You are here

The transsexual parade otherwise known as the Victoria’s Secret lingerie show: part 1 - Karolina Kurkova

The title of this entry stems from a comment elsewhere, which some found laughable, and it needs to be justified.  The justification requires that one show that a large number, though not necessarily all, of Victoria’s Secret models have the looks of male-to-female transsexuals or male transvestites.  It would also help if one showed that Victoria’s Secret models that do not have a transsexual or transvestite look to them are still not feminine enough for their job.

The requirements of a lingerie model should be obvious.  Women put on lingerie to make themselves more sexually appealing to their male partners, i.e., heterosexual men.  Heterosexual men also have a strong interest in watching attractive women being paraded in lingerie.  Therefore, a lingerie show directly or indirectly caters to heterosexual men, and one expects the looks of lingerie models to conform to the preferences of heterosexual men, especially taking into account discerning tastes if a lingerie show or catalog has been put together by a high profile group such as the Victoria’s Secret Company.  That this is far from the case when it comes to the Victoria’s Secret Company is easily shown by comparing its models to more feminine women.

This entry addresses Karolina Kurkova, and she is compared to Zuzana Drabinova from ATK galleria (adult site).  In a lingerie show/catalog, the focus is on the physique, not the face, i.e., one shouldn’t focus on facial features in the comparisons, though the face should be considered to evaluate the extent to which it contributes to an overall masculine or feminine appearance.

Karolina Kurkova has a manly face.

Karolina Kurkova

Zuzana Drabinova does not have a transsexual look to her face.

Zuzana Drabinova from ATK galleria

Zuzana Drabinova from ATK galleria

Whereas Zuzana Drabinova does not have an impressive face, the same cannot be said about her body from a male heterosexual perspective, and Karolina on the other hand does not have a feminine physique.

Karolina Kurkova (left) and Zuzana Drabinova from ATK galleria

One point concerning the comparison above, though tangential to this entry, needs to be addressed.  A criticism of this site is that if it had a significant impact, whereas it may not prompt unhealthful behaviors such as excessive exercise and unnecessary dieting on the part of a number of women, it will prompt an increase in breast implants and other surgeries.  However, take a look at the following comparison, which features Karolina Kurkova with enhanced breasts.

Karolina Kurkova (left) and Zuzana from ATK galleria

Enhanced breasts still do not take away the transsexual look of Karolina.  Karolina will have to indulge in multiple major surgeries to get rid of her transsexual look, but with current technology, she won’t be able to do anything about a lot of her features such as a broad rib cage, and cannot look very feminine, in spite of her millions.  There are small-breasted women that are otherwise feminine, and Karolina with artificially enhanced breasts is no match for the femininity of these women.  In other words, this site will not be prompting a large increase in breast implants or other feminizing surgical procedures if it had a significant impact.

More comparisons between Karolina and Zuzana are shown below.

Karolina Kurkova (left) and Zuzana from ATK galleria

Karolina Kurkova (left) and Zuzana from ATK galleria

Karolina Kurkova (left) and Zuzana from ATK galleria

One criticism of the comparison above could be that Karolina is sufficiently feminine for the job, but she is being made to look not feminine enough by the large-breasted voluptuous woman that she is compared to.  However, this criticism is likely to come from nonheterosexuals or people with poor perception.  For instance, consider the following woman, Anna from Anna19, who is not particularly feminine; you can see in her the absence of large breasts, an hourglass figure, well-rounded hips, a prominent backside and other very feminine features.  Yet, Anna does not have a transsexual look to her.  A woman obviously does not have to be large-breasted, hourglass-shaped or very feminine on other counts to avoid a transsexual look, but Karolina Kurkova is masculinized on multiple counts, which give her a transsexual look.

Anna from Anna19

Anna from Anna19

Anna from Anna19

Anna from Anna19

Anna from Anna19

Anna would not be suitable for high profile lingerie modeling because she is not feminine enough, but Karolina Kurkova is an even worse candidate, yet she is one of the big Victoria’s Secret models!  Why this is so should be obvious to some people, and will be discussed once a good number of Victoria’s Secret models have been addressed or sooner, depending on the comments.  There are too many Victoria’s Secret models, and this is the reason why the justification of the title needs to be split over multiple entries.


zuzana has an amazing body--i am wicked jealous right now. i looked her up-- and you know they lie about her meaasurements on line--all over-claiming she is a 34dd-25-34. yeah sure---more leik 32ddd-23-26. that is my guess. i think they try to masculinze ehr measuremets even. supposedly the average playboy model in the fifties was 37-23-36. so shouldn't this girl be about the same? i think she is short, maybe 5.3/5.2, but i think her body should still be comparable.

Seriously who fives a fuck if she is or not.. What does it matter? You people are so judgmental and stupid.. Get over it.. At least she made it .. Thats all that matter. So stop critisizing her you pathetic foolish ignorant humans UGH you make me sick

Laura: If masculine women with fake breasts are being used when feminine ones are required, you are looking at a big aesthetics disaster from the perspective of the general public, especially lovers of feminine beauty. More importantly, the criticism here is not about the looks of Karolina Kurkova but the circumstances/people that have led to her modeling lingerie in a high profile setting. I have nothing against the looks of Karolina Kurkova or anything else about her, but she is unsuitable for lingerie modeling, and it is not possible to point out her unsuitability without resorting to an analysis such as above.

Different ppl have diff taste, some ppl might actually like wat u all hate, so ur not speaking for everyone.

-I agree with Rachel. Also, I know more women with charateristics similar to the runway models than the women you are posting. Remember that models aren't really meant to just please men, they are to model clothing that normal women might want to buy. I, personally, would rather see clothing on a woman with charateristics similar to mine than some girl from a porn site.

-Plus, you're critizing parts of models that they were born with(broad ribcage, broad shoulders, ect). They're just playing the cards they were dealt and deserve to be as beautiful and successful as the feminine girls.

Please respond; I would hate to think that my impression of this site is how it's really supposed to be:)

Rachel: There is no pretence here that everyone is being spoken for. The issue is lingerie modeling. The great majority of people will agree that manly women with fake breasts are not appropriate as lingerie models; look at evidence that the general public strongly and overwhelmingly prefers above average femininity in women. The male homosexual fashion designers that select manly lingerie models have their own [anomalous] preferences; they are not willing to tolerate anything beyond the minimum amount of femininity that it takes to get the job done. If this minimum femininity can be achieved via fraudulent means, namely breast implants and posing tricks, then the homosexuals will gladly avoid feminine models.

Daniella: Most women, like most men, prefer above average femininity in the looks of women; see the link cited in my reply to Rachel. Therefore, if the selection of fashion models is based on the central tendency of public preferences, then the central tendency among fashion models would be to manifest above average femininity, but this is far from the case. On the other hand, this entry is not about modeling fashion wear; it is about lingerie. As per the discussion toward the beginning of this entry, there is no way the use of manly women with fake breasts can be justified for lingerie modeling unless it is from the perspective of a very atypical minority, which in our case comprises of the gays that dominate the fashion business.

Besides, the source of the pictures of the woman that Karolina Kurkova is compared to, Zuzana, is irrelevant; what matters is how Zuzana looks and that Zuzana’s looks are appropriate for lingerie modeling.

Once again, the criticism here is not about the looks of Karolina Kurkova but the circumstances/people that have led to her modeling lingerie in a high profile setting. Yes, Karolina was born masculinized, but she is not appropriate for high profile lingerie modeling anymore than someone born with poor athletic ability has any business participating in a high profile athletic competition.

I don't really know so much if Karolina Kurova is inappropriate for modeling lingerie for Victoria Secret along with the rest of the Victoria Secret models. Most of the women you show on your site possessing 'feminine beauty' are glamour models and look most appropriate in a 'Hustler' setting - one that would appeal to men instead of women, not every woman would like to have her sexiness associated to the likes of Tara Patrick or Jenna Jamison. Because of that association, for them [glamour models] to be modeling lingerie in a marketing scheme to women would put it plainly, kind of disgusting. High fashion gives the impression of sophistication, and so that is also the impression of Victoria Secret lingerie in their choice of using high fashion models. And that 2nd picture of Zuzana on the right does look a little transvestite based on my experience of being friends with many.

Chris: Your comment shows a complete failure to understand the argument. It would be obviously inappropriate for Victoria’s Secret to use nude models, let alone the porn stars that you have mentioned, as lingerie models. The point is that the company needs to use feminine models. The purpose of this series is to point out the inadequate femininity -- as far as the job is concerned -- of many Victoria’s Secret models by contrasting them with women having the requisite feminine appearance. At this time, one has little choice other than sourcing examples of women with feminine physiques from mostly nude models.

Whereas the nudity of the nude women in the attractive women section is appropriate in a “Hustler setting” but not lingerie modeling, dress women with their looks in lingerie, and they will be well suited to lingerie modeling.

Since a male transvestite is a cross-dressing man, something is wrong with your perception if you believe that there is a transvestite element to the looks of Zuzana. Zuzana has sharp gonial angles and a narrow face, which prevent her face from looking very feminine, but it has already been noted that the face is not that important in the context of lingerie modeling; Zuzana has not been added to the attractive women section of this site.

I feel as though you have it in for the LGBT community; you speak like someone scorned. Tell me, why is it that you hate homosexuals and transgendered women? Obviously, you have many insecurities about your own femininity and choose to take it out on the LGBT community, for whatever reasons...just know that transgendered women are women too and deserve just as much respect. You seem to use transgendered women as a sort of "ugliness" standard, which is completely false in many cases and perpetuates a negative stereotype.

Daniel: What makes you think that I hate homosexuals and male-to-female transsexuals? Male-to-female transsexuals do not generally look like feminine women. Even the rare few that have managed to acquire a feminine face after extensive facial feminization surgery have not been able to do much about their manly hands, waist-hip proportions, etc. If there are Victoria's Secret models who resemble male-to-female transsexuals, then I don't see how pointing this out portrays the latter as some kind of "ugly" standard. Please understand that ugliness refers to physical defects and abnormalities, which are not present among the likes of Ms. Kurkova or the typical male-to-female transsexual.

Firstly, let me say, there are many good things about this website. It points out the short-comings of high fashion models (and there are many) and tries to bring forth a more positive image of women. With that said, you come off as insensitive to transsexual women in that you use the term "transsexual" in a disparaging way...if your intention wasn't to be insulting to transsexuals, why then would you call the Victoria's Secret fashion show a "transsexual parade"? Couldn't you simply state that these women too are masculine? I see what you're saying and your intention probably was not to be offensive, but you are, seeing as the premise of this website is "masculine women are bad" and transsexuals are "masculine women" so by extension, "transsexuals are bad". As for the homosexuals, I stand firm in my belief that you're homophobic, especially since when you're trying to explain the prevalence of homosexuality, you link to a website that is extremely homophobic, and if you're truly not homophobic, then i suggest you take down that link.

Daniel: This website is partly concerned with pointing out the masculinization of high-fashion models rather than their shortcomings in general. This site is not about bringing forth “a more positive image of women,” but about promoting feminine beauty among models and beauty pageant contestants. It is not the premise of this site that “masculine women are bad,” but that masculinized women are not appropriate in some settings such as high-profile lingerie modeling. Therefore, there is no implication, by extension, that “transsexuals are bad”. I don’t believe there is anything within this site that is “trying to explain the prevalence of homosexuality.” Regarding the “homophobic” site I have referenced to back up some assertions, the burden of proof is on you to justify the “homophobia” allegation by showing that the referenced arguments are based on prejudice rather than facts or else your accusation will remain baseless.

You are all a bunch of mindless idiots. The definition of beauty has evolved with time. These porn models look more like paintings and sculptures you see from the ancient world when being fat was in. Well beauty just like everything else evolves to fit the current aesthetic. In modern times people obviously prefer a slender toned body as opposed to a lumpy one with huge pendulous utters. This you see is not the current aesthetic. No one wants to see a fat cow walking down the runway. The focus should be on the clothing not the cellulite. I guarantee you if you were to have a poll over who is more beautiful a Victoria's Secret model or a porn star 90% of the population would say the Victoria Secret model. If this were not true MEN'S magazines would'nt rate these women as the most beautiful in the world, which they are. One thing you all are forgetting to talk about is symmetry, supermodels are symmetrical and these women whom you all seem to think should be the models are asymmetrical and the very defintion of mediocrity. Their bodies are boring and unshapely and their faces are extremely common and lack luster. And by the way, there are MANY designers that are not gay males, I can name tons, yet you still have these so called "masculine" models on their runways. So quit diluting yourselves with ancient perceptions of beauty because things have changed. Also, these designers are all about money, if they thought that people looking at a fat woman would sell their clothing they would have them on their runway in 2 seconds. The point is NO ONE WANTS TO SEE THEM IN A FASHION OR LINGERIE show boincing down the runway like a bean bag. GET OVER IT!!!!!!!!!

I wonder why Hally seems so angry. Is she one of those people whose figure is like that of a high fashion model? I don't think the perception of beauty in the female figure has evolved much, if it has indeed evolved. As presented in some pages in this site, there is overwhelming evidence that heterosexual men prefer more feminine figures - up to now; almost all of the heterosexual men I personally know most certainly do.

Hally: Zuzana and Anna are not porn models; just nude models. Fat was “in” in the ancient world? You will generally not see overweight women among Greek sculptures and figures from ancient Egypt. Most female figurines from Neolithic Europe depict normal body fat levels, too.

Zuzana and Anna are not “fat cows” by a long shot unless you are referring to the preferences of gay fashion designers, and where do you see cellulite on them? There are also plenty of feminine and attractive women shown within this site without anything approaching “huge pendulous utters,” but they will not be used for lingerie modeling by Victoria’s Secret, let alone high-fashion modeling.

Your perception is seriously warped if you believe that nine-tenths of the population would prefer manly fashion models to feminine and attractive women. Given the prominence of fashion models and the obliviousness of many men to posing tricks, airbrushing and implants, it should not be surprising if some “sexy fashion models” end up well-ranked among Men’s magazines, but have them go through the Victoria’s Secret entries here as well as the rest of the site, and see how many lifetime-exclusive heterosexual men still have a favorable opinion of “sexy fashion models.”

Speaking of symmetry, there is nothing starkly distorted/asymmetrical about Zuzana or Anna. No rule says that masculinized women are more symmetrical.

