had with “dark” (ie., earthy, funky, solid, “likes garlic,” “comfortable with culture,” “unafraid of confrontation,” etc) played as big a role in the attraction as the strictly-speaking dark hair and darker-than-mine skin.

  33. From the 19th century Cesare Lombroso reports the hair color frequencies of whorish Women Offenders Against Chastity (WOAGs?): 
     
        Criminal    Normal  
     
    Fair-haired    26%    12% 
    Dark-haired    26%    20% 
    Red-haired    48%    0% 
    Chestnut haired   41%    68%

  34. Peter Frost, thank you for the link. It was your work I was referring to in the first para. of my first post.  
     
    Sorry if in trying to paraphrase briefly from memory I did not convey the correct sense. Sorry also for forgetting where I had read it. 
     
    You’re bookmarked now :)

  35. All redhaired women are whores. But we already knew that.

  36. Ooh, check it. New paper. This guy analysed a data set of waitresses, according to things like age, breast size, hair color and how much they get in tips. Here we go (PDF): 
     
    the waitresses? tips increased with their breast sizes and with the blondness of their hair and decreased with their body mass indices. 
     
    Other supporting papers quoted: 
     
    several studies using subjects of European descent have found that men do perceive blonds as more attractive than brunnettes (Cunningham, et al., 1997; Feinman and Gill, 1978; Jones, 1996; Miller, 2006). 
     
    A small but noteworthy advantage for blonde women appears to be well established.

  37. Not if they serve like Elena Dementieva. 
     
    Nice person, but she’s really got to do something about that service action.

  38. Here’s the top box-office stars for 2006. I’d say there’s a clear over-representation of blondes among female stars. If you count Lindsay Lohan (alternatively red and blonde) and Jessica Alba (blonde in her last hit movie) then blondes are positively dominant (10 out of 14 by my count).

  39. Peter Frost has noted that aside from blonde aborigines, there are also “brown hair among the Yukaghir of eastern Siberia, and fair hair among some Inuit bands of the western Canadian Arctic”. I’ve never seen any pics of these. Additionally, I’ve heard of red-hair among aborigines mentioned on this site, but while I’ve seen pics of blond hair among them, I have not seen any reds.

  40. Would you call this red? 
     
    http://www.artistwd.com/joyzine/australia/abr_culture/gender_roles.php 
     
    [Note: people who may be offended by partial nudity of humans should not view this.]

  41. Of the 14 top box office females, only about 4 are real blondes (scarlett, hilary duff, paris hilton and reese witherspoon – and even they are lighter than their natural color) 
     
    I think hollywood probably defines perfection as full lips, well defined bone structure, skin that is less likely to wrinkle quickly and blond hair. The first 3 tend to occur more among brunettes, so hollywood stars will have a tendency to be brunettes, who can then dye their hair blond if necessary.  
     
    Interestingly, the number one star (Jolie) proves that if you have enough of the first 3 attributes, you don’t need blond hair

  42. Thanks, John. All the pictures of blond aboriginals I’ve seen have been from sites pointing out “Hey, there are blond aboriginals!”. Your link doesn’t make any note of it, so it would have been tough to find with a search engine.

  43. Blonde haired aboriginal kids from the central desert areas of Australia are such a common sight I don’t think of it as anything remarkable or unusual. They lose it when they grow up. 
     
    The reddish toned hair seems to persist into adulthood, although I’d say the hair gets quite a bit darker with age. Nothing unusual about hair getting darker with age though, it happens to blonde Europeans too, and at least some redheads.

  44. Jason Malloy tried to blow off the hair dyeing issue too easily. Do the survey, then blow it off if the numbers aren’t there. 
     
    I spend a lot of time in latin american countries. I enjoy the passion the girls with darker hair and eyes display. But the natural blondes in northern countries like Sweden have something different that makes them appealing. I suspect it’s a genetic behavioral trait that often accompanies the light hair and the lighter eyes.

  45. Jason Malloy tried to blow off the hair dyeing issue too easily. Do the survey, then blow it off if the numbers aren’t there. 
     
    Blow off how? Where did I address this at all? There may very well be interesting things to explore with the natural vs. dyed variable, but men rate the same face as more attractive when it has blonde hair. (this also contradicts Dienekes’ theory that blonde hair simply makes ugly, or bony-faced women look better.)

  46. I’ve obtained the quote from Lombroso’s 1893 book (recently translated from Italian): 
     
    The hair of criminals and prostitutes is darker than that of honest women. According to Tarnowsky, however, more blondes can be found among prostitutes than theives since fair-haired specimens of the former class are most sought after. Marro, notwithstanding the meagerness of his data, also noted the predominance of blond and red hair among women offenders against chastity, an observation that accords with my own. (p 124)

  47. Sorry, Jason. I misread the post. It was agnostic who is in denial about the “hair dye indicator.”  
     
    But then, a person with a name like agnostic isn’t likely to “gno” much anyway. Just kidding.

