Submitted by Admin on Sat, 10/22/2005 - 19:05
This is a new site. Read about its purpose here. This section will be listing news items related to beauty in women, but is barely functional at the time of this posting. You may leave comments about the main site below.
Categories:
Comments
"swarthy semites,"
Mr. Holland, do you even pay attention to your choice of wording. Here is the wikipedia definition of the word swarthy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swarthy
Swarthy is a term sometimes used to describe the complexion of individuals with dark skin pigmentation. The term is generally used informally and can be racially offensive. It is traditionally used to identify people of East Mediterranean origin.
In the United States, the term is increasingly used as slang for Indian Americans and Middle Easterners, but may be used to identify Southern Europeans and Hispanics
I can't believe you actually used to word "swarthy". Being of East Indian ancestry, I really despise that word and have been called that one too many times.
You said:
" 1. This site is not about achieving an hourglass figure; it is about promoting women with these figures among models and beauty pageant contestants; read the solutions page for how one could go about it."
I agree with your solutions, yes. However, you continue to imply very subtley throughout the site what a "true" female body should look like, such as with a caption above the two nude girls saying "what a feminine body should look like". You say this site is about promoting women with more diverse figures, yet the focus of your site appears to debase women who do not have those figures, and even women who are naturally thin. And then you point out that women should strive to achieve the ideal.
" 2. This site does address body image/self-esteem issues and also exercise. "
Yes it does so credit will be given where it's due. Again, very little of the site is devoted to that and a casual reader of the site would probably get lost in the anti-fashion model aspects instead of coming across the healthier topics.
" 3. I don’t want women to do anything with their facial features; read point #1 again."
Yet you continue to have information regarding facial structure and what a "true feminine" face should look like. In all honesty, put yourself in a woman's shoes and look at this from her perspective-- how do you think that would make her feel, along with the many other women who have gotten that impression?
" 4. There is no argument here that only hourglass figures are feminine; see, for instance, Table 1 on the page addressing body image/self-esteem issues. Do I need to promote awareness of the variety of looks among women? The very suggestion is ridiculous; the typical person has already seen a wide variety of looks among women. "
No actually that suggestion is not ridiculous. You seem to be contradicting yourself! First, you say that you want to see modeling and pageants incorporate "feminine" bodies instead of rail-thin Nicole Richie (which I don't disagree with) but you then insist that the suggestion is ridiculous? Suggesting, or more like assuming, that the average person has already seen a variety of looks is ridiculous. Depending on where you live in the country and how you are exposed to things really determines whether or not you have seen a variety of looks. I met a girl from california recently at school who went to a fashion show where an Indian girl was a model. The girl from california said she was "really surprised" to see that fashion shows would actually consider diversifying their models.
"5. I am part of the problem by propagating beauty myths to dispel beauty myths?"
It's exactly what Dove is doing. Don't get me wrong, I get their message but it's always what the media does with beauty-- uses one myth to take down the other. Such as with their "real women have curves". What if you are naturally and healthily thin, and don't have much of curves? Are you perhaps, not a real woman? It's what you're arguing here-- that "real femininity" is about being an hourglass figure in order to combat the Nicole Richie look. You don't need an hourglass to do that-- all you need is a healthy body.
"What is this? I have no problems accepting “real” women. The Gods have created great diversity, and presumably for good reasons. However, this does not mean that women should be picked at random for modeling purposes or as beauty pageant contestants or that people should not find some specific look more appealing than others. When feminine women are needed, feminine ones should be used, and beauty pageants should be about high aesthetic standards just as the Olympics are about high sporting standards. What is unreasonable about this?"
There is nothing unreasonable about aesthetic standards needing to be used, but a matter of how "high" of standards. Take a look (which you already know) at the "high" standard of thinness is doing to women. In the 80's, a sample size for a model was a 6 or an 8-- which is still a healthy, thin size. Now it's a 0 and a 2-- how much smaller will it get? What I'm trying to say is, if you really believe that the hourglass is *the way* to go, what are women going to end up doing to themselves in order to acheive it? Do you really want to see women disfiguring themselves with corsets again? Why can't ALL body shapes be acceptable to appeal to a greater audience of women? You'd think that would be common sense from a marketing and business standpoint, but once again, many designer clothes are for the elite.
I want to point out that I do agree with many parts of your website-- awareness regarding eating disorders, allowing healthier figures into modeling, etc. But unfortunately, all of that gets lost in your "the hourglass figure is the feminine figure" arguments and insinuations.
How on earth are women supposed to strive for a figure that they weren't born with? I'm 5'5" and I lost 30 pounds and I am not fat, but by no means am I an hourglass figure. I have a "nipped in" waist with broad shoulders, a big ribcage, a big bust and narrow hips. How am I supposed to strive for an hourglass figure? I'm just glad that I still have the self-esteem to be happy for once in my life regarding the way I look, and that I can fit into size 5 pants. I'm not "hot" but I've been told here and there that I'm cute-- I have an oval shaped face, a small chin, but a sorta big nose (I'm east Indian, it happens) and medium-sized eyes. I'm not sure how I'm supposed to possibly strive for a more "feminine" face, or how any woman is supposed to.