Of course, there are plenty of non-gay designers, but it is the gays that dominate the top ranks and thereby set up the status quo, which others have to comply with. If gays dominate, then given the high desirability of designer clothing, they can easily get away with using models that people generally do not prefer; their sales would not suffer anymore than the use of unattractive women to sell soap will make people reduce their use of soap.

Listen, I definitely understand your logic here. But you have to take into account peoples differences in aesthetic. Not everyone is going to like women with a large backside and large breasts. Nature loves diversity so of course there is going to be a diverse range in body type and structure. People like different things, imagine how boring this world would be if only one type of woman or man was considered attractive. The definition of beauty most assuredly has evolved. If you were living in 16th century Europe you would prefer a very pale woman wearing a tall white wig with a fake mole on her face. Beauty changes, people change and the world changes and there is nothing wrong with that IT'S GREAT! I'm sorry if I sounded angry, it was'nt really my intention.

I meant 18th century not 16th lol

Hally: I have obviously taken into account differences in aesthetic preferences; this entry, along with others, contrasts the central tendency of the preferences of heterosexual men with the preferences of nonheterosexual (homosexual and bisexual) men. Whereas not all heterosexual men are necessarily into large breasts or large buttocks, they are into femininity. Femininity manifests in diverse forms, including women with small breasts; just go through the attractive women section. The most relevant example of the evolution of beauty over the past couple of centuries that you could provide would be one of shape, especially pertaining to masculinity-femininity, but the example you have chosen is of skin color. Depending on the amount of sun exposure, the three women above could be made to vary from pasty white to light brown, i.e., they do not differ on this count. It is true that pale skin was preferred in Europe in the 18th century, but then lower class people had to labor in the sun and got tanned, i.e., pale skin became associated with higher socioeconomic status. After industrialization, when most jobs moved indoors, lower class people became pale because of limited sun exposure and upper class people tanned because they could spend more time outside, i.e., a tan became associated with higher socioeconomic status. Therefore, the principle that a characteristic associated with higher socioeconomic status will be disproportionately preferred has remained; only the superficial manifestation of it has changed, and not permanently. With the cropping up of tanning salons, dihydroxyacetone and other fake tan technologies, tanned skin will increasingly become dissociated with socioeconomic status.

It's interesting how you say heterosexual men are ONLY attracted to (your perception of) a "feminine" woman. It's a big generalization to say that it's not in the realm of possibilities that a heterosexual man could be attracted to a high-fashion model's body and/or face. I agree with Hally that the world is diverse and that some men are attracted to certain aesthetics while some are not, and I don't think you can possibly speak for every heterosexual man out there as to their preferences. While yes, most men prefer a very feminine body and face, there are exceptions to the rule, and I think you should keep that in mind.

This site reminds me of Ted Kaczynski's (aka The Unibomber) manifesto:

You definitely have waaayyy too much time on your hands AND you are insane.

Veronica: Unlike Kaczynski, I am not hiding my name, am not doing anything criminal and have never been diagnosed with a mental illness.

Daniel: I have not implied what you have stated. If you look up the “sexy fashion models?” page, you will encounter the following:


Even if we lump all men who are not lifetime-exclusive heterosexuals with men who have narrowly escaped nonheterosexuality, this group will constitute a minority of men, and allowing for the fact that a small minority of the other group, the majority group, will have a preference for somewhat masculinized women and that a number of men belonging to the minority group will have a preference for feminine women...

In other words, I am acknowledging that some men who have narrowly escaped nonheterosexuality may find some level of masculinization in women appealing; these men have to be classified as heterosexual because they have not indulged in homosexual behavior or experienced same-sex attraction. I have also mentioned that a small minority of the majority group, i.e., lifetime-exclusive heterosexuals will have a preference for somewhat masculinized women. On the same page, I have mentioned that slight masculinization is a correlate of the sexiness of women to heterosexual men. Elsewhere, I have shown comparisons (e.g., 1, 2, 3, 4) and mentioned that the more masculine woman shown will be preferred by a number of heterosexual men because of her more European and finer facial features. Femininity is not the only correlate of beauty. I have seen some high-fashion models with fine and chiseled facial features, and notwithstanding their masculinization, their face is a work of art, and this will attract some heterosexual men, but heterosexual men will prefer a woman with above average femininity and fine facial features to a woman with below average femininity and fine facial features.

That's so funny!

Your so-called "feminine" girls are the ones that appear in porn mags and rapping monkey videos. It's the slender toned women that represent a more classy, high-end beauty worthy of victoria's secret, haute couture etc. Perceptions of beauty have changed, and most women would obviously rather belong in the 'slim and toned' category, rather than settle for the sloppy porn-worthy bodies. It's all about class -typically, men of low socio-economic status (largest group of porn viewers) will be attracted to the stumpy women with big 'booties' and flab because they are of equal status (ie. living off McDonalds and not exercising) While women who have the means, financially and intellectualy, to eat healthy and exercise will be more attractive to men of higher status. Women don't want to look hyperfeminine like pornstars, they want to have the more slim & elegant femininity (which you call transexual for some odd reason) and not be looked at by men in such a shallow way.

That's the sad thing. Voluptuous women end up in porn mags because they have naturally alluring figures. Yet, they are not being appreciated in the mainstream because of the gay fashion designers who dominate the industry.

Thin models were not chosen because thin equals classy. Thin certainly does not equal classy. They became classy because of the gay fashion designers' taste in models. You can ask any red-blooded heterosexual male around to see who they'd prefer.

Beauty has not evolved, honey. You should read some psychobiology researches on beauty. A lot are available on the internet.

Anna: Porn stars are generally masculinized women, not hyperfeminine ones since feminine women are less inclined toward promiscuity. The nude models shown above are not porn stars and Zuzana is not flabby by a long shot. Eating lots of “junk food” will not give you Zuzana’s physique, especially her tiny waist, since it will add fat in the abdominal region. If you go through the attractive women section of this site, you will encounter women who are mostly slim but still feminine because of their skeletal structures and sufficient fat where they need it in order to look feminine. Do not confound class with sexual orientation. Masculinized women do not end up as fashion models because upper class heterosexual men appreciate their looks but because homosexual men dominate the fashion industry.

I definatly prefer Karolina's tubular body to Zuzana's body with sharp curves even Karolina's face is more attractive than Zuzana's and I am a straight guy

you guys are so pathetic.. those "feminine" people you picked all look weak.. just like those poor little kittens.. nothing special about their faces, no flavor.

Thank you for explaining what is so very compelling about Karolina (and completely lacking in the feminine examples you cite). I guess that masculine features in a beautiful woman only accentuate what is feminine about her appearance. Karolina's look was once dubbed as "jolie-laide" in a Vogue article. This article reminded of that wonderful androgyny that you get in archaic and later Greek sculpture, Leonardo, etc.

Alina: If you find Karolina’s looks compelling, you are among a minority of humans. Most people do not expect to see masculine features in a beautiful woman nor would your comment about masculine features accentuating the feminine elements of appearance make any sense to most. Among past artists, DaVinci was a bisexual, Michelangelo was a homosexual and it is a safe bet that a number of the Greek artists who sculpted androgynous women were either homosexual or bisexual men or were conforming to a trend set up by a great homosexual/bisexual male sculptor.

Who CARES?! This is so pointless! Why are you worrying if these walking mannequins look like trannys, when you could be exposing bulimia in the modeling world or how these fashion models are impossible blueprints for young girls to mold their bodies into. This reminds me of my time hanging out with high school girls talking shit about other girls bodies .

Mako: There is extensive information on eating disorders within this site, including disorderd eating among fashion models. There is also an extensive discussion regarding why girls and women should not regard the looks of high-fashion models as an ideal worth emulating. You have apparently not looked around enough. Please read this site more thoroughly. As to why the masculinization of models such as Karolina Kurkova needs to be addressed, there are numerous reasons: aesthetics in various settings such as lingerie modeling, and the fact that the reason why high-fashion models are typically skinny becomes clearer/obvious when you address the masculinization among them, too.

I find Karolina and the other model attractive. I like models who are thin etc like Heidi Klum and Karolina Kurkova, just as much as girls with a round figure with large breasts and ass.

They are 2 different types of builds, both, for me, equally attractive!

for one thing lingerie models are not suppose to look like porn stars! and they aren't picked for what men find to be the most attractive or most sexual. WOMEN buy lingerie. models should be able to wear very little clothing and not look vulgar. i personally think that the models victoria's secret use are appropriate. with these girls everything is tight and in place and so it's not uncomfortable for women to look at. it's sexy without being graphic. if a woman is too soft, too "womanly" with very full breasts and bottom there is a limit to what they can wear without looking too revealing. when a woman is shaped like a victoia secret model she can wear pretty much nothing and it doesn't make anyone blush. i think that very voluptous woman are beautiful, but they are more problematic to photograph and they are going to look more sexually graphic which is not the point of a lingerie's to sell the lingerie to women! which victoria secret is very good at btw. beauty has to do with symmetry and all beautiful faces have that in common. the most attractive men have some feminine features and vice versa....woman come in all shapes and sizes, and most body types are attractive if they are healthy. so get over how women "should be". sexuality is not as black and white and you want it to be. zuzana is someone who i would not notice the lingerie on, and i wouldn't want to buy it because i see her wearing it, i see her and it makes me think of sex or porn(i'm not saying she doesn't have a nice body)..not "oh that would be cute on me" or "i could wear that for my boyfriend"...victoria's secret models sexuality is not overwhelming, intrusive or threatening...but they are still pleasant to look at. that's why they make sense.

i used to work for a very famous victoria's secret photographer(he also did men's magizine GQ, Maxim), he was very straight and loved woman maybe even alittle too much....he worked with vs to find models, and lots of times he even solely chose who he wanted to shoot. so your argument that homosexuals are choosing the models is not valid. also i just wonder if you've ever seen any of the vs models in person. i'm saying if you've ever seen adriana lima in person there would be no way you could say she looks anything like a man, i think she'd make your heart almost stop. Alessandra is pretty. marissa miller has a rockin bod but her face is not gorgeous. giselle is the only one that looks the least bit masculine, and she's still beautiful in person. karolina is stunning because of her height and her hair, but i would agree that she is not really appropriate for lingerie, maybe just fashion and runway(but she is not masculine). I have seen alot of these models in person i can assure you these girls look like girls. but i also think that some of the girls aren't necessarily the best of the bunch either. i loved helena christensen, laetitia casta, Daniela Pestova, stephanie seymour...but finding anyone built like laetitia casta with as stunning of a face as hers is almost impossible. but even so most of these models if you see them in person will leave anyone weak in the knees. and 90% of the girls on your "attractive women" page wouldn't even turn a head. most of thier faces are either average or less than... definitely not the apitame of feminine beauty.
comparing zuzana to karolina is kinda of funny, knowing the ways of photography i can tell you that karolina's measurements are not that far from zuzana's if you took off her DD breasts (C's are actually the perfered size by the majority men). the differences between karolina's body and zuzana's are zuzana's obviously shorter, her legs are they look a bit rounder. but their waist to hip ratio is about the same. karolina measurements are 33.5-23-34.5(i know this because i've seen it on her modeling card and they can't lie on those things, we use them for fittings) zuzana's is 34-25-34(and they wouldn't lie about that to make her waist bigger, smaller waists are always more desirable). and zuzana's butt is actually about the same size as karolina's, but the way she's posing makes it look bigger. she's arching her back and sticking out her butt with her legs spread, which is a very common pose with adult photography because it accentuates the butt and makes the waist look smaller. zuzana's giant breasts make her shoulders and waist look smaller than they actually are. you better believe that zuzana's pictures are using photoshop and posing to exagerate her feminine figure. if karolina was posing for an adult site and she had natural dd breast she probably would look even more feminine than zuzana. DD are not appropriate for lingerie modeling because alot of the bras they are selling don't even come in dd and the most common cup size is B (the girls gotta all be able to fit in the clothes). the only girls that look like transvestites are the ones that get so much plastic surgery and wear a ton of makeup like fergie for example(she's trying to exagerate her feminine sex appeal, which is also what transvestites do). when karolina is completely done up maybe she could look like a transvestite(that would be the makeup artists fault), but when she's natural and hanging around she just looks like a really pretty girl. also you pretty much have no sources(except your own opinion) for any of your have no polls or percentages of what heterosexual men prefer, no research even to back up anything you say. and i don't think the girls you find attractive look anymore feminine at all. from what i see what the girls you like have in common is not ultra feminine features but they all look very anglo-saxon, narrower faces, smaller eyes, pointy noses, thin lips, weak chins, and less than prominent cheek bones. i will say that laetitia casta is the ideal of feminine form and beauty.Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

Alicia: Zuzana and Anna are not porn stars. There are also plenty of masculinized female porn stars, too. Yes, women buy lingerie, but what for? To put a male partner in the mood. Your response regarding Zuzana’s body, “i see her and it makes me think of sex or porn” is just the kind of response a lingerie-wearing woman would want to generate in her male partner. Therefore, Zuzana’s physique would be appropriate for lingerie modeling.

There is a lot more to beauty than symmetry. Yes, women do come in all shapes and sizes, but this site is not saying how women “should be.” This entry is specifically about lingerie models, and it is argued that they are expected to look feminine and attractive.

Harper: So one heterosexual photographer undermines my argument that the influence of homosexuals is seen behind the selection of Victoria’s Secret models? I have not said that every single person doing the selection is a homosexual. The fact is that homosexuals dominate the top ranks of the fashion business, and their influence is clear when you see the general trend among fashion models. For every Laetitia Casta used by Victoria’s Secret, there are multiple clearly masculinized women used by this company. Laetitia Casta would also have been unlikely to be picked up by Victoria’s Secret if it came across her when she was virtually unknown, but she already had a name as a model for ready made clothing and the company doesn’t have a policy against occasionally using more feminine models.

Laetitia Casta isn't close to a feminine ideal. I do plan on addressing her looks later. Compared to the prominence of her breasts, her buttocks are flattened, and her shoulder-torso-hip proportions are not on the feminine side. There is also an element of robusticity in her facial features, but she doesn’t look masculine.