  48. Looking at beauty contest winners isn’t exactly scientific, but it’s more scientific than basing a theory on this: “One of the most common storylines in movies is this: the blonde debutante gets engaged to the blonde fraternity president, but then she falls hard for the tall, dark, and handsome boy from the wrong side of the tracks.” 
     
    I don’t remember that movie. What was its name? 
     
    Seems to me that the vast majority of Hollywood female stars have been dark-haired. In fact, the very fact that “the blonde” has its own category says to me that they are a minority. A striking minority, but a minority.  
     
    Anyway, back to sciencie, I appreciate Peter Frost’s clearing up what he said, as opposed to what someone said he said, and I find his theory of being attracted to the rarer hair color persuasive. 
     
    That said, I’m a big picture person. And it seems to me that if you look at the parts of the world where blond hair is most common is where it confers an actual reproductive advantage. What good would it do if men (or women) preferred a certain phenotype if the offspring didn’t survive?  
     
    I think natural blond hair is breathtakingly gorgeous. But I don’t think that the people the hair is attached to are esp. attractive. So it’s a wash. 
     
    Taken as a package, I think these guys are very striking.  
     
    Those lips, those eyes….that eyeliner….

  49. It was agnostic who is in denial about the “hair dye indicator.” 
     
    I’m not in denail — I explained clearly why it doesn’t mean what you think it means. I’ll stipulate that brown to blonde is more common (probably much more so) than blonde to brown. The part that came after that was that it’s rare that a brunette opts to dye her hair in the first place. Again, contrast that with Af-Am women straightening their hair and making it more… wet? Whatever the term is; counteracting the tendency toward dryness. 
     
    This means two things: 1) hair color is a very weak predictor of attractiveness, else brunettes would bleach their hair in large numbers, rather than a small minority of brunettes. (For another contrast, consider what fraction of women overall use some product to improve skin tone, hide wrinkles and blemishes, etc.) And 2) as for collecting the data on how common/rare brunettes who bleach their hair are, we’d need an unbiased sample of brunettes — hair dressers can’t tell us squat about what percentage of brunettes bleach their hair, only what the relative make-up is of females who’ve already opted to bleach their hair. 
     
    I’m sure there’s semi-reliable marketing data, but you know that brunette-to-blonde can’t be too prevalent, since if it were, you’d see almost all blondes.

  50. To clarify, I’m talking about the overall population of European-Americans — I hear that there are places in Texas where bottle-blondes are extremely common, so there’s likely regional heterogeneity, but at the populational level, brunettes bleaching their hair must make up a small percentage of all brunettes.

  51. The effect may hold for Blonde males as well
    Study 3 rated blond, dark haired Anglos, redheaded, Negro, Chicano, and American Indian males. Rated as most beautiful to least beautiful in order were blond, dark, Negro, Chicano, Indian and then redhead. 
    Jeez, I can’t believe how strong the anti-redhead effect is for white guys: 
    The redheaded male concept clustered together with concepts of sick, scum and fool, and was closer to the concept of janitor and further from the concept of doctor. . . Redheaded males are seen as less attractive, less intelligent, masculine, and successful. The findings can be summed up by the title that the redheaded findings have begun to be called by the researchers; the ‘Bozo Effect’ after a favorite clown.

  52. If more brunettes dye their hair blonde than vice versa, that may be a significant difference. If there are reasons why women in general–not just brunettes–are generally reticent to dye their hair during their prime reproductive years, that could make the effect, however small, even more significant. 
     
    In science you can’t blow off a hypothesis without getting some numbers first. In the social sciences it’s different–not real science. To a social scientist, his own opinion is worth more than any objective criteria.

  53. The women are dying their hair as a response to social pressures. They don’t necessarily view themselves as prettier with blonde hair, but since they know the men will prefer the blonde hair, they dye their hair blonde. My point is, one day men might like black hair, the women will dye their hair black. Men haven’t always liked blonde hair (and I totally agree with razib’s points about how prehistorically blonde hair didn’t necessarily get selected for because of beauty. Furthermore, do dogs have preferences for the yellow colored dogs over the darker colored dogs? I wouldn’t know, but we’re all animals anyway, so it would be interesting to find out). On average Nordic men are attracted to “us” dark women a whole lot more than they are to blonde women. Black men are more into blondes than brunettes, and their main motivation for going after the blondes is the whiteness they represent (and probably a subconcious desire to eliminte the white race). They don’t care about brunettes, and would prefer a light skinned black woman to a white brunette. American men are presently lusting after Brazilian models who typically have dark skin and dark hair, and exotic features. This makes sense as they look nothing like ordinary Anglo brunettes, and are exotic in the same way blondes are (few in number, different). Asian women are the “new thing” and the reason given is their exoticness. In many ways a man going after an Asian is smitten by her exoticness in the same way as he would ordinarily have been with a blonde.  
     
