The Doctor
The ultimate misogynist
- Aug 27, 2023
- 8,223
In general there are more similarities then differences but of course there is some differences. The main difference of note is Turkish men have on average slightly softer and roundish face structure while Kurdish men have on average more masculine, sharper and more defined features. More typically Caucasian. Turkish men are also more diverse because of their diverse ancestral origin.
To come back to attractiveness I will split it into 6 categories with scaling fom 1 to 10.
unattractive(1 to 2) + below average(3 to 4) + mediocre (5 to 6) + above average(7) + very attractive (8 to 9) + max attractive (10)
Turks
(1–2) unattractive = 2%
(3–4) below average = 12%
(5–6) mediocre = 26%
(7) above average = 25%
(8–9) very attractive = 25%
(10) max attractive = 10%
Kurds
(1–2) unattractive = 3%
(3–4) below average = 13%
(5–6) mediocre = 16%
(7) above average = 17%
(8–9) very attractive = 45%
(10) max attractive = 6%
Now this is my opinion.
The percentage of unattractive persons is low among both groups. But it is slightly more likely that you will meet a “unattractive” Kurd compared to a Turk.
Good looking guys exist among both groups. But it is more likely to find a very attractive looking Kurd in comparison to Turks.
However among Turks due to their more diverse West Asian/Middle Eastern origin with Balkan immigration, there is a higher spectrum of looks. There is a decent percentage of Turks (10%) who are maximum attractive 10 out of 10 looking model material. I call them the media Turks. It is them who are mostly used to represent Turks in their TV dramas and movies. Basically there is a Turkish media “Elite”. A little like Bollywood actors even though not in the same extend as extreme as in India. And they often have foreign (mostly Balkan or Caucasus) ancestry.
Among Kurds this 10/10 look is also found but “only” in around half as many people.
However if you ignore the extreme minorities of both groups and only consider the large majority of the two groups. Than the table turns.
While almost 50% of the Turks are a 5 to 7 (mediocre/above average), around 25% of their population is a 8 to 9 (very attractive). With the Kurds it’s more the opposite. While around 45% of Kurds are a very attractive 8 to 9, around 33% are mediocre/above average 5 to 7.
And reasoning is explained above. Because of the more diverse West Asian/Middle Eastern origin of Turks (Balkan, Greek, Kurdish, Levantine, Iranian, Caucasian and some East Asian). They have a more diverse set of looks. And a significant percentage of 10/10 actors which represents them in theater/movies. But if you take the majority only into account ignoring the minority of extremes, Kurdish men are more on the attractive side while Turks on the mediocre+above average.
A majority of Turks rarely reach that level of masculine and defined facial features needed to be considered more than a 5 to 7 out of 10. Even a number of their good looking Stars often have slightly softer more roundish features. This is why the large majority of Turkish top models or TV Stars (The 10% Elite) either have half or full Balkan origin or have other roots like Circassian or Kurdish as example.
To illustrate this a little further
Famous Turks
Famous Kurds
Ordinary People
Kurdish villagers
Even the Kurds with softer faces have on average sharper and balanced features.
Turkish ordinary people and villagers
There could be two reasons for this. It might come from the East Asian genes which allot of Turks have some noticeable % in their dna. On the other hands the Kurds still live in a slightly rawer environment and conditions as a result of almost constant war against them. The reason for softer features in Turks can’t be the Greek genes, because from what I know Greeks have very masculine sharp faces too. It can’t be the Armenian genes either. Although Armenians have also on average rounder and shorter features their faces are still broader, sharper.
The slightly false image of Turkish men, is down to the reality, that Turkish cinema is dominated by “Turkish” men who have mostly recent Balkan, Circassian, Greek, Georgian or Kurdish ancestry.
Kivanc Tatlitug is often used as an example of an attractive Turkish man, but in reality he is of Bosnian and Albanian origin. Or take Diriliş Ertuğrul as example. Majority of the leading roles are recent Balkan immigrants or mixed.
Engin Altan Düzyatan the main character is Yugoslavien. Kaan Taşaner is half Albanian. Cengiz Coşkun is of Bulgarian origin. Nurettin Sönmez is half Albanian.
Some hundred years ago the difference probably used to be more visible but the Turks gained more sharp features by mixing with other people over time.
This is a bust of a Seljuk. This is probably closer to how the original Turkish people who moved into Anatolia looked like.
And in fact most people who you might think is a Turk will often turn out to have at least one grandparent who isn’t. The closer you come to Central or Southwest Turkey the softer and more roundish Turkish features become more prominent. They are indeed best preserved in Central and Southwest Anatolia.
Turks more often look like what they are, a mix of Western Asian(Middle Eastern) with allot of European and with a tint of East Asian dna on top of it. While in my opinion Kurds together with Greeks, Georgians and a majority of Lebanese and Iranians have that ancient antiquity sculpture faces. They have faces which mirror the origin of the Caucasian race.
And of course as always there are exceptions to the rule.