I have not seen VS models in person, and I doubt they look better in real life than in their glamorous airbrushed pictures (they usually look worse in their candids). I have never described Adriana Lima as looking like a man, but it is clear that she is not feminine. You may like Alessandra Ambrosio, but she isn’t feminine, either.

As far as the measurements of Zuzana and Karolina go, I usually don’t bother with measurements because it is difficult to verify them, but the pictures speak for themselves, and if one sees multiple pictures, then a reasonable inference of physique shape can be made in spite of a posing confound in many pictures. Let us assume that your listed bust-waist-hip measurements are correct for both models. Both women have 34-inch hips, but Karolina is about 6 inches taller and has wide hips, i.e., her buttocks are flatter. Therefore, there is no way Karolina’s buttocks would appear to be as prominent/feminine as Zuzana’s even if they were matched for posing. In spite of Zuzana’s arching her back and sticking out her buttocks, in the first such picture notice her small rib cage, which is responsible for a dramatic feminine look as in making her hips look relatively wider, something that is impossible for Karolina to achieve. Of course, posing is making Zuzana’s physique look more dramatic, but Karolina’s pictures shown are not in anatomical position either. As far as photoshop is concerned, Zuzana’s photos are taken from a low profile publication and are part of a multiple pictures (say 100) per photo series collection, i.e., it is unlikely that someone went through the trouble of photoshop-ing all relevant pictures to make Zuzana look more feminine and consistently so through all the pictures. Karolina’s pictures, except the ones taken on stage, are, on the other hand, most likely photoshopped. Based on your stated measurements, their bust circumference is similar, but Karolina had an A-cup before she got implants and Zuzana has a DD cup. Therefore, Zuzana’s rib cage is a lot smaller, which gives her physique a much more dramatic hourglass look. Slender fashion models usually have a low circumferential waist measurement, but they generally have a noticeably broader rib cage than feminine glamour models, which stretches out their waist in front view.

There is no way that “if karolina was posing for an adult site and she had natural dd breast she probably would look even more feminine than zuzana.” Look at Karolina’s face, her broad ribcage, her broad shoulders and her picture from Vogue magazine. There is a front view comparison above where Karolina’s busts are large, yet she doesn’t look feminine, let alone anywhere as feminine as Zuzana looks.

So DD-cup breasts “are not appropriate for lingerie modeling because a lot of the bras they are selling don’t even come in dd”? Most women would be unable to fit in the clothing worn by the typical high-fashion model, but then the looks of high-fashion models are not supposed to reflect the availability of commonly used dress sizes. Similarly, whereas it is true that the models need to fit in clothes, there is no reason why designers couldn’t specify that their lingerie models be in the C-cup to DD-cup range if they had an interest in using very feminine looking lingerie models.

You left comments about a transvestite look, but this is not what I am talking about; I am talking about a transsexual look. It appears that you have a preference for somewhat masculinized women, especially since you call the women in the attractive women section as weak chinned. Your claim that I have “no polls or percentages of what heterosexual men prefer, no research even to back up anything you say” is abundantly refuted by a great deal of research cited within this site; just follow the links here.

some women may buy lingerie to put a man in the mood, most women don't have trouble getting men to have sex with them...women buy lingerie for themselves because they like to have pretty things, i know this because i'm a girl who loves lingerie..and i work in a lingerie store. the majority of women that are buying the lingerie are buying because they think it's "so pretty" or "so cute"...most women know what their partners like yet women leave the store with very different things than when men buy lingerie. and NO most women do not want their partners thinking about porn when they are with them. porn is demeaning and vulgar, woman don't think of sex that way. i can tell you for sure women are the reason lingerie sells not men. and the main motivation for women buying lingerie is not to make men happy it's to make themselves happy, you obviously have no idea what you are talking about, or anything about women...why do you want to make everyone out to be homosexuals or almost homosexuals ("men who have narrowly escaped nonheterosexuality" )if they find any of these women attractive, which most men do. and if everything you are saying is true than why does victoria's secret do so much better than any other lingerie company. there are lingerie company's that use your taste in models, but they do the worst of them all. and victoria's secret marketing is the exact reason why they are successful, and the models they choose are automaticly successful. the majority of men and women think vs models are attractive and nice to look at in underwear, that's the only reason they are used...people like them and it moves merchandise period.

Alicia: Yes, most women don’t have trouble getting men to have sex with them, but not all women wait for their male partner to initiate lovemaking. There are times when some women feel the need to put a male partner in the mood when he would not normally be. This is when lingerie comes in handy. So the majority of women buy lingerie because they think it is “so pretty”? What do they plan on doing with the pretty stuff? Put it on for social gatherings? Hang it in the closet or on the wall? Put it on inside the home for relatives, guests, children, cooking food or gardening? You know the typical purpose. Your reference to the use of Zuzana as a lingerie model making men think of sex or porn is obviously supposed to be taken as a reference to sexual arousal of the male partner, which is the major goal of wearing lingerie. Therefore, what is the problem with using Zuzana?

What lingerie companies use feminine and attractive women as models? I am not aware of any. They all generally use masculinized women as far as I know, thanks to the gay domination of the fashion business (extends to lingerie business, too). Victoria’s Secret is the big one among them because its has the resources to pay big name fashion models to model for it; big names attract attention. In the absence of a feminine beauty alternative, Victoria’s Secret will do a decent job at sales. Don’t delude yourself into believing that the reason the likes of Karolina Kurkova are used is because most people find her hot. Show the entry above to most people and ask them how “hot” they think Karolina is. Karolina started out as a high-fashion model. Go through the top fashion models section of this site and ask yourself whether the top models are selected because they have the looks the public finds desirable in women. Read more of this site if you can’t answer this question.

first off, you keep saying that victoria's secret uses the models because off their big names, male mags and vs pretty much made all of their careers. with the exception of giselle they didn't get famous for their fashion where "gay men dominate" editorials or lack of..i'm an avid reader of fashion mags..most of the vs models, have never really been big in the fashion world, they are in men magazines, and beauty..that's about it. most of the vs girls don't have the bodies for fashion or runway, they are actually too curvy. btw lingerie companies aren't dominated by gay men, there are actually more successful female lingerie designers...the most popular companies are female name a few: Only Hearts owned and designed by helena stuart, Agent Provocateur by vivenne westwood, Coco De Mer by Sam Roddick, Trashy Lingerie creative director Bridget Silvestri, La Perla owner Anna Massotti, victoria's secrect v.p.creative marcia mossack. gay men defintely do not dominate the lingerie buisness. Gay men also do not dominate the beauty and men mag or vs or even fashion photography industry either. straight men dominate the photography world for question.

okay , you prove again you do not understand women or what drives their purchases. when a woman buys lingerie they are buying it implusively and they buy it with no plans at all past that they want. fantasy drives the purchases and not even sexual fantasy. the fantasy of walking out on her veranda facing the mediteranean sea in the morning feeling beautiful in silk and lace with a vanilla latte in hand, or the fantasy of laying in bed in a bungelow in st. thomas listening to the waves and the birds in the background. or going to the opera in nyc in a beautiful oscar de la renta gown and underneath are your silk stockings that match perfectly with you embroidered corset. there might be a man in a fantasies here or there maybe, but it's not actual sex that women are thinking of when they buy underwear usually. it's to add something special to the ordinary. and women love to wear beautiful underwear even if no one ever sees it, they even love to just collect it in their draw even if they never wear's something that only makes sense to women, i guess thats hard for a man to understand.

now for you last question fashion models which are different than beauty and vs models are not choosen for male arousal or to be hot. alot of them are choosen because they have an intesting or unique look and they are tall and thin, they aren't suppose to have womanly curves they are clothes hangers. gemma ward for instance is not a lingerie model and she is not built like a vs model. she would never be picked up by vs. karolina kurkova is the only vs model probably not appropriate for lingerie(i never argued she was) i would admit she's a better fashion model. but the rest of the vsms are defintely appropriate.

last thing the top FASHION models do not need to appeal to the majority of people, they only need to appeal to a minority of woman and men that read fashion magazines and or buy high fashion designer clothes and or live in higher class areas of cities...people like me. models like zuzana would not appeal to those people. and models like her will not appeal to even the higher middle class 16-27 female that is the consumer of the vs product(especially now with their pink line). and the models they use do appeal to that consumer group.

sometimes excessive femininity may have the opposite effect and so a slight degree of masculanization is important

Este sitio es una mierda, el que lo escribio deberia morir o encontrarse un hobby, lamento haber perdido mi tiempo leyendo esto
(This site sucks, the writer must die or find a hobbie, i'm sorry to lost my time reading this crap)

Can you please define what feminine features are, exactly? I would think that femininity is determined by culture. Perhaps you could provide some information on what a woman looks like who has higher testosterone levels than another, in order to prove that the traits you say are "feminine" are not merely cultural ideals. thanks!

Philomela: If you want to tell more feminine features from more masculine features, you should go through the feminine vs. masculine page.

Alicia: Most of the VS models haven’t been big on the runway? I have addressed seven Victoria’s Secret models so far in the series that this entry is the first part of -- Karolina Kurkova, Gisele Bundchen, Ana Beatriz Barros, Alessandra Ambrosio, Heidi Klum, Adriana Lima and Elise Crombez. Among these women, all except Heidi Klum started out and made it big as proper high-fashion models. Victoria’s Secret has also used numerous proper high-fashion models for its lingerie show: Jessica Stam, Yfke Sturm, Caroline Trentini, Heather Marks, Hana Soukupova, Natasha Poly, etc. The fact is that the company uses a lot of high-fashion model types. Of course, a number of these high-fashion models are past their prime for high-fashion modeling, i.e., in their twenties for instance. These older women have lost some of the boyishness of their physiques, sometimes in an extreme manner as in Adriana Lima, making them anywhere from less suitable to effectively useless for high-fashion modeling, and some of have even gotten breast implants.

Are big lingerie companies dominated by women? Just because there are some women or heterosexual men in prominent positions in a big lingerie company, including as owners, does not mean that the choice of models is not being or cannot be dictated in large part by homosexual designers. For instance, a mainstream big fashion magazine would typically have a woman as Editor-in-chief, yet would feature masculinized female models because this is what gay fashion designers prefer, and it is these designers that come up with the products for the magazines to pitch. i.e., the women in charge cannot piss off the designers by using feminine-looking models. The issue of which lingerie company is strongly influenced by homosexual males can be answered by looking at its models. In the case of Victoria’s Secret, there is no doubt regarding noteworthy homosexual influence behind its choice of models.

I don’t buy that fashion photography is dominated by heterosexual men. Besides, the most influential people in the fashion business are the designers; the whole industry revolves around their work.

Lingerie is more than mere underwear. Whereas some women may buy lingerie for the purposes you list, the fact is that lingerie is typically bought with the intent to using it as a prelude to sexual activity. Therefore, the preferences of heterosexual men are the most obvious consideration behind the choice of looks of lingerie models, and most men and most women judge female attractiveness similarly, preferring above average femininity in the looks of women, i.e., feminine women are the most appropriate choice as lingerie models.

You tell me that fashion models are “not chosen for [heterosexual] male arousal or to be hot [to heterosexual men],” and I agree, but this entry is about lingerie modeling. The reality is that high-fashion models are chosen to be “hot” and interesting to homosexual male fashion designers, who prefer the looks of boys in their early adolescence. The “clothes hangar” argument is extensively refuted within this site; start here.

It is obvious that since expensive designer clothing is beyond the affordability of most individuals, women modeling such clothing do not need to appeal to the majority of the population. But are there reasons to believe that upper class individuals, the majority of whom are heterosexual, prefer the looks of top fashion models? Lifetime-exclusive heterosexual individuals, regardless of their social class or whether they are men or women, prefer above average femininity in the looks of women. Don’t kid yourself that the 16-27 female group that buys Victoria’s Secret products does not prefer above average femininity in the looks of women as in the physique of Zuzana. Most studies that I have cited documenting higher aesthetic ratings of women with above average femininity on the part of women have used college students, most of whom are well-within the 16-27 age range.

The reason why high fashion models are masculine has nothing to do with homosexual men making decisions, it has everything to do with the fact that androgyny is charismatic- as a woman, I prefer both slightly masculine women and slightly feminine men in terms of their beauty because they exude a certian power, competence and 'otherworldlyness'. The women you are endorsing for their femininity look much less intellegent/powerful (I'm not saying they are, just that it's the way they look). As a woman, I happen to prefer men with some femininity- rockstars, for instance (in my book) are hands-down the sexiest men because they exude so much of that androgynous charisma. I prefer tall, slender men with some feminine features to their face- like fashion models.

Maybe the thing that throws you off is that fashion models are not representations of sex, but rather, representations of power and ideal beauty- so their sexuality _is_ more remote. However I find that when you actually get to know someone personally who has that degree of beauty, their sexuality is even more powerful than your average man or woman.

Another thing, the girls you endorse look like they _want_ you to like them, that is part of what constitutes that visual 'femininity'; fashion models have the look of women who could care less, that's a big part of their appeal.

A woman does not have to have a huge ass and fat hips and big tits to be femminine. Karolina still has a femminine waist to hip ratio.She's jsut thin. Her bone body structure is all very femminine. She;s jsut very slim thats all. I'm a straight guy ad I still prefer Karolinas face and body too.

If Zuzana ever has the misfortune of reading this trivial pursuit(tm) of a blog, I'd hope she takes these comments for what they're worth. Nice chatting with you folks but that's my two cents of blah, blah, blah and now, I think I'd really like to get the hell out of this website. Damn you Google(tm)!

Jenna: There is a tremendous amount of data showing that the typical masculinization of high-fashion models reflects a gay influence. I have cited a great deal of evidence showing that most people have a strong preference for above average femininity in the looks of women. You may prefer androgyny in women and find it charismatic, but your preferences are atypical.

On what basis are high-fashion models representations of power? Many of these women do not even have the power to eat as much as they desire lest they gain weight and lose their job. If you believe they represent “ideal beauty,” you once again are part of a minority.

The glamour models that I have been posting would not be looking like they want others to like them if they weren’t often posing in a seductive manner, but then they are being made to pose in this manner.

Chris: Nowhere have I implied that a woman needs to have a “huge ass and fat hips and big tits to be femminine (sic).” The femininity of a woman needs to be judged by her overall looks, and if you believe that Karolina has a feminine body structure, you shouldn’t be wasting your time with this site. You also need to stop posting in multiple entries that you are a straight man and prefer the clearly more masculine fashion model. Thank you for letting us know about your preferences; there is no need for you to repeat it.


