You are here

Fashion models that don’t look bad

Sarah K. from goddess: beauty is divine

I get accused of hating fashion models or masculinized women, but this is not true.  The problem that I have is with the homosexuals who use masculine women when feminine ones are required.  Anyway, some fashion models don't look bad notwithstanding their masculinization.

I got the pictures of the following fashion models from the goddess: beauty is divine website.  These women are not feminine, but they look decent to me.  They are also unlikely to become big-name fashion models.

Angel

Angel from goddess: beauty is divine Angel from goddess: beauty is divine Angel from goddess: beauty is divine Angel from goddess: beauty is divine Angel from goddess: beauty is divine Angel from goddess: beauty is divine Angel from goddess: beauty is divine

Eve

Eve from goddess: beauty is divine Eve from goddess: beauty is divine Eve from goddess: beauty is divine Eve from goddess: beauty is divine

Eve from goddess: beauty is divine Eve from goddess: beauty is divine Eve from goddess: beauty is divine Eve from goddess: beauty is divine Eve from goddess: beauty is divine Eve from goddess: beauty is divine

Izabella Carr

Izabella Carr from goddess: beauty is divine Izabella Carr from goddess: beauty is divine Izabella Carr from goddess: beauty is divine Izabella Carr from goddess: beauty is divine Izabella Carr from goddess: beauty is divine Izabella Carr from goddess: beauty is divine Izabella Carr from goddess: beauty is divine

Michelle

Michelle from goddess: beauty is divine Michelle from goddess: beauty is divine Michelle from goddess: beauty is divine Michelle from goddess: beauty is divine

Regina

Regina from goddess: beauty is divine Regina from goddess: beauty is divine Regina from goddess: beauty is divine Regina from goddess: beauty is divine Regina from goddess: beauty is divine

Sarah K.

Sarah K. from goddess: beauty is divine Sarah K. from goddess: beauty is divine Sarah K. from goddess: beauty is divine Sarah K. from goddess: beauty is divine Sarah K. from goddess: beauty is divine Sarah K. from goddess: beauty is divine

Categories: 

Comments

what do you mean by : These women are not feminine, but they look decent to me. They are also unlikely to become big-name fashion models.

If I were to send you a picture would just judge the masculinity of the face on a scale of 1 to 10?

Thanks,
Tim

Simon: The statement means that I don't have a strong dislike for masculinization in women that some have assumed. The women above are not on the feminine side, but I still think they look good.

The reason that these women are unlikely to become big-name fashion models is because they have limited time to make it big (they are at least 18) and are not masculine enough. Just compare them to top-ranked high-fashion models.

Tim: Email me clear pictures. I would be reluctant to use a 1-10 scale because this requires a well-defined reference standard shared by you and me, but can address masculinity-femininity with respect to population norms or specific individuals.

white power!@!!!!

Erik, did you receive my email?
-Tim

Tim: I did get your email and responded a short while ago. It usually takes me a while to respond because I am typically involved in a lot of things.

8D: Quit posting "white power" all over the blog.

I don't see the point in censoring the nipples. :/

I've become obsessed with women who have small waists and large hips - therefore I have a few images of women with attractive physiques to share!

http://img242.imageshack.us/img242/7745/editedhc2vr2.jpg
http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/1300/annasrockchickcoverlcn1.jpg
http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/3765/mischa11220504ko0.jpg
http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/9797/mischabartonbikini12uu3.jpg

I generally prefer small breasts, but the woman in the first pic has lovely hips.

Oh and these models have pretty faces but I don't particularly fancy their bodies...

Angel, Regina and Sarah do look good,I remember seeing their photos on some other web site I came across; it is sooo "Erik Holland", the terminology, style, cognate reasoning, and, yes, about fem beauty

zoe, the first model you posted is soooooooooooooooooooooo ew. hopefully it's just the posing.

this whole blog is about white power, bb.

if you claim that an attractive asian person looks like an average white person, what you're saying is that white > asian.

pwnt.

-8D

8D: HAHA, someone else told me she looked 'grotesque' also, but I like her exaggerated curves, somehow.

Also, I looked again at the models, and I find Sarah K. the hottest!

Zoe: The censored parts are not needed, and the censoring helps make the site easier to handle for more people and likely helps diminish the odds of inducing prurient desires...after all, this is an educational site.

Thanks for posting the pictures. I have planned on featuring Anna S. (Rock Chick), whose physique looks better to me than the other two women’s.