At the end of the day it is down to personal preferences. If you like the slightly more masculine look with sharper and better defined features. Kurdish is rather for you.
But if you like the slightly more delicate and softer pretty guy look. Turkish might be rather your thing.
To come back to attractiveness I will split it into 6 categories with scaling fom 1 to 10.
unattractive(1 to 2) + below average(3 to 4) + mediocre (5 to 6) + above average(7) + very attractive (8 to 9) + max attractive (10)
Turks
(1–2) unattractive = 2%
(3–4) below average = 12%
(5–6) mediocre = 26%
(7) above average = 25%
(8–9) very attractive = 25%
(10) max attractive = 10%
Kurds
(1–2) unattractive = 3%
(3–4) below average = 13%
(5–6) mediocre = 16%
(7) above average = 17%
(8–9) very attractive = 45%
(10) max attractive = 6%
Now this is my opinion.
The percentage of unattractive persons is low among both groups. But it is slightly more likely that you will meet a “unattractive” Kurd compared to a Turk.
Good looking guys exist among both groups. But it is more likely to find a very attractive looking Kurd in comparison to Turks.
However among Turks due to their more diverse West Asian/Middle Eastern origin with Balkan immigration, there is a higher spectrum of looks. There is a decent percentage of Turks (10%) who are maximum attractive 10 out of 10 looking model material. I call them the media Turks. It is them who are mostly used to represent Turks in their TV dramas and movies. Basically there is a Turkish media “Elite”. A little like Bollywood actors even though not in the same extend as extreme as in India. And they often have foreign (mostly Balkan or Caucasus) ancestry.
Among Kurds this 10/10 look is also found but “only” in around half as many people.
However if you ignore the extreme minorities of both groups and only consider the large majority of the two groups. Than the table turns.
While almost 50% of the Turks are a 5 to 7 (mediocre/above average), around 25% of their population is a 8 to 9 (very attractive). With the Kurds it’s more the opposite. While around 45% of Kurds are a very attractive 8 to 9, around 33% are mediocre/above average 5 to 7.
And reasoning is explained above. Because of the more diverse West Asian/Middle Eastern origin of Turks (Balkan, Greek, Kurdish, Levantine, Iranian, Caucasian and some East Asian). They have a more diverse set of looks. And a significant percentage of 10/10 actors which represents them in theater/movies. But if you take the majority only into account ignoring the minority of extremes, Kurdish men are more on the attractive side while Turks on the mediocre+above average.
A majority of Turks rarely reach that level of masculine and defined facial features needed to be considered more than a 5 to 7 out of 10. Even a number of their good looking Stars often have slightly softer more roundish features. This is why the large majority of Turkish top models or TV Stars (The 10% Elite) either have half or full Balkan origin or have other roots like Circassian or Kurdish as example.
To illustrate this a little further
Famous Turks
Famous Kurds
Ordinary People
Kurdish villagers
Even the Kurds with softer faces have on average sharper and balanced features.
Turkish ordinary people and villagers
There could be two reasons for this. It might come from the East Asian genes which allot of Turks have some noticeable % in their dna. On the other hands the Kurds still live in a slightly rawer environment and conditions as a result of almost constant war against them. The reason for softer features in Turks can’t be the Greek genes, because from what I know Greeks have very masculine sharp faces too. It can’t be the Armenian genes either. Although Armenians have also on average rounder and shorter features their faces are still broader, sharper.
The slightly false image of Turkish men, is down to the reality, that Turkish cinema is dominated by “Turkish” men who have mostly recent Balkan, Circassian, Greek, Georgian or Kurdish ancestry.
Kivanc Tatlitug is often used as an example of an attractive Turkish man, but in reality he is of Bosnian and Albanian origin. Or take Diriliş Ertuğrul as example. Majority of the leading roles are recent Balkan immigrants or mixed.
Engin Altan Düzyatan the main character is Yugoslavien. Kaan Taşaner is half Albanian. Cengiz Coşkun is of Bulgarian origin. Nurettin Sönmez is half Albanian.
Some hundred years ago the difference probably used to be more visible but the Turks gained more sharp features by mixing with other people over time.
This is a bust of a Seljuk. This is probably closer to how the original Turkish people who moved into Anatolia looked like.
And in fact most people who you might think is a Turk will often turn out to have at least one grandparent who isn’t. The closer you come to Central or Southwest Turkey the softer and more roundish Turkish features become more prominent. They are indeed best preserved in Central and Southwest Anatolia.
Turks more often look like what they are, a mix of Western Asian(Middle Eastern) with allot of European and with a tint of East Asian dna on top of it. While in my opinion Kurds together with Greeks, Georgians and a majority of Lebanese and Iranians have that ancient antiquity sculpture faces. They have faces which mirror the origin of the Caucasian race.
And of course as always there are exceptions to the rule.
At the end of the day it is down to personal preferences. If you like the slightly more masculine look with sharper and better defined features. Kurdish is rather for you.
But if you like the slightly more delicate and softer pretty guy look. Turkish might be rather your thing.