I know my tastes may be more in the minority, but I also know plenty of women who prefer feminine fashion-model looking men, these men are just more threatening and less approachable. I believe firmly that androgyny has charisma, take David Bowie, or his wife, Iman, people like that have glamour and that is what the fashion world is about. When I say that fashion models represent power, I only mean that their masculinized faces and tall slender phisques exude a certian intelligence and out-of-this-world inacessibility. I know you chalk this all up as a mistake that has been spawned and perpetrated by the minds of gay men, but gay men comprise a huge portion of the art world and many are very intelligent and visionary, take Andy Warhol for instance, a veritable giant. Maybe the vocabulary they are using is less about what appeals to your average man sexually, and more about iconography. Fashion plates are iconic, that is different from being sexually accesible. All of the great fashion models have an androgynous look- take Twiggy- sexy, maybe, maybe not, charismatic and iconic, yes, Kate Moss, same. Why do you think the Calvin Klein ads were so compelling? I remember specifically seeing those for the first time and being shocked, not only at the sexuality, but at the boyishness of Kate Moss- she had glamour- rockstars have glamour- that whole concept is how fashion sells itsself, not through cuteness. The more average, feminine women you posted are cute, but cute has little power to sway an audience if not accomanied by some degree of 'fierce'- what about Angelina Jolie, how many people would not say she's beautiful, yet she could be one of your high-fashion models- she's tough.

One last thought- the fashion world is like the art world in that it is all about being 'cutting edge', what is thought to be cutting edge is increasingly what is thought to be dangerous- women who look dangerous are generally somewhat more masculine, hence the 'masculinization' of fashion models. It's not just about what is biologicaly innate and perhaps what you think is immutable, it's about the evolution of our psyche as a culture.

You have a very rigid view of what is considered beautiful and you are very presumptuous when you try to dictate what most people whould find attractive. In every society the elite class decides what is considered beautiful and they tend to fit the definitions of beauty more than the lower classes. If the women on top are generally tall, thin, tan european women with "masculine" features then are going to be considered more attractive then their shorter, thicker plebeian counterparts. Karolina is lithe, tan, blonde and her features are more striking and commanding than Zuzana's. Zuzana is a short thin, average girl with big boobs.

Angelina Jolie is probably the most beaiutiful women in the world, and she is very androgenous looking. I think the most beautiful people have traits of both sexes, which is more natural than being on the extreme side of the spectrum. Also, women have testosterone which gives them their sex drives and also virilizes them. A more "masculinized" woman flags a man that she has a very high sex go figure.

God god, these women you compare them to are DISGUSTING,FUGLY,FLABBY,FAT,SAGGING BREASTS!

Jenna: We are not talking about men. Anyway, I know that a number of women like cute men, where the cuteness refers to facial features that are not masculine, and some feminine element may be present. I suppose you mean to say that these cute men are less threatening and more approachable instead of what you wrote. However, do you like men who have effeminate/androgynous physiques? Heterosexual women who are into cute male faces would typically prefer men with a physical build that is above average in masculinity.

I know that homosexual men tend to be overrepresented in artistic endeavors, but this does not mean that their artistic works are necessarily of aesthetic merit to the general population. It is not unusual for the art coming from homosexuals to display the mental illnesses more common among them...sadomasochistic elements would be a good example.

What is compelling about Calvin Klein ads? A manly Natalia Vodianova posing in a seductive manner? Babies in underwear?

Angelina Jolie could not have become a successful high-fashion model because she is not masculine enough. If “dangerous” looks are required, a skinny look certainly does not fit the bill. And, what is more dangerous looking than a woman with a physique that is curvaceous enough to attract lots of men yet a masculine element, too, more so in her face than physique, that suggests that the woman does not lean toward demanding commitment before she is willing to engage in intimate behaviors? Do high-fashion models generally have such looks from the perspective of the general population? You are also digressing toward high-fashion modeling when this entry is focusing on lingerie modeling.

Danielle: I certainly am not dictating what people should find attractive. I am simply pointing out what most people find attractive. It is not the elite in general that are responsible for picking the looks of high-fashion models; the responsibility lies with the male homosexual fashion designer elite. Notwithstanding the high status of high-fashion models, only a minority of individuals end up regarding the masculine looks of high-fashion models as desirable or else you would not observe a strong public preference for femininity in the looks of women in controlled laboratory studies.

I don’t see how you can describe Zuzana as thin and average. Besides, at 5-foot-5, she is not short.

BS walks...: I suppose you meant to sign off as “BS talks...” Angelina Jolie is getting older, but if you look at her pictures as a young adult, in most of them she does not look “very androgynous.” There are many factors apart from testosterone that are behind sex drive in women. I have already mentioned that slight masculinization of women is a correlate of their sexiness to heterosexual men for the reason that you have described in a crude manner, but these sexy women look more like the women here than masculine fashion models like Karolina Kurkova.

Nasty crap: No vaginas are being shown here, but if you can see flab and ugliness in the women used for contrast purposes, then I suppose you could be seeing vaginas, too.


are you saying angelina jolie is feminine looking?

women are women and no woman can win!

btw- erik, your model selection sucks. gemma ward, caroline trentini, and lily cole are all PLENTY feminine looking (at least facially). doll face is IN.

THAT is not a man. lol. failz. D:

-white power,

Gemma is so sweet

ps. Zuzana is a buttaface with a gigantic fivehead, beady eyes, thin lips, clown makeup and big fake tits. She will NEVER be better than Karolina. She's a sloppy skank and I can smell her through the computer screen.

Erik, you are so full of shit! Angelina Jolie physique is quite androgenous. Her waist to hip ratio doesn't come even close to those you say here are femine. Her jaw and hairline is also "masculinalized." Even more so than some of this fashion models you have mentioned. What happens is that if you dare say Angelina Jolie has manly features, people will see right through the bullshit that is this site. You wont be able to blame homosexuals for her popularity with most men and even women. We all love Angelina's looks and are captivated by them. If she looked more traditionally femine when she was younger it was because of her facial "baby fat" that most women lose as they age, not because of her amazing bone structure.

And by the way, I didn't get a chance to answer in another page your ignorant assertion that women with Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (CAIS) are not biologically male from a scientific point of view. CAIS women (who are more femine than most biological females due to lack of testosterone sensitivity) ARE biologically male from a scientific point of view. Read a book before you post crap you know nothing about. Sex in human beings is defined by the sole presence or abscence of a Y chromosome. Eg. X=female XX=female XXX=female XY=male XXY=male XXYY=male etc. That is the reason why Complete Androgen Insensitivity (XY karyotype) is described as MALE PSEUDO-hermaphrodism.

You are so pathetically homophobic that you require women to look almost like Jessica Rabbit cartoons so you can feel confident in your heterosexuality. Pitiful!


is zuzana on the extreme end of the feminine scale? is she too feminine or is there any masculine element in her as i cant see any.

everyone I know and many people that post comments on various blogs find Angelina Jolie EXTREMELY UGLY, 'sausagelipps', 'hemorrhoid lipped', 'vaginalina', 'vagina on face', and so on. I agree sooo much. If she looks feminine, than I didn't learn anything from this site, her face looks rather manly, her looks are dirty. But, maybe, the only trait that contributes to that is her jaw. Still, she has tender eyes.

Karolina Kurkova is not only manly but HORSE face. Whoever says that is interesting, and better than any normal,cute feminine face, needs help.
Being anomalous is not very interesting, being nothing special is good,if it means that there are no deviations. ("feminine people look weak, like poor little kittens, nothing special, no flavor".... well, the nick of the author of that comment says something about him. Kittens are weak, are tender, and the very essence of insuperable perfection,BREATHTAKING BEAUTY. That DaVinci noticed it too, I agree with him on that)I would always wish to have cool cat, pretty cat face , rather than "interesting", "special" horse face or testosteron face

It is so sick to think and comment that these naked models are ugly, and not see that fashion models are much uglier.
Dollface models as Heather Marks and Gemma Ward are prettier than the rest of their fellow models, but I see them more like cute boys, they have slightly longer faces and stronger jaws, but that is not visible on every photo. Take into account also big feet and palms, looong limbs,...

I see a lot of cellulite on Karolina, funny, she only has bones and cellulite, and a large hole between her legs.And how can Zuzana be fat, when she has much thinner upper body than Karolina, except for breasts. Even her hips look smaller than Karolina's hips. She is shorter and that
attributes to her ratios and round and soft looks. And a woman should be such.

Do you have that link already on your site, Erik? I see a lot of such news lately. A little contribution to the assertion of "powerful looks" of femininity. Woman looking manly is plain sick-looking, that is not looking powerful or intelligent. Same is pertaining to their tallness


i bet you have a small penis. :)

I bet you are pederast

Joe: I am not saying that Angelina Jolie looks feminine, but there is no way she has “very androgynous” looks. Zuzana is not at the extreme end of femininity, though she does have above average femininity. On the other hand, she has sharp gonial angles and her face is on the narrow side, which altogether don’t render a very feminine look, but this is due to factors other than masculinization.

8D: I haven’t been saying that high-fashion models look like men, let alone that all of them do. A small minority of high-fashion models have faces leaning toward feminine norms. However, Gemma Ward isn’t one of them. Take a look at the first 4 pictures of Gemma here and compare them with your picture of Gemma. Gemma Ward looks doll-faced in only some pictures, which is an artifact of her flattened features and angle of photography. There is a masculine element in her face that is consistent with her masculinized physique. Similarly, look at the face pictures of Caroline Trentini and notice the masculine element. I haven’t addressed Lily Cole. Lily Cole comes closest to a doll face among your examples, but her squared chin and forehead shape (right above eyes) detract from a doll look.

Danielle: This article does not focus on facial features. It focuses on the body, and there is no way Karolina is beating Zuzana with respect to having a lingerie modeling-worthy body. Besides, Zuzana has natural breasts.

B.S. walks: Angelina Jolie does not have androgynous looks. You posted a picture of her in her 30s and it seems to be a recent picture where she has lost a lot of weight and has veins popping out. In this picture she has a masculine element to her face, but is not describable as androgynous. A picture of her in her 20s would be preferable. In the second picture, watch what happens when the gonial region is digitally altered.

Angelina Jolie

After the digital transformation of the gonial region, she is not describable as androgynous. Masculinization transforms many parts of the face, but in Angelina’s case, it seems to have strongly affected the jaw but did not have much effect elsewhere. How is this possible? The answer is that masculinization isn’t the culprit. Angelina has some Native American ancestry, which shows in her jawline. Native Americans have more massive jaws than whites. You have to control for ancestry when addressing how masculine someone is and avoid assessing non-white women in reference to white norms.

If you were to show your second picture to a random sample of whites, most will tell you that they don’t like how she looks in it. People who like her looks have pictures like these in mind: 1, 2, 3 (note masculine element but not to a degree that would make one want to describe her as androgynous). Angelina’s physique isn’t very androgynous either.

Your assertion that sex in humans in defined by the sole presence or absence of a Y chromosome is easily refuted. Haven’t you heard of intersex individuals, namely people without a sex? All intersex individuals either possess or don’t possess a Y chromosome. So how is it possible to have people without a sex? Simple. Sex is defined based on concordance of external appearance with sex chromosomes; this concordance is found in a little over 99.98% of humans. Sex has historically been conceptualized in terms of physical appearance, and the sex chromosome requirement is only a decades-old addition. It is unlikely that physical appearance will be discarded with respect to defining sex given that it is what the general public takes into account to assign sex. Someone with an XY karyotype but also CAIS is not a biological male; this person does not have a sex.

I do not require women to look like Jessica Rabbit, and even if I did, this would have nothing to do with homophobia but with a preference for exaggerated feminine curves.

Bron: The study addressed by the daily news central article was added to this site a long time ago in the form of an article titled “estradiol and face shape in women.” By the way, 8D is a woman.

so is bron

erik what does angeline jolie look like if not feminine? and have you any examples of women on the extreme end of femininity if zuzana isnt one of them and do you believe this is the most desirable?

Intersexed people are not people without sex. It's ridiculous to think that just because this people don't fit our narrow notions of sex that this makes them sexless. While I think that CAIS women shouldn't be identified as male, this doesn't change the fact that chromosomal sex is how sex is defined by most of our schools and laws.

The reason most scientist define sex by the presence or absence of the Y chromosome is because this sex chromosome carries the SRY gene. The SRY gene instructs the undifferentiated gonads to become testes. Testes produce testosterone which virilizes the fetus. If a a fetus is insensitive to testosterone, the fetus will fail to virilize and retain the qualities of the primary sex, which is female.

Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome ranges from partial to complete. While a person with Partial Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (PAIS) can look phenotypically male, a person with the complete version will look phenotypically female.

Looking androgynous is not the same as looking like a dragqueen. And I don't necessarily find the digital manipulation of Angelina Jolie's jaw any more attractive than the original pic. If anything, her image loses more strength and this change makes her look less exotic.


no, u r a pedarest. and a whore. that too.


It wasn't me inquireing about someone's penis,but you. So it would be you categorizing as whore, and ignorant one, too, pederast can't be female. Are you debil?

Erik, thanks for a provocative and very well-researched website.

To your comments about the homosexual designers influencing the fashion industry and therefore selecting androgynous models--I absolutely agree. However, I would add that the feminine women shown on your website are not the norm for American women, many of whom have a mix of multiple masculine characteristics such as small breasts, thick waists, large shoulders and rib cages, etc, in addition to some feminine features as well. Very feminine models, while clearly the optimal choice for fashion modeling, are relatively rare in terms of their representation in the overall population. Although more masculine women would vigorously deny this, many envy and hate feminine women because they represent an ideal that more masculinized women can only dream about.

Therefore, I would speculate that one reason the fashion industry gravitates toward more masculine models is to appease these more masculinized individuals and to increase sales. However, the fashion industry clearly has gone much too far, as the norm for masculinized models is now as far off the mark for the average woman as the very feminine women are. The truth, which represents most women, is somewhere in the range of women who fall between the two outlying extremes.