Why can't women be allowed to determine what really is "feminine" and beautiful? You'd be surprised how many more women would be happier with themselves and have better self-esteem is for once, a man could just step down and stop trying to mold a cookie-cutter for something that he himself is not a part of.
I'm not saying I don't appreciate the GOOD efforts you have done-- but you are going about it in the wrong way and have NO idea about the amount of discouragement you're putting out there to so many women.
I also wanted to mention one last thing-- perhaps you should redefine your definition of what an hourglass is. If you look at real hourglasses, you'll notice that some have "nipped in" middles, whereas others have sloping lines to the centers. Some women have very sloping lines, and some women have nipped in waists. It's really a matter of how you choose to define it.
Erik...could you please put up a picutre of your self up on this web site? I would like to have a good go at your looks and body shape. Further, I need to determine if you are masculine enough to be able to make the comments you do about women.
If you would be kind enough to do as I have requested then I would be able to marginalize you in equal measure.
I could suggest certain exercises and dietary constraints for you to achieve my own personal ideal of maleness.
Afterall, we all know, there is nothing more to a woman than their looks or their body shape.
I wouldn't go so far as to demand Erik's pictures, but once again, he fails to address the REAL issue: comparing healthy body figures (which includes more than just the hourglass) versus unhealthy (fashion model waifness).
Though cs has a point, I would also like to see if Erik falls into the "true" perspective of manliness and masculinity.
It seems that Mr. Holland is taking his sweet time when outdebated himself to fluff up his responses. I hope he does some serious thinking first and may be forced to do so. Take care girls and Charly. I will just tell you one thing. As much as we can expose a person and his/her intentions due to the fact that he/she is so obvious, most things do speak for themselves.
Stay smart, ladies.
Hi Amelia.
One of the most profound hourglass shapes recognized among women in Hollywood was that of the olive skinned Italian actress Sophia Loren who was approximately my height, 5'8' and also had relatively broad shoulders and robust high cheekbones. She was recognized by the international community as the most beautiful woman in the world and pictures of her can be found on the internet in a variety of attires, even partially nude.
Mr. Holland appears not to be a fan of women who manage to be successful and famous regardless of their looks, because he even ruled out another beautiful Italian actress, Monica Belucci, as having looks impressive enough to be used as an example of feminine beauty. With respect to Sophia Loren, he suggested that her "abnormal cheekbones" ruled her out as an example of feminine beauty when in fact many women have requested to have cheekbones like hers from plastic surgeons.
Either way, regardless of how much you get into it with him about hourglass shapes or anything else for that matter, the simple fact appears to be that he just has an issue with most of the women in today's world and those who have come further than the teenaged nude girls whose pictures he has used as examples of feminine beauty, most of whom appear silly, naive, and not even developed physically. Note I am just hypothesizing again and say "appears to be," and Mr. Holland can prove me wrong.
Amelia, you are right, Mr. Holland does contradict himself at least several times and the more he is under pressure from people who respond to him, the more illogical he sounds.
Yours Truly
What I find funny is that MANY women would like high cheekbones because it adds structure to your face. And also, high cheekbones can be attributed to your ethnic heritage, such as African or Native American. Does that mean it makes a person inherently masculine? No.
What I think Mr. Holland needs to do is restructure his site to really put the focus on the real issue on hand: unhealthy body depictions. Instead of slamming fashion models for being less than women, he should be providing an analysis on why it's unhealthy and what the average woman looks like.
He says that the majority of the population prefers feminine features-- of course they do, when you compare it to Kate Moss or Twiggy! The average person would rather see healthy body figures represented than unhealthy below normal BMI range figures. He also fails to address some rather obvious things regarding facial features and bone structure:
1. Perhaps the reason why so many fashion models have high, pronounced cheekbones is because their lack of body fat? If you have less than the normal range, your facial bone structure will become more obvious, rather if you were within a healthy range and had "padding" on your face.
2. Perhaps the reason why so many fashion models look like adolescent boys-- which IS frighteningly true-- is because their lack of fat consumption caused their secondary sex characteristic development to become stunted? I know that one theory behind why so many female gymnasts are shorter than average is because while they are mostly muscle, their lack of fat consumption and body fat content caused them to have lower estrogen levels, and biology shows us that estrogen plays a vital role in bone growth. And if a model restricts herself to a diet ill-fitted for her natural body figure (whether it may be a heavier figure, hourglass, or nonhourglass), her body will not grow properly. There are various theories regarding female puberty development, but one strong indicator is body fat content. It isn't so much the hourglass figure that makes a woman look feminine, but body fat, which adds softness and curves to a woman's figure in contrast to the sharp angles of a