8D: This site has nothing to do with “white power.” Haven’t you leaned to not blame the messenger? Just because I cited a study where East Asian judges rated East Asians and it turned out that attractive East Asians were closer to European norms than the average East Asian, it does not mean that white > Asian. All I did was report the find and explain it without invoking white > Asian.

actualy, they look good on these photos only, not the rest of them on beauty is divine website;only Regina looks good on all of them

how can you NOT call them feminine? you've got to be mentally retarded if you can honestly say they aren't. but then again, these are by "your" standards and clearly you already don't know what you're talking about.

and for one, those aren't even high end fashion models...

your other posts also clearly show a white bias.

N E WAYZ,

i'd like to say that these fashion models look like shit compared to this:

http://www.supermodels.nl/ModelPics/natashapoly/22.jpg

http://www.style.com/slideshows/fashionshows/F2007RTW/HERMES/RUNWAY/00150m.jpg

Is that Natasha Poly? I can't stand her, but she looks a million times better than the boring girls next door that this creepy guy likes. I prefer Anja Rubik, Cameron Russel, Diana Dondoe and Doutzen.

Sprum: These women obviously do not have the looks to be top-ranked high-fashion models. You should look around the site to understand why the women are not feminine with respect to female norms. I am not saying they are masculine.

8D: This site is targeting people of European ancestry and hence the focus is on white women. I have shown clearer pictures of Natasha Poly. Look at them and ask yourself how the general public would rate her in reference to the models above.

I like Sarah K. but maybe that's because she has a face like mine. I like the cute baby faces. They seem so innocent. But I also appreciate the more masculine/womanly faces. They represent strong and wise women. I see myself as a strong woman. Unfortunately I had to let go of that ideal for me since I am stuck with a flat child-like face. So I learned to appreciate my own beauty and now I am attracted to that in other women too.

Erik how feminine is the first woman in the pic with large hips posted by zoe. She "looks" as though she has an hourglass figure? and how feminine is her body/face would you describe her body as extremely feminine? do you think the picture may be digitally manipulated because the point at which her waist starts from the left hand side doesnt seems to be level to the inward point at which her waist starts on the right hand side, unless its just the way she is stood. Also is an hourglass figure equal a feminine body? or can someone with an hourglass figure still be masculine looking?

Joe: I doubt that the large-breasted woman's picture is digitally manipulated because of the source of the picture; these individuals are unlikely to bother with airbrushing a set of pictures to ensure consistency across the set. The way she is posing could easily be responsible for the asymmetry.

In the picture, the woman looks like her physique is very feminine, but the way she is posing, her shoulders could be on the broad side and her bones and muscle mass are likely above average size. Her face doesn't look too feminine. Therefore, I doubt that she is extremely feminine.

A woman with an hourglass physique can still look masculine because of features such as broad shoulders, a masculine-looking face, larger bones and above average muscle mass. See a rough example.

Erik

you mean body and face judged overall the woman in the pic doesnt look extremely feminine? though on an body basis alone her figure looks extremely feminine? but if her body looks extremely feminine wouldnt she be overall feminine?

Erik, what is so unfeminine about the woman in the pics face?

Erik I am still awaiting response to the comments above

Erik,

why respond to some comments and not others

http://i37.tinypic.com/htzaq1.jpg

this was a model put on this site..what's her name?

Kris: The model is Luca Gadjus.

Someone asked why reply to some comments but not others. The answer is lack of time. I hope to answer all comments pending spare time.

Erik,

I noticed that these fashion models obviously stand closer to the women you put in your attractive women section. Many people will say that the women you post in that section look young and "like a regular girl you would see walking down the street or in a mall". However, this is the reason these girls are soo attractive, because averageness is attractive to us since it is easier for our brains to process average features, and neotony is attracive to us because it indicates youth and in turn health. Then you go farther and claim that women that are more feminine than the average, are typically more attractive. I agree with this as well. My question is based on this study:
Please read!

I would like to know, what is the difference between the first "average" face and then the second face composed of the most attractive faces? I do feel it is more feminine, has lower cheekbones, but I can't really put my finger on it. I agree it is more attractive, but I don't know why? Can you please point out EXACTLY what makes this face more attractive than the first?

srry, here is the link to the article:

http://www.world-science.net/exclusives/071222_beauty.htm

Wondergirl: Averageness is not a correlate of beauty just because it is easier for us to process, and neoteny is the wrong term for youthful/healthy features. You can find a clarification on neoteny in this article, toward the bottom of it.