Joe: Angelina Jolie is on the somewhat masculine side, just not as masculine as “B.S. Walks...” originally implied. Attractiveness is not a linear function of the extent of femininity. Beyond some level of femininity a woman’s attractiveness would diminish. Finding pictures of women that are overall extremely feminine is not an easy task, but you can see an example of a feminine woman with breasts representing an extreme of femininity (Anna Song 1, Anna Song 2) that would look better (I am guessing most would agree) if she had smaller and more proportionate breasts.

BS walks: A definition of sex that unambiguously classifies a little over 99.98% of humans into either of two sexes is not a narrow notion. There are only two sexes among humans, and intersex individuals do not belong to either sex. Intersex individuals do not have a sex, period. In other words, sex cannot be conceptualized in terms of the presence or absence of the Y chromosome alone because all intersex individuals either have at least one Y or no Y.

Speaking of SRY, sometimes it may be non-functional on Y, but you would classify someone with such a Y as a man even though it wouldn’t look like one. Alternatively, what if someone with XX has a mutated gene that mimicks SRY? By your definition, this person is a woman but it would look like a man. Don’t you see that both these examples are of intersex individuals and that these individuals do not have a sex?

The digital manipulation of Angelina Jolie was not in reference to attractiveness but to your assertion of her looking “very androgynous.”

Sionnach: The use of masculinized high-fashion models does not appear to have anything to do with appeasing masculinized women and increasing sales. Marketing considerations suggest that the best policy is to appease the most people, which means using women in the average to attractive range. If avoiding jealously is an issue, then the models should be closer to average, and if pleasing aesthetically is the issue then the models should be closer to attractive or very attractive. Attractive looks in women are also one of feminine beauty as far as most people are concerned. Therefore, for the purposes of marketing, the average to feminine range would appear best, but the observed range is clearly on the masculine side of average.

Gay fashion designer are simply selecting models they find visually appealing and getting away with it because they dominate the fashion business and are using the models to sell highly desirable items.

It is not meaningful to talk about a mix of masculine and feminine features in the same woman. Sex hormones have a global impact. Controlling for other factors, a given sex hormone profile will not be shifting some parts of the body toward feminization and others toward masculinization. If you see a small-breasted woman that is overall feminine, is it meaningful to say that her breasts are masculine? If you see a large-breasted woman who is masculine overall, is it meaningful to say that her breasts are feminine? The norm is not a mix of masculine and feminine features but of average features.

Intersexed people, which are more common than transsexuals, are in the middle of the sexes, not sexless. Do not dismiss them as sexless just because they are a small minority.

Personally, I find the VS models much more attractive than the women erik/a finds attractive. If that makes me and most males I know a little bit gay, thank you for letting us know. Erik/a, you sound like a very bitter woman.


Thanks for your feedback. So, if I understand this correctly, masculinization--feminization works on a continuum? And, the more masculinized a woman is, the further she is toward the masculine end of the continuum?

If this is correct, is it possible for two women with the same ratios of sex hormones to have body parts that react differently to those hormones? In other words, for one masculinized woman to have broad shoulders and large breasts for example, and another with the same hormonal profile to have small breasts and small shoulders but very large feet? Also, what terminology would one use to describe more masculinized versus more feminized features, if 'masculine' and 'feminine' themselves are not accurate?

Re the issue of fashion modeling--I am in agreement with you that the observed range in models is more masculinized than the average. I also agree that the concept of designers 'appeasing' more masculine women may not in fact be an accurate or complete assessment of the situation. It is tempting to believe that the use of masculinized models is indeed because of the domination of gay designers, as you state above, but I am wondering if there are other cultural factors at work here as well. In the U.S., for example, I have seen research that suggests that thinness is often associated with wealth and plumpness with poverty, thus frequently making thinness more desirable. Also, I've heard it said that thinness is more desirable to Caucasians and plumpness more desirable to non-Caucasian ethnicities. I am curious whether you have seen research related to these issues.

Also, can you say more about gays dominating the fashion industry? What does 'domination' mean in this context?

Thanks again for your responses and all your work. I have learned a lot from your site.


hot92: If there are only two sexes then people in between these sexes are obviously neither sex and hence are sexless.

Sionnach: Yes, masculinization-feminization varies along a continuum with respect to individual physical features, and the more masculinized a woman is, the farther she is toward the masculine end of the continuum.

Women with the same sex hormone profile will respond differently to it if their steroid receptor profiles are different. Steroid hormones need to attach to certain receptors before they can affect gene expression. Physical features are also shaped by a variety of factors other than sex hormones and their receptors. If controlling for sex hormones and their receptors, a woman has the genetics of large feet, then even if she has a feminine sex hormone profile, her feet will be larger than most women with her sex hormone profile.

More masculine vs. more feminine features are best described as is in regard to a reference.

Your impression of U.S. research is partially correct. Whereas among white women higher socioeconomic status is universally associated with a lower prevalence of obesity, among numerous other ethnic groups in the U.S., the prevalence of obesity does not vary as a function of social class. However, the lower prevalence of obesity among upper class white women does not explain the typical thinness of high-fashion models either since this is much below what most whites prefer:

It is true that plumpness is more socially acceptable or even desirable among some non-European populations. Some information concerning European and African populations can be found here (scroll down to the part on obesity).

Domination of the fashion business by homosexual men means that people occupying the top rung in the business and thereby having the most influence on shaping it are often homosexual men. See this list of some big names in the fashion business.

The points that i find most interesting in this discussion can be summed up as follows:

I would think that if you surveyed fashion designers, you would probably find that a large number are gay men, and that a large number of people working in the industry are gay men, thereby giving gay men more control over the selection of models. And you would probably find that they prefer masculine looking female models. This seems reasonable. But maybe it is not the only reason why models are masculine, though it might be a large part of it.

Add to that the fact that in North America and Europe, thin is equated with wealth - even if the wealthy are still prone to obesity (in other words - thin is in even if the rich are not, on average, thin). And the fact that Europeans are less prone to obesity and also seem have a propensity for thinner models, whereas obesity is more rampant in North America where models do not tend to be as thin (in my estimation). So i wonder if to be seen as thin in a thinner Europe therefore requires that a model be even thinner by comparison. Is this why North American models seem less thin than their European counterparts, since they do not have to be as thin to look thin next to the average super-sized American?

The most important point for me is that models do not represent the 'average' person. Forget waist to hip ratios or BMI calculations, the fact is that models represent a small fraction of emaciated individuals. Paris Hilton aside, most rich women do not look like the models on whom the clothing is being displayed. So how could any woman visualize how the clothing would look on herself? Even some of the glamour women that you depict are thin when compared to the North American average. So maybe part of the allure to women looking at these models is the pretense that she can recapture, through the purchase of these fashions, the look of extreme youth; even if she never - ever - looked that thin in her own youth.

Dreams can be a powerful and persuasive tool, even if they are unrealistic.

Jjust a few observations that i thought you might chew on for a while.

Michael: High-fashion models in New York are of comparable thinness to their counterparts in Paris and Milan. There was a time when Paris led the way with its ultra thin Haute couture models, but the homosexuals had more of an influence there than in the U.S.

Most adults prefer the youthful looks of young adults, not physiques leaning toward the appearance of adolescent males (especially not in women). Most people, including the great majority of female buyers of clothing, prefer body fat levels notably higher than what you see among high-fashion models on average (read more of this site and you will encounter plenty of evidence). The typical thinness of high-fashion models has nothing to do with potential buyers being allured by the possibility of vicariously recapturing the appearance of extreme youth.

Only two sexes or only two genders?

I believe that there are various degrees of hermaphroditism, just as there are varying degrees of masculinzation in women. In my experience hermaphrodites can be very sexual, but some (those in the middle of the continuum) would not identify themselves belonging exclusively to either gender. Thoughts?

Sionnach: The existence of two sexes among humans is unambiguous. People who don't fit in either group (less than 0.02% of the population) can be sexual as in having sexual desire toward one or both sexes, but they don't have a biological sex.

Gender is a different matter since it pertains to issues such as behavior, aptitude and personality, though gender is frequently confounded with sex. The majority of variation in sex differences on many behavioral/aptitude counts is explained by a bipolar factor, i.e., a dimension ranging from masculine on one end to feminine on the other, and it is not necessarily true that people lie along a continuum of this dimension (especially if the dimension accounts for the majority of the variation in a multi-item assessment of sex differences). You will see a tendency for people to cluster away from the mean along the dimension, and only a minority is somewhere in between or hardly classifiable. Feminists strongly dislike this notion, but this has been shown using sophisticated statistical tools. Addressing gender issues would require a separate specialized website since there is a lot of feminist literature that will need to be addressed.

Erik said:

Gender is a different matter since it pertains to issues such as behavior, aptitude and personality, though gender is frequently confounded with sex. The majority of variation in sex differences on many behavioral/aptitude counts is explained by a bipolar factor, i.e., a dimension ranging from masculine on one end to feminine on the other, and it is not necessarily true that people lie along a continuum of this dimension (especially if the dimension accounts for the majority of the variation in a multi-item assessment of sex differences). You will see a tendency for people to cluster away from the mean along the dimension, and only a minority is somewhere in between or hardly classifiable. Feminists strongly dislike this notion, but this has been shown using sophisticated statistical tools. Addressing gender issues would require a separate specialized website since there is a lot of feminist literature that will need to be addressed.

I, at least, would be interested in hearing more about this; are there a couple studies I can get started with? I've been taking women's studies courses (out of interest, but not out of agreement), and I'm tired of the "gender/sexuality are socially constructed" party lines.

I really like this site; more comments on it later.

Hugh Ristik: I had planned on coming up with a site addressing feminism, give it an innocuous name such as and definitely not portray it as a site critical of feminist theories at the very outset. However, I am too busy and couldn’t see myself contributing to such a site anytime soon unless I found some co-authors well-versed in biology and psychology.

Anyway, your site is a good one. I would advise you to add a wiki to organize the data better. This feminine beauty site from the very beginning has not been a blog-only site, but now that it has a sizeable number of blog entries, I will be adding a wiki soon to present new visitors with an easy and systematic way to digest its contents.

The kind of studies that you are looking for are huge in number, most requiring some background in the biological/psychological sciences to understand them. I will mention a few:


Psychological masculinity-femininity (hereditary component, cross-cultural validation) and occupational preferences -


John C. Loehlin, Erik G. Jönsson, J. Petter Gustavsson, Michael C. Stallings, Nathan A Gillespie, Margaret J. Wright, and Nicholas G. Martin. Psychological Masculinity-Femininity via the Gender Diagnosticity Approach: Heritability and Consistency Across Ages and Populations. Journal of Personality, Volume 73 Issue 5 Page 1295 - October 2005

Richard A. Lippa. Subdomains of gender-related occupational interests: Do they form a cohesive bipolar M-F dimension? Journal of Personality, Volume 73 Issue 3 Page 693 - June 2005

The gender diagnosticity approach in the two papers above is explained for a more lay readership in Richard Lippa’s book Gender, Nature and Nurture.

Cognitive ability-


Paul Irwing, Richard Lynn. Sex differences in means and variability on the progressive matrices in university students: A meta-analysis. The British Journal of Psychology, Volume 96 Part 4 Page 505- Nov. 2005.

Helmuth Nyborg. Sex-related differences in general intelligence g, brain size, and social status. Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 39 Issue 3 Page 497- August 2005.

Even feminists have been forced to acknowledge the greater variability and small male advantage in math problem solving ability:


Janet Shibley Hyde. The Gender Similarities Hypothesis. American Psychologist, Volume 60 Issue 6 Page 581- Sep. 2005.

But feminists have failed to realize what this minor average difference translates to at the extremes.

The effect of prenatal testosterone exposure on behavioral femininity of adult women -


J. Richard Udry. Biological Limits of Gender Construction. American Sociological Review, Volume 65 Issue 3 Page 443- June 2000.

Biological influences on toy preferences -


Gerianne M. Alexander. An evolutionary perspective of sex-typed toy preferences: pink, blue, and the brain. Archives of Sexual Behavior, Volume 32 Issue 1 Page 7- Feb 2003.

Suppression of female sexuality -


Roy F. Baumeister, Jean M. Twenge. Cultural suppression of female sexuality. Review of General Psychology Volume 6 Issue 2 Page 166- June 2002.

Queer studies -


Read a thorough devastation of queer theory, a postmodernist theory on the social construction of homosexuality and sexualities in general, by Rictor Norton in The Myth of the Modern Homosexual: Queer History and the Search for Cultural Unity (Sexual Politics). This book is historical and an easy read.

This should help you get started. Follow the citations in these sources for more.

I have heard that in the high fashion industry, many masculinzed 'women' are actually femininzed hermaphrodites. This supposition prompted my observation about the continuum. It would certainly make sense to me that there are some feminized hermaphrodites in the business given a) the masculinized appearance of many models and b) the heavy influence of gay males in the fashion industry. I'd like like to know what your thoughts may be about this.

The notion of a bipolar schema for various gender-related characteristics is interesting. Could you share an example or two for those of us who don't have time to read the studies?

And, would you speculate on whether any of the high fashion models (Kurkova, Bundchen, Klum, etc.) here on your website may actually be hermaphrodites?

hi what do u think of eva longoria? her body is certainly tubular, but her face seems pretty feminine? since sex hormones have a global effect, why the patent contrast between her face and body? thx eric


in what way is zuzana not at the extreme end of femininity?

I have heard that in the high fashion industry, many masculinzed 'women' are actually femininzed hermaphrodites. This supposition prompted my observation about the continuum. It would certainly make sense to me that there are some feminized hermaphrodites in the business given a) the masculinized appearance of many models and b) the heavy influence of gay males in the fashion industry. I'd like to know what your thoughts may be about this.

The notion of a bipolar schema for various gender-related characteristics is interesting. Could you share an example or two for those of us who don't have time to read the studies?

And, would you speculate on whether any of the high fashion models (Kurkova, Bundchen, Klum, etc.) here on your website may actually be hermaphrodites?

WTF?!?!?! You have some real weirdos on your site Eric. The poster above thinks models are hermaphrodites? Wow! It isn't even possible for mammals to be true hermaphrodites. Next thing you know sionnach will be compring them to Gila monsters.

hi ,what do u think of eva longoria's notably contrasting features-tubular, masculinized body as opposed to fairly feminine face?
i also feel that halle berryhld be included in your attractive women section.