    My final point is that Africans have always been offended by the sight of blonde haired, white skinned albinos. And yet a black (African) man would lust after the yellow hair of a nordic woman? You will never see a black man with an albino black woman no matter the facial features or hair type. My conclusion is it has nothing to do with an inherent beauty found in blonde hair, but rather a societal issue (didn’t ancient Romans keep blondes as prostitues but marry brunettes? But now the blonde is the trophy wife? The prostitutes now are the exotic dark skinned Thai women (number one prostitues in the world); who knows, they may become the beauty standard as blonde women have done)

  54. i would just like to comment on the stupid woman who made the comment about blondeS!! i think you should listen to what your saying! why you are trying to make yourself feel better how do you think it is for us blondes hearing that!! i think personally that colour doesnt matter to a boy at the end of the day its whats on the inside that counts!! so stop making stupid comments!!

  55. But surely, if blondness is propogated as an autosomal recessive, it cannot be a dominant feminine (i.e. X-linked) characteristic. Aren’t we in danger of losing sight of the underlying reality here? Blondness is simply one human characteristic amongst many, and it isn’t the sole property of beautiful women anymore than beautiful women are the sole property or recipient of blondness. Many beautiful women don’t have blond hair, and many blonde-haired women are not beautiful. Perhaps we should stop taking this characteristic out of context?

  56. An interesting discussion. During my undergraduate degree I performed a content analysis on the covers of romance novels. Over 90% of the men represented had black or dark-brown hair and 100% possessed darker skin than the women. Close to 80% of the women were blonde, with the remaining red-heads outnumbering the dark-haired. Given that the target audience tends to be young and old women, shall we assume that these covers are painted to appeal to a perceived female preference coincident with Dr. Frost’s conclusions?  
    Thanks, Denver

  57. Blondes are extremely rare. Only about 3% of North American caucasian women are Blonde. The same is true in Europe. 95% of North American caucasian women are Brunette. The same is true in Europe and always has been. How can you people pretend that you don’t know that 40% of the Brunettes have bleached themselves and assumed the name Blonde? Clairol statistics confirm these figures. Here are some other facts: Blondes don’t go darker than Blonde and Blondes don’t go gray at all. I am 54 and I have a thick mane of fine golden hair.

  58. There have been many suveys and studies done showing men do prefer brunettes. 
    Just google “men prefer brunettes.” 
    I will believe studies that actually ask men their preference by showing them pics of the same women with different hair shades. 
    BTW, there are not a lot of natural blondes over 18 anyway. Most light blond hair of youth turns dark as people get older. 
    I think a woman’s face, body, and thickness of hair matter more than color to a man.

  59. Carol, blondes are everywhere. They are not rare at all. 
    Also, many women go dark. Where are you getting your info? 
    Another thing since you have such keen observations. Natural blondes age bad, brunettes in general age better.

  60. Heather, Bleached Brunettes are everywhere. 
    Alexis was wrong about Scarlett, Hilary, Paris and Reese because they are all Brunettes; fully bleached and happily oinking Blonde! Blonder!! Blondest!!! all the way to the bank. 
    Who else has been to the call-yourself-BLONDE-and-make-millions-bank? 
    Marilyn, Madonna, Pamela, Nicole, Courtney, Lindsey, Keira, Shakira, Christina, Heidi, Britney, and 70% of prostitutes in the USA. This actually hasn’t changed much since Roman times when all of the prostitutes were Bleached Brunettes who assumed the name Blonde. The fact is Blondes are extremely rare, always have been and will be until genetic selection really gets going. Just watch as the Bleached Brunettes willingly delete their own genes and replace them with Blonde genes. This will have quite an impact on society as Blondes are physiologically, psychologically and intellectually different from Brunettes. If you actually knew anything about Blondes you would know that Blondes are sensitive, serious and smart. Bleached Brunettes on the other hand are insensitive, lewd and stupid. 40% of all adult Caucasian North American women are Bleached Brunettes. These are Clairol statistics. Oh, and your comment “Natural blondes age bad, brunettes in general age better.” is totally wrong. Brunettes usually start turning gray in their teens. If all the Brunettes in the USA stopped dying their hair you would see that most adult women have gray hair. Blondes don’t go gray ever. We just get more and more platinum.

  61. I’m sorry Carol but…your an idiot XD you must be blond :P jk blondes are not smarter, more serious or any of that crap. hair color has no influence on intellect or “seriousness”. I understand you may have grown bitter from the war of brunettes vs blondes but you seriously need to get your facts straight. Men preffer blondes because hollywood says they are sluts. blondes get paid less because employers actually believe they are morons. girls (those fake blonds you like to bash because you wish people would stare at you longer cause your “naturally” blonde) have always attempted to conform to society’s expectations such as skinny, blond, religious and dependant on men. so yes they will bleach their pretty hair to blond so society says they are pretty. dont try bashing women who act like sheep when im more than certain your the type of girl who diets too. (giving into expectations to look pretty)

a