Regarding the study cited by you, I also find the second face (b) better looking. If you consider the differences, the second face most obviously has a shorter jaw, and also thinner eyebrows and apparently a slightly thinner nose. Whereas all these changes are consistent with greater femininity, if you look at the cheeks of the second face, then the cheekbones are somewhat shrunk in the cheek area, which is the opposite of greater femininity. So we can’t say that the second face looks more attractive because it is more feminine. Just because the lower jaw becomes shorter, it doesn’t mean that this is because of greater feminization. One has to look at the rest of the face to figure out whether the change is due to feminization or something else. This has been addressed more systematically. Take a look at this study where a shorter jaw emerged as a preference, but it was clear that this had nothing to do with feminization because the preferred jaw was also less protruding and had a better developed chin, features that do not result from greater feminization.

In the second face, the middle ~1/3 of the face appears shorter vertically compared to the distance from the eye level to the top of the head. The nose appears more tapered. The eyes appear wider and larger while keeping their shapes. A shorter middle face also seems less droopy and more energetic. Search the Internet for mouth breathing, dental arch, and facial growth to see some arguments that actually have a bit of evidence to them on aesthetics and factors affecting it.

Regarding averageness, I think some part of it has to do with the brain processing simple, salient images easier.
Part of it has to do with some prototype we expect to see. From the front, I notice right away the forehead, the eyebrows, sockets, and eyeballs (sorry for being so deconstructionist LOL), the jaw line and the chin. The face is reinforced by having the features close to their expected positions, shapes, highlights and shadows (depth cues). The mouth, nostrils, ears kinda complicates this "face". Any feature that detracts (in the sense that the brain fills in the information that it doesn't notice at first, but later finds out that the fill-in (which I assume is what we are most comfortable with) contradicts the actual image being processed following a short delay) from "the face" might make the person look weird or sickly.
Part of it might also have to do with what we might have as an instinct to decide whether or not another person have some of the same genes with ourselves. An average face could have induced our brain into thinking that hey, it's a relative. Cooperation among organisms having the same genes might have helped whole sets of their genes survive. Of course, this aspect of attraction would be different from sexiness, cuteness, etc., but we so far haven't been differentiating the many aspects of attraction.

Wow. You are such creepy people. And so brainwashed and shallow. Get lives. And stop comparing yourself to everyone, because that's essentially what you are doing here.

Carlyn they are NOT creepy or shallow; they are talking about the psychology of beauty as related to certain elements like models that are too thin and masculine and why they are like that, and the definition of feminine beauty. The topic is NOT shallow and is of great interest to many ppl who think rationally rather than over emotionally on topics or take stuff too personally.

In this context it's normal that they would compare/ study beautiful and not so pretty photos and make comparisons - that doesn't make the study "creepy" or "shallow"

If you find this site "shallow" it's probably because you are thinking in a limited way and probably shouldn't waste yr time or others' on this site.

I see on your site deep analyses of rib cages, hip bones and behinds but so far hardly anything on legs. Why is that? Don't you have some perfect formula for those, too, like when standing straight with your legs together, where they should be slightly touching and where not? Or, oh say, a thigh/knee ratio or something? I suspect that maybe you particulary fancy other body parts too much to care about this one, unless it's too skinny, but I believe this one's incredibly important.

And while I'm on it, it seems to me that your ideal of the female bottom is somehow the one without much muscle tone. Could be wrong on this one, too, but the pictures you praise the most are ones where the shape makes a double downward rainbow, the way that it couldn't be if muscles are lifting the whole structure. So, is there anything true about this one and what do you think about all those popular bottom-lifting exercises?

D.: Do not pay much attention to what you see in pictures of actual women when better information from certain studies is available. This is because the humans shown will have imperfections. It is better for you to figure out what shape change in the buttocks is associated with greater attractiveness by looking at the technical diagrams here: http://www.femininebeauty.info/beauty-as-shape [see figures 2 and 3].

On legs, this site is not done with all there is to say. Much remains to be added. There are bits and pieces on legs here and there. You can find information on leg-length to height proportion here: http://www.femininebeauty.info/leg-body-ratio [I made a major blunder in this article, which I corrected in a comment below, which is #6 or here is the link to the comment: http://www.femininebeauty.info/comment/3472#comment-3472 ]. Instead of the lower leg development shown in this woman, you would want the one shown on the woman on the right in this picture, which is a matter of proportion. You would not want a knock-kneed condition (genu valgum), nor a bow-legged condition (genu varum), nor back knees (knees extending backward; genu recurvatum). There is more to it, to be discussed later.

I do not know about bottom-lifting exercises.

Click here to post a new comment