Ruth: Eva Longoria doesn’t have a feminine face and hence her face and body are not at odds with each other.

Tom: If you look at Zuzana’s face, it is on the narrow side and her gonial region (lower-back region of lower jaw) is powerfully developed (not clear in the pictures shown above), which is not consistent with an extremely feminine look.

Danielle: There are weirdos commenting here indeed, but they have been using names like Danielle and 8D, not Sionnach. The term hermaphrodite applies to humans with at least one ovary and at least one testis or an ovotestis, and there are some such people around. Sionnach did not say that high-fashion models are hermaphrodites, but is interested in finding out what proportion of them are not biologically female. Given the physical appearance of a number of high-fashion models, it is reasonable to wonder.

Sionnach: Hermaphrodites are rare among humans, and although most true hermaphrodites have the 46-XX constitution, it is very rare for them to give birth. I doubt that Heidi Klum is a hermaphrodite notwithstanding her looks. It is difficult to say what proportion of high-fashion models passed off as female is not female. I would guess that the great majority is female.

I will describe in brief the study of J. Richard Udry with respect to gender. Udry measured second trimester amniotic fluid testosterone levels in pregnant women (an approximation of fetal testosterone exposure) and later measured the testosterone levels of their adult daughters. He then had the daughters take a comprehensive questionnaire pertaining to behaviors and interests, and subjected the data to principal components factor analysis, a statistical tool that explains the variation in a large dataset in terms of main underlying factors. He came up with the following four factors: importance of home, feminine interests, job status and masculinity-femininity. “Importance of home” covered issues such as being ever married, number of live births, sex role orientation on a 16-item scale of gender role attitudes, importance of career, importance of children, 14-item domestic division of labor scale for current or last relationship and a 6-item sex-typed activities scale for current or last relationship. “Feminine interests” covered issues such as importance of marriage; a 20-item vocational interests inventory; interest in baby care; and interest in feminine appearance as judged by demeanor, facial attractiveness, use of jewelry, and use of cosmetics. “Job status” covered issues such as proportion female in current or last job, proportion female in work unit on last job and score on the Featherman socioeconomic index of current or last occupation. “Masculinity-femininity” covered issues such as masculinity and femininity score on the Personality Research Form; 10-items each on the feminine and masculine scales of the Bem Sex Role Inventory; and percent masculine items describing self, selected from an adjective checklist.

Udry then derived a second-order factor based on the 4 primary factors, and this turned out to be a bipolar factor labeled “gendered adult behavior.” The correlations between this bipolar factor and the four primary factors were 0.78 for importance of home, 0.65 for feminine interests, 0.66 for job status and 0.56 for masculinity-femininity. The magnitude of correlations varies from 0 to 1; the closer to 1, the greater the correlation. As if this wouldn’t infuriate feminists enough, Udry found out that prenatal testosterone exposure plus adulthood testosterone levels in the daughters explained 16% of the variation in their “gendered adult behavior.” 16% may not sound much, but given the comprehensive questionnaires the daughters filled out, a huge number of factors are expected to affect the behaviors and interests involved. Hence, 16% is an impressive figure for a single factor, i.e., testosterone exposure. Before a feminist jumps to conclusions about the remaining variance in “gendered adult behavior” being explained by socialization, Udry found out that if maternal attempts to encourage femininity in their daughters were added to the testosterone-behavior model, only an additional 2% of the variance in “gendered adult behavior” of the daughters could be explained. Worse for the feminists, a closer examination revealed that maternal attempts to encourage femininity in their daughters made the feminine girls more feminine, but no matter how much mothers tried to encourage feminine behaviors in their behaviorally masculinized daughters, it had little effect on their masculine behaviors. Hence the apt title used by Udry, “Biological Limits of Gender Construction.” Udry managed to get his paper published in the American Sociological Review! Feminists were super pissed and their hysterical response is one reason why you should read the paper and the comments on it (comments in volume 66, issue 4 of the journal). The editor had to explain how the paper was given the green light for publication.

There are many studies like this that demolish the core theoretical underpinnings of women’s studies courses. All that is needed is for some people with sufficient academic background to describe these studies online, in one place, for the general public.

Erik, thanks for your overview of the Udry study, which is most interesting. I see that the article is dated 2000. When was the actual study conducted? What was the time lapse between the initial fetal testing and the testing in adults? I look forward to reviewing the entire article myself.

In regards to all the hoopla about the study publication--I am not explicitly familiar with the stance of feminist theory in regards to gender roles, but gather from your summary that many feminists lean toward 'socialization' as an explanation for gender-related preferences and behavior. As I look at the four domains, I wonder if socialization with the feminists themselves may be inversely related to the strength of each domain, e.g. higher interest in family=lower involvement in the feminist movement. If this is true, one might question the motives behind feminist 'socialization,' which could be reframed as coercion or general self-serving propaganda completely unrelated to scientific exploration.

In your experience, are women with higher levels of physical masculinization more attracted to traditionally masculine professions, and if so, why? I have given a little thought to this and believe it possible that the feminist movement has now become such a strong part of mainstream U.S. culture, in that many women now combine careers with homemaking, that one can no longer make an unequivocal statement about the overall relationship of career/homemaking with gender characteristics. However, when one breaks the more global concept of 'career' down into specific traditionally male dominated jobs such as firefighting, police work, construction, etc., perhaps such associations can still be made. This is purely speculation on my part, but I would be very interested in hearing the thoughts of others on this.

Karolina Kurkova does not have a manly face:

That is famous singer Luis Miguel, who, apart from the lips, nose line and upper brow, looks nothing like her.

Great site! A question: are the Olsen twins masculinized or just plain ugly?

Why don't you ever have pictures of the VS models at the actual Victoria's Secret show? Is it because they look pretty damn good? You put up outdated pictures of Karolina on this page. At the beggining of her career she was primarily a high fashion model. Nowadays she doesn't do runway shows besides Victoria's Secret because she doesn't have to. She probably doesn't restrict her diet as much as she did when she was in her teens and she has a more filled out figure. Her breasts are modest and natural looking without her VS push up bra.

Sionnach: In the Udry study, the pregnant mothers were assessed between 1960-1963 and their adult daughters, ages 27-30, were assessed between 1990-1991.

Feminists generally do not lean toward socialization as an explanation of gender though they invoke socialization to some extent. The problem with the notion of social conditioning is that it is unable to explain agency. This problem was solved within sociological circles by the concept of social construction, whereby powerful individuals create a societal structure that forces people to conform in order to fit into society. The social construction approach allows people the freedom to desire certain behaviors and have their own preferences, i.e., people’s preferences are not entirely socially conditioned, but in order to fit within social structures, people are faced with limited choices that may be against their preferences/inclination. Thus, you will observe feminists talk about gender being a social construction, not something that is entirely socially conditioned.

My anecdotal experience has been that women who take up engineering or mechanical work are less attractive than others, on average, because of above average masculinization, and I think this belief has been documented among college students in a study. I also know of a bunch of studies that have documented above average masculinization among lesbians and also that lesbians tend to prefer jobs that are disproportionately favored by men. Therefore, apart from the Udry study, there are additional lines of evidence suggesting that there is some correlation between physically masculinization in women and the likelihood of seeking jobs that attract an excess of men.

Udry assessed whether the daughters had a preference for a career or homemaking, which pertains to masculinity-femininity, and which in turn is not assessed by whether one has a job or is a homemaker because this variable is affected of a number of factors apart from masculinity-femininity, such as the one you have mentioned.

Emperorjvl: Karolina does have a manly face -- for a woman. A woman does not have to look like a man in order to be described as masculinized. The Olsen twins are not feminine, and even aside from masculinity-femininity, I don’t think that most people will find them attractive.

Danielle: I posted two pictures of Karolina modeling lingerie, seen from behind. Two of her pictures, shown in the article, reveal wide hips like your picture does and I selected them to show that even if you substantially add to her breasts, the manly look remains. In you pictures, the shoulder width cannot be seen and the face is either too small or shown from an odd angle. You are the one who selected Karolina’s backside view to make it look better than it is, but in reality her buttocks are flattened. I posted a video clip of her modeling lingerie in the 2006 VS show and you can observe her flatter-than-feminine-norm buttocks yourself. How recent is her topless picture?


I was being rather facetious... don't you think there is a resemblancebetween Karolina and Luis Miguel in those pictures?

Agreed on the twins... ugh. But $ seems to do wonders for supposed beauty...

The pictures of Karolina's breasts appear to be pretty recent. My source posted them on April 13, 2007. I got them from a gossip site: Please take note that she is wearing "chicken cutlets" which are silicone inserts that are added to bras and outfits in order to make breasts look bigger. Models and actresses use them all the time.

What I want to know is how recently your pics of her backside were taken. She has gained a good deal of weight since her high fashion days so it would be unfair of you to use pics taken of her in her high fashion days.

I don't even like VS models but a lot of straight men do. I have heard many times that some of these girls are even prettier in person. They get noticed everywhere they go even though most people dont know who they are. They are not unattractive to most of the public. If most people thought they were fugly then why is the VS runway show a huge promotional event that is featured on national tv? Why do you need to "educate" people about supposedly "intrinsic beauty ideals". Why would you need to tell people how unattractive these models are when most people have two eyes and if they were unattractive then it would very apparant to the public? Ask yourself these questions. The answer is pretty obvious to me.

She has cellulite. If gay men only want adolescant boy look alikes then why does Karolia get to work for VS. The Vast majority of teen boys do not have cellulite. A link to canid pics of karolina's butt:

More HQ butt links:

Her ass is small not "sunken". She looks good at the VS show so you have no reason to bitch.

Emperorjvl: There is some resemblance between Karolina and Luis Miguel.

Danielle: Whereas your source posted Karolina’s topless pictures in April 2007, this does not mean that they are recent pictures. The source just mentions a photoshoot, not its date.

I don’t know how recent Karolina’s backside pictures in the article are, but she isn’t skinny in those pictures.

When you consider rich-looking, 5-foot-10 models wearing 6-inch heels and dressed in fine clothing, they are bound to be noticed wherever they go by people who don’t know who they are regardless of attractiveness.

Why do I need to assess the attractiveness of fashion models when most people have eyes and can see it for themselves? There are plenty of people who haven’t realized many things that I have been pointing out in spite of normal eyesight and normal vision, and some of them have left comments at this site about this site being an eye opener. I haven’t been working toward educating people about “intrinsic beauty ideals” but have cited literature on what most people find attractive to back up some of my arguments.

Whereas the homosexual designers prefer women who lean toward the looks of adolescent boys for fashion modeling, lingerie is not fashion, and modeling it requires more feminine looks, which forces the homosexuals to tolerate the minimum femininity that gets the job done. You still observe the homosexuals mostly avoiding feminine women for lingerie modeling and occasionally throwing in regular high-fashion models in the Victoria’s Secret show.

Karolina has mild cellulite, which won’t be visible in the VS show and in any professional pictures of her in lingerie, it would be airbrushed away. Homosexual designers will not give up on the masculine element of her face, broad rib cage, broad shoulders and other features that made her an appealing high-fashion model to them just because she has mild cellulite

I did not say that Karolina’s backside is “sunken.” I said that it isn’t sufficiently feminine for the job. Two pictures at a website linked by you clarify this (1, 2).

The following comparison, using another picture cited by you, also helps.

Karolina Kurkova

Other pictures of Karolina’s backside, where it looks better, were simply photographed at an opportune moment; don’t forget to see the VS show video clip I posted. You have focused on her backside. The fact remains that she has broad shoulders, a wide rib cage, large feet and other masculinized features. What is the bright idea of using her for lingerie modeling? I could see the point of using a feminine woman with a backside similar to Karolina’s because what matters is the overall look, but why Karolina?

Karolina is a tall model. Most tall women have large feet. Its perfectly natural and normal for tall people to have long limbs and large feet and hands.

Narrow shoulders are NOT attractive on anyone and they arent presentable on models who need to look skinny. Broader shoulders look more balanced on someone who has wide hips. If Karolina had narrower shoulders she would look more bottom heavy. Look at tall, skinny Tiiu Kuik.

She looks very hippy because of her body structure.

You keep saying that Karolina's ass is "flattened" when its only small. She is a thin white woman. What kind of ass do you want her to have? Most white girls have butts that expand horizontally not outward.

> Broader shoulders look more balanced on someone who has wide hips

Don't you know the meaning of the word "RATIO" ?
What a joke

> Most white girls have butts that expand horizontally not outward.

Yeah, like your intelligence.


Moronic supremacy

women should not have mannish proportions nor balance- IT CAN NOT STAND, that broad shoulders are better for everyone, that is for both genders; what is that, unisex advance?

"In general, women's body structure is such that they have a lower center of gravity, because of their wider hips and heavier bond structure in the lower abdominal part of the skeleton, as compared to men's structure. Similarly, we can say for men in general that they have wider shoulders as compared to women.

This lower center of gravity is the main cause for women to be able to bend forward in the kneeling position without falling over forward."

I think that makes sense, but I am layman concerning physiology; maybe some backup, someone?

...Besides, if I had very wide hips, I would not strive to balance it with broader upper body, that would only add still more of unwanted breadth to my body.

So basically to be hyper feminine and have a typical hoslistic female shape - hour glass, small jaw, small rib cage, narrow shoulders... you need to have like 95 percent of estrogen cursuing through your veins. So maybe they should start injecting girls with estrogen at a young age to give the men the perfect girlfriend for them. But what about mind, perhaps these hyper feminine females are a little on the stupid side and maybe a little on the dull side, perhaps that is a side effect of too much estrogen. I mean you see a lot of this type of shape and look in porn stars and I'm sure a lot of intelligent women enter that business. Personally I think that a super small rib cage and a long torso leading to a really wide pelvis looks kind of alien like.

I think also that the fasion industry is constantly evolving and females with more masculine features, while they may not be what you define as "pretty" or "sexy" they represent what is different. To see masculine type features on women is just another way that the world evolves. The feminine features one can always find on porn sites but the fashion industry is not defined by female or male. They like to mix things up and have interesting and contrasting body shapes, that are not so easily defined as female or male. I think you are thinking that fashion models need to be attractive but that is not the case fashion models provoke thought and change our perceptions on what we are naturally inclined to conclude in regards to the human body.

Well I'm a hereosexual male, but I just love pretty TS males.. seeing them parading in sexy underwear is a real big turn on !

Karolina has an hour-glass figure. I don't see anything wrong with her butt. And why oh why are you using a picture of a woman with double D implants as a comparison? Is that the pinnacle of feminine beauty?

Whoever wrote this article is absolutely retarded. Stop trying to make your fat ass (and other fatties who visit this site) feel better about your fat, gross bodies. VS models are hot. They have beautiful faces and hot bodies. They are NEVER fat. Because that's gross. They're hot.

Eat a cupcake.

Erik's obsession with "femininity" blinds him to everything else

Erik is like a man who is so obsessed with blondes that he thinks almost any blonde is automatically more attractive than almost any brunette and he can't even tell when a blonde is unattractive.

Erik is so obsessed with "femininity" that he either cannot tell or does not care when a "feminine" woman has a face that is boring, plain or even homely. I see better faces than Zuzana Drabinova every time I go to the supermarket.

Karolina Kurkova's face, regardless of whether it is to your taste, is undeniably striking, memorable and almost perfectly symmetrical, while Zuzana Drabinova's face is ordinary, dull and forgettable.

I put the words "femininity" and "feminine" in quotation marks because the real meaning of these words is *characteristic of women*, and Erik defines "femininity" as characteristics most women do not have; therefore Erik's definition of "femininity" is automatically invalid.

Her ass is not flat Erik and your site is becoming more racist and the proportion of fail vs. win on this site is reaching critical levels.

Danielle :

[...] and the proportion of fail vs. win on this site is reaching critical levels.


Only a stupid paid shill like you would speak like that.

Oops ... busted

I don't see what the point of this site is. Is it too show that if you dont have dd implants you aren't sexy!! Karolina has a feminine ass

If a women has narrow sholders and wide hips than that is not an hourglass figure.
karolina's measurments are 34B-23-34.5, this seems to be an horglass figure. Zuzana has an excessive hourglass figure that looks strange. Most of the pictures of Karolina on this site are as pointed out earlier are outdated recently she has put on weight and become feminine. Another question, why would so many guys think that the VS models are hot if according to Erik they are masculine. I also agree with Danielle that the you are running out of arguments that Karolina is masculine and are using unresonable arguments.

Karolina also has a body that is in proportion as shown:


Alicia :some women may buy lingerie to put a man in the mood, most women don’t have trouble getting men to have sex with them...women buy lingerie for themselves because they like to have pretty things, i know this because i’m a girl who loves lingerie..and i work in a lingerie store. the majority of women that are buying the lingerie are buying because they think it’s “so pretty” or “so cute”...most women know what their partners like yet women leave the store with very different things than when men buy lingerie. and NO most women do not want their partners thinking about porn when they are with them. porn is demeaning and vulgar, woman don’t think of sex that way. i can tell you for sure women are the reason lingerie sells not men.

I agree with alicia, my sister is one of the woman who like collecting lingerie and vintage swimming suit. she finds them cute and I do not think erik has seen such a lingerie or swimming suit that some women could wear it on the street in summer and those stuff just look very cute and aren't appear to be sexy at all, but more like a babydoll style. I know those women who like to collect lingerie and swimming suit are very romantic and sensitive person. they are not the kind of cheap women that wanted males to look at them like a pornstar in lingerie, but look at them like a princess.

Erik : Pardon I do not mean to adressing your argument but I only wanted to tell u that I think the reason they use skinny women or what ever masculinity women io showcase lingerie I think the mainly is the skinny women look lesser impolit and lesser sexuality looking than your glamour models. what'd the polices, feminist group etc. say when they find the poster of the lingerie model which her breasts are even bigger than the lingerie she wearing, and her breast comes out of the lingerie? I think this is the reason why they don't use glamour models in any kind of international bussinesses. plus, people likely to look at the mavalous shape of the models than looking at the lingerie.

I think women like to buy lingerie just like men buy aftershave and soap. some guy prefer brand name? some prefer cheap one, some prefer the smell different from what it sales in supermarket. it dosen't mean the males buy nice smell aftershave because wanted to be attact by women? I like bergamot and citrus, don't have to do with making sexuality smell but I just like it and in supermarket just selling it, everyone have their right to choose what smell or what style of lingerie they like the most? the women prefer lingerie because it looks prettier than normal underwear. when have normal underwear with the same prize as lingerie I sure the women would buy the lingerie because it prettier than normal underwear.

All I see is a bunch of sound bite type tag phrases and a dislike for anyone who's had transgender surgery or looks like a tomboy. Personally, I think tomboys are very sexy. Not to mention, it's not like you're ever going to actually SEE a VS show, so I wouldn't really worry about it if I were you. Feel free to argue your point as you have many other times in this thread. You strike me as a 45 year old virgin living in your mothers basement who has never been given permission to look at actual women out in the open and have a very limited view of beauty based on the easiest free pictures sights you can subscribe to without paying any money. And also, by the way, Karolina has no protruding adam's apple, so that pretty much shoots your transexual theory right out the window. At any rate, as you'll never actually see a fashion show, you're probably safe from all the evil gay fashion designers(another stereotype). Kthnx.... noob

all you're talking about is the difference between a well toned woman and filled out woman. the girls you're using as examples of what women are "supposed" to look like just have larger hips and bigger breasts.
i'm a small framed girl and look more like these victoria secret models than i do the porn models. you're simply showing your preference towards bigger breasts and larger hips than you are making any real commentary on "masculine women" or the fact that skinny is regarded as better than fat.

waste of time to read.

could it be possible that the models are masculinized because the women that purchase the clothing modeled by these semi-hermaphroditic broads are actually attracted to men? sex sells, doesn't it?

i just want to say a few words: keep your opinion for yourself.
most of the men would never say that karolina kurkova is unnatractive or non-feminine - i agree she doesn't have dd size breasts , but most of the woman don't. In my opinion fat woman can never be called feminine just because they have more fat than slim ones. Curvy woman are those who have noticable lines ( about 90 -60- 90 is definetely perfect ). Those models or porn stars i don't know , who you compare to karolina are pretty slim , but thay do look vulgar not like karolina.
I strongly agree with harper's opinion. You don't have any surveys what man trully like - go to the and you'll see how man adores those VS bodies. there are no evidences that VS women aren't attractive or look tran it's just your opinion and you can compare those girls with whatever you like but again it will be just your taste in beauty with no proves , what is more feminine.

PS. Leatitia casta was always one of my favourites ;) She is really very feminine.

and in your article "what they are all about?" or smth like that , you compared model girls faces with boy faces. I would say that not the girl models look unfeminine but the boys look too feminine. didn't you know that high cheeckbones , voluptious lips , small , narrow nose , big , childish and sparkling eyes , and shapely eyebrows are a sign of high estrogen level in woman's body.
that was a super stupid article. it just proved nothing but the boys you took have a little too much of estrogen ;D

I first thought this site was great. Being a transwoman, I wanted information on feminine beauty. Now I realize how homophobic, transphobic, and just plain dumb this site is. I'm never getting FFS, because I don't need to look hyperfeminine. Besides, my girlfriend loves me just the way I am.

yes, I agree with you. She looks damn good. There is nothing unfeminine about her. Honestly, the person on this site has issues. I mean please, give me a picture of the person who writes all this crap and then I can analyze his/her characteristics and tell him/her how attractive he/she is.

That woman in the white frilly underwear from the back looks like an old lady. Ugh, what an ass. Yuck.


Is this a joke or something??

When my sister went to art school in the 1970s, she made this same observation about "gay men in the fashion industry imagine what it would be like to dress boys." As a straight male, I do not find the runway models attractive. Indeed, they've always reminded me of concentration camp victims. I think if the author of this site has a valuable point to make it is that the notion of beauty manufactured by the fashion industry is out of whack with what a lot of us (perhaps most) consider beautiful. The models generally aren't the sexiest. If it were a beauty contest for men like me, the models from Met Art would win hands down. But if the point is to sell clothing for women, perhaps the proper method would be to display clothing on women of all shapes and sizes. In any case, they should at least have enough body fat to menstruate. And maybe not be meth addicts and coke fiends; that's never a good example.

err....You also said that a measure of beauty is also how much a person looks like a child. Don't you think that maybe Karolina's figure is more youthful rather than masculinized? i mean her figure looks like a Barbbie doll (really it does) especially in recent photos of her. also I found her shoulders just proportionate, not masculine >.< The Zuzana woman, (I'm sorry) just look like a mom! She's just way too curvy to look youthful. Anna just looks more feminine because she is chubbier. If looking at tiny details, one would say that maybe Karolina isn't as feminine looking as these other women. So what? Isn't a measure of beauty is how youthful a person looks? as you've said. And also I think maybe Karolina just make it that far cause she able to portray an overall beautiful image of a doll-like figure.
See! her figure says Barbie all over it! >.<
i'm not sure why I'm posting this though, since whoever saw this would love to say I'm wrong. And who are you to judge who looks like a transexual? This can be an insult to transexual anywhere (or not ^_^) What is bad though is that this site is just bashing people (it's not right) And maybe also that Victoria's secret aim is to focus on women! not men! most buyers are women! (i think women just buy victoria secret as a collecting and using sort of thing) well, I think Karolina just portrays a more youthful and pretty image in the fashion show (as above) than Zuzana or anna (who looks too curvy) and youthful and pretty i think attracts women more (which I'm sure is Victoria secret's aim) That's just how I define things, so go ahead and trash me and call Karolina a transexual all you want (it just makes you rude ^_^)

How many ways can dipshits miss the point? It's just intentional misunderstanding after intentional misunderstanding after intentional misunderstanding, all done to thinly disguise and thus permit their emotional eruptions, which, without the contrived moral issues cloaking them, would by them not be put forth, because they would appear as the petty selfish spasms that they are.

Are you saying *insert ridiculous misunderstanding here*? Blah blah blah, blah blah, how dare you think you can say anthing everything is relative and there is no truth and blah blah, BLAH. My boyfriend likes my boobs so screw you you nazi hav you seen a psychologist you might want to I think you have somthign I AM OBVIOUSLY A HIGHLY IMPARTIAL SEEKER OF TRUTH AND NOT A TANTRUM THROWER

And the thing is, Erik, being a saint, replies to such as though it were not meaningless ulterior garbage. Keep it up!

Also, yes, being a heterosexual male, Miss Kurkova looks mannish, especially so in the face, and Miss Drabinova looks gorgeous, and would only be called "fat" and "pendulously uttered" and whatever unremarkable contrivance was written, by the stray ideology dominated mind, that has an infinite capacity for ignoring the intuitive, instinctual, deepest truths in the name of all sorts of things.

You say "lifetime heterosexual male" like it's a black/white thing. But sexuality isn't. More girls than guys are willing to admit to homosexual fantasies, and if you look at cultures both in modern and historic times where homosexuality was accepted more than it is today, I have to believe that a majority of men probably have slight to moderate homosexual leanings (though they probably wouldn't speak of them because of societies' influence.) Kinsey ranked sexuality from 1-10, and if sexuality is thought of as a bell curve, it's much more likely that there are more people in the middle, then at the very extreme ends.

I think the problem with your arguments- because they are in fact well written and I understand what you're saying- is that you seem to be trying to make "feminine beauty" and male sexuality in regards to it, a very black and white thing. Giselle is a beautiful women. So is Adriana Lima, Alessandra, etc. And so are the others you have posted. They're all beautiful in different ways, and because humans have such a wide range of beauty, they all appeal. Also, all of the VS models have the WH ratio that is most appealing to men, under .70. WH Ratio is pretty much the ONLY standard of feminine beauty that scientists have determined to be WORLD WIDE. In Asia, it tends to be a little lower, compared to the West. All the models possess that, however, so to say that they aren't feminine or are highly masculine is a bit inaccurate.

Also, in regards to lingerie. Most women are the ones buying lingerie. Women are the ones that do most of the shopping at VS. And going off of your theory of "masculine" models as VS, it makes SENSE that they would have more masculine models selling lingerie. I'm a women, consider myself heterosexual (though if I were ranking on Kinsey's scale I'd probably have moderate homosexual leanings), so then I would imagine that looking at a slightly masculine women would be attractive TO ME.

Finally, I do think that you aren't giving cultural beauty standards any credit. Today, our society by large favors slim and "fit." Most women, when buying lingerie, want to see bodies like Giselle, someone who looks like she goes to the gym. We want to look that way. The adult site girls are attractive, feminine, whatever. But they don't have that "I go to the gym everyday and work it" look that is currently considered attractive- by women at least.

A grandmother always use to say, that if a person can look like a beautiful guy and a beautiful girl as well, that person is truely beautiful!!

oh the girl you gave as an example of beauty or whatever..."does not have a transsexual look to her face"?? haha..she's just incredibly ugly then:)))))) really dude, or whatever, you crack me up...she looks like a country girl that her daddy found in the hay and you know the rest...just give it up...and get a life


This is very late in the game but it has to be said. The most common cup size is not A or B. According to most manufacturers of bras most women are wearing the incorrect size. Most surveys poll between 80 to 90% of women wear the wrong size. Most women are wearing their bras 1 to 2 cups sizes too small. Taking this into account the most common size would actually be C or D. A DD cup would not be uncommon. Furthermore what really counts is actual bust measurement. That is when one takes a tape measure and goes all the way around the bust at the widest part. A 34D bust (band size being 34 but actual bust being 38) would not appear as large as a 40D (ABM being 44). Do you understand now? DD cups are not freakish. They are in fact quite normal and occur frequently in our world.


When discussing what models "should" look like, we must discuss the primary role of supermodels, which is to sell a high-end product, or at least lend it an air of exclusivity. A pair of Louboutin pumps carry with them a mystique that a JC Penny product could never hope to achieve. A dress by Dior evokes images of runways and red carpet events. A dress from Target simply does not. It could be reasonably argued that a supermodel and her Valentino gown represent an ideal that we find alluring in their deviance from the ordinary. A woman with Giselle Bundchen's facial features and physique is even more rare than a $10,000 gown. That rarity is part of what makes them both extraordinary, and coveted.

I have suffered from eating disorders and self hatred about my body and looks since I was 9 or 10. Unfortunately the fashion world with all the stunningly beautiful women, makes me feel inferior, it is an impossible ideal to which I will never be able to emulate. However sites like this help just as much, I accept your research and understand what you are stating, that men (on a primal and biological level) are drawn to naturally femminine bodies, but accepting this also makes me feel as useless and inferior as when I look at VS models. I will never have a waist as tiny as what you illustrate as being the femminine ideal, my buttocks are not full and rounded as you state for being perfect for feminine proportions, but what am I to do? If I was very rich I would probably embark on masses of surgery to change the things I hate so much about my body but I am unable to. I am sorry but this article renders me feeling just as upset about my appearance and with just as much of an impossible ideal to live up to as the pages of a VS cataloge, both are completlely unobtainnable for me. It would be so lvely if people celebrated to the diversity of peoples shapes and sizes and found posiives in all bodies instead of researching the 'ultimate' or most 'ideal' feminine physique. As I said, what for those of us who cannot obtain either of these looks? A few lucky women will have been blessed with a beautiful face and a 'ideal' body, some women will have just a beautiful face and some will have just have amazing bodies (like the glamour models you have posted), but most women will have very average versions of both. Articles like this point out things which people are impossible to change about themselves, most will laugh and think you've got too much time on you hands but to some it will deeply affect them make and make them wonder about the worth and attractiveness of their own bodies. Unfortunately I fall into the latter category, I do not blame my body image issues solely on the media but there is no doubt in my mind that sites like this which 'research' into ideals leave me feeling hopeless and undesirable. If I do not fit into these perfect categories where does that leave me? Its made me critise myself further and reach for the tape measure to see if I fit in with the ideal feminine waist to hip ratio, and guess what? I don't...

Ana is not suitable for high fashion lingerie modelling because she's not tall enough and has a high body fat percentage, She also has poor symmetry from one half of her body to the other. In other words, it's not enoough to just be feminine, it's even more important to have the symmetry and the long lean look. Fat creates its own estrogen which makes fat people more feminine than lean people. Many lean people look more androgynous because men tend to be leaner than women and also because they have less estrogen produced by fat.

I don't want to buy clothes and makeup modelled by fat women with pretty faces. Just find something else to jerk off to.

I'm a 6'3" blond early fifty's with early thirty's looks. Two of the hottest beauty's I have ever dated where TV's. Both tall 5'11" and 6'1" blond body's so perfect lady's in every respect but with a little extra something.

Sorry to tell you rednecks but 1 in 10 of the Hottest lady's will have a little something extra, a nice large clit for you. Sex is sex you only go around once enjoy, enjoy all of life"s pleasures......

I think the only person hiding homosexuality, out of all viewers has to be the original poster.... are you kidding me...I came to see hot models... he came to complain geez... btw the women you used as compaisons would barely be the 5th hottest waitress at a dennys. If finding vs models sexy is queer where do I get my membership card.... PS Really, nobody will hate you if you admit your gay just dont try and make others guilty for apreciating gods finer gifts....asshole!

And also WTF.... I'll only say this, the only reason I can come up with is jealousy. So assuming your a man doesn't that make you at least a "wannabe" trans(insert chosen sex here)tite

Please respond as i'm seriously very curious how someone could devote so much time otherwise.... AHHH! probably research.

watch for my next post in wich will be inluded a very special link... this will bring you to a site that the author of this site will not want you to see... you guessed it!
Said author's crusty ass, hammer toed, cheetos lovin', fat ass havin', grade 4 graduate, eatin' up all the chicken mcnuggets sorry excuse for a mother....yes in a bikini while we dissect her like an insect.
These models are people too asshole.

Ooops very sorry for posting previous comments before looking at and comparing your 'Attractive girls" section with the models one.
I now realize this must be satire, boy do I feel fooled... you almost had me... what tomfoolery!

Erik, the one problem I have with your 'ideal' of female beauty is that the extreme hip-to-waste ratios you show represent a lack of athletic prowess. If a woman with that "hour glass" body type does any sort of activity - sports, exercise or physical labor - which works the core muscles, they will become less hour glass shaped. Especially with loss of body fat. So, in my case for instance, I am naturally quite feminine, but I am also athletic which means I don't carry enough body fat to have huge pendulous breasts & a fat butt. Being athletic, I also have very strong abs, obliques, and back muscles and when muscles are stronger they get bigger, so even though I carry less fat on my boobs and ass, my waist size does not decrease because it is muscle. I can work very hard, and play very hard too... but I assure you I have no endocrine problems. I have soft, feminine facial features, limb length, smaller rib cage, not-narrow hip bones. If I wore a tight-lacing corset, and sat around all day long letting my muscles waste away & eating bon-bons to get my body fat % up to 25-30%... I would appear much more like your "ideal" of femininity, however, I think a woman can be feminine and also athletic.

This site is amazingly refreshing. Thank you for being either brave enough or indifferent enough to post such a brazenly objective investigation into femininity. I'm sure you don't hear enough thanks (having just read three years worth of foolish emotional flotsam washed out of pricked and bleeding visitors).

I see many grumblings/bleatings about how we should find every female body type "attractive". This smacks of daytime talkshow pap, served up to Americans who need emotional bandaids for feeling unattractive and worthless (which isn't to say they are, or are not, worthless). Aesthetics, in regards to a particular style, such as "masculinity" or "femininity" or "androgeny" (or "romanticism" or "postmodernism" in equal measure), by their very definition are guided by particular principles (i.e., ideals). A person may find beauty in a Monet painting - but they would be wrong to enjoy it for its "classical" qualities. It would be equally inappropriate to be emotionally hurt, should an indifferent passerby correct them, by pointing out how it typifies "impressionistic" styles/attributes.

If a "heterosexual" man who reads this, discovers that he finds masculine females attractive (think "sticks with tits"), then embrace and bestride them to your lusty content. However, do not believe the women you pursue to uphold the *ideals* of "femininity". Such a sexual preference does not equate to "bad" or "good", however it does not conform with a desire for the archetypal female shape. Male and female are biologic opposites, and their aesthetics are likewise polar in their principles.

The models above may not be exceedingly refined in their features, or symmetrical, but they do *better* represent the "feminine" aesthetic than the Victoria's Secret models. When speaking of a "model," read as, " a representative to draw example from" (i.e., ideal). A model is a poor ideal if it does not typify, or even attempt to approach, the purest form of its purpose (e.g., "She was a model of abstinence," should not mean, "she slept with *less* men than other girls"). Models of female underwear should typify ideal biological female sexual characteristics. Female models may of course also be chosen to represent the artistic vision of a clothing designer, which may include completely negating femininity from a woman - but that is an altogether different animal from lingerie.

Flip the perspective - would the majority of heterosexual women find a man with narrow shoulders, small, delicate bones, a plump bottom, and soft, downy face "masculine"? No, of course they wouldn't - not even if he was "symmetrical". He requires an unconventional mate, but like the rest of us, despite aesthetic inadequacies, he can be happy.

Again, thanks Erik.

Bravissimo models seem quite feminine to me. Bravissimo bras are for large breasted women, and the women have well proportioned figures.

Her name is Heather Crook, by the way.

to Anna 22: What you say makes NO sense at all. You talk as if there is only 2 types of women, one slim and toned and the other fat and lumpy!! That is nuts! As a healthy slim fit woman - as opposed to scary thin and anorexic sometimes literally dying model thin- I can tell you that Eric is promoting "healthy thin" as opposed to "skeleton sickly thin" models. He is NOT trying to promote a particular look or beauty. He's just pointing out the obvious and true fact: Most models are TOO thin and masculine looking rather than healthy looking slim. The fact that you don't like Eric's theory behind this about what gay designers prefer and their imposing this on ppl to please their own sense of what beauty is at the expense of people dying, and the fact that you think what he says isn't "PC" doesn't make his thoery untrue. Some things are not PC but they make sense from a practical viewpiont and are usually true.

If you had anything valid to say you would couter his arguments with data and in a rational and scientific manner rather than attacking his character which has nothing to do with the issue. But ppl who attack others' character DON'T have a valid arguments. And if you take the time to review his site you will find a number of both straight and gay ppl who agree with what Eric says, also there are some models who are insiders who have admitted what Eric says is true . I will try to find a qoute like that I saw from a female skinny model in NY who talks about how she's sick of gay designers pushing forth their idea of beauty at the expense of models dying which wouldn't be tolerated in any other business - and she and some other models have taken a stand against this.

Eric is not against anything or anybody. He's not saying there's only one standard of beauty. He's just pointing out WHY we are being subjected to overly sickly thin emaciated models which is NOT HEALTHY OR ACCEPTABLE.


Someone honest like Eric who is truthful about TOO skinny and anorexic and starving yrself when he shows it's not healthy or normal or even necessary to sell products that way by literally starving yrself to death is doing all us women a bigger favour than ppl who claim that being sickly thin and dying is great and normal and in and it's ok if ppl have unrealistic expectations and end up dying and that that's their choice!!

Most models are NOT naturally that thin to the point of dying but do it to keep their jobs by using laxetives and painful diets. If this were not true we wouldn't have had some models dying after fashion shows and then Milan changing its laws so that desingers can't subject ppl to illness and death just to present what ONLY they find asthetically pleasing.

There is a BIG difference between "healthy toned thin" and between "sickly anorexic I'm puking and dieting thin"

Most not all but many if not most models portray the latter sadly.

Yes many hetro men prefer slim women but they PREFER HEALTHY THIN NOT SCARY THIN

If we can't find a reasonable counter argument based on science and facts it doesn't mean we need to resort to bashing pple's characters.

And for the record I don't know Eric and prior to yesterday knew nothing about this site which is real, honest, informative, and helpful to women, and interesting frankly.

Just because what he says isn't PC doesn't make it any less true. Either way MOST ppl of the general public would agree they don't like the "sicky anorexic thin" and prefer "toned healthy thin" We don't have to be sticks or fat as women there is a healthy toned slim medium.

Sickly thin is NOT healthy or normal or attractive or acceptable. Period. That's the truth. It's not an insult to models - only to designers who want beauty the way they want it even if it literally means death for models. Many models agree with this site and have taken a stand against this - as they have suffered anorexia and seen others die from it.

Real women are best served by having a normal healthy slim weight.

As for the industry caring only about money they don't have to worry; as Eric said they will always ALWAYS make money even if they choose the worst looking or ugliest models on earth BECAUSE THEY ARE SELLING CLOTHES! MOST WOMEN WILL NOT GIVE UP BUYING CLOTHES REGARDLESS OF WHOSE SELLING THEM.

Very little ppl give a damn sadly about the health risks taken by models as this site shows.

And thanks for the site Eric; it's very informative. I don't envy you having to deal with ppl attacking character rather than discussing the argument rationally

Luckily some of yr readers - male and female, straight and gay, are rational and have got the point behind yr site.

But until you deal with ppl more concered with reality than PC you won't sadly be able to reach many with yr important message.

And Cody you are 100% right I am a woman and I agree what you say is realistic and fair. Reality is reality.

this site is very bias, i can see the reason of jealousy that comes from peoples just because naturally thin women considered more in high fashion models....lemme tell you something come from any size, any color. coz beauty is the women it self. the natural thin woman demanded more in fashion industry for few reasons...its not legitimate claim to saying that is what woman should be. if you are smart enough then you will know than women in every corner has various shape and size. but it dosnt mean one is better from each other or etc. its perception that you made, how much thin woman adored in high fashion industry the same well goes to voluptous woman in glamours model. and how can you said if someone attracted to woman like karolina kurkova is non hetero guy. theres million respectable hetero men in every part of this planet find her beautifull. and her lucky husband is one of them. so i suggest you to think wise before making comparison in taste. because beauty is the eye of beholder.

I'm petrified for some of this so called "intelligent" points of view. First of all, it's a cliché to think that everyone involved in fashion industry is homosexual, second if this site is trying to support the idea that every human being is beautiful in his/her own way, then comparing a tall beautiful women, whit a voluptuous also beautiful isn't logic. And I would like to say that Karolina Kurkova is a very sexy woman, because she has unique features,and the difference between them is that while Karolina is more delicate and sexy at the same time, Zuzana has to be naked and with her hands separating her butt. I think the really difference who is more vulgar? and obviously Zuzana wins.

First of all this is a very biased article, fashion designers tend to pick models with somewhat androgynous features, why? because it is much easier to make them look somewhat manly or give them a really feminine look, which comes in extremely handy when modeling certain things, a high fashion model should be able to portray numerous looks not just girly
And regarding how she has wider shoulders, from my point of view this helps to give them a more defined waist, aside you saying the other models have no cellulite is a big lie, i can tell right away they have excessive makeup + photoshoping
I will also like to point out that if you look at all the victoria's secret models you will see the huge diversity they have, some are somewhat manly looking, but there are also some that are extremely feminine, such as candice, miranda, and adriana, and sure even thou most men will prefer a voluptuous hourglass body in a women, women themselves want a toned slim body, and lets not forget women are the ones who buy this lingerie products not necessarily men, aside they want to motivate women to buy their products not to let them know they are not voluptuous enough to fill in the cups
One more thing i dare you to do is to get a pic of just their faces without make up then will see which one is the prettiest one

HAHAHAHA And all the Fashion Industry is laughing at all the posters that are still defending that androgeny (including both sides of it) is not needed, what the poster said is becoming not just true but more than just a trend, and you can see it all over the High Couture runways and magazines... oh and let's not forget the gorgeous Miss Canada contestant. More than just looking at what is supposed to be achieved (a model is just that, a model, we're not supposed to fill-in with the measures, otherwise we would end with the notion that more than 90% - it's just a round number and its not based on any specific data - of the women are not suitable for wearing those clothes), its more the designer's idea of his / her design, but non the less, the truth about figures remains. Maybe you could say that two or more of the top women fashion models are men... and yeah, it's because the looks... that just happen to be like? Yes you guessed male proportion, are they guilty? No, I don't think so, then is the designers or their houses? Don't think neither, its us, the ones praising and awing every time they pull their models: Try Pejic modeling brassieres or the Philips epilator advertisements, both are targeting gender women, but they use? Yes you guessed it, and this is just the beginning. The appealing of the VS models is not about the bodies, is the picture and how the clothes are designed, curvy or not. But the truth remains.

Click here to post a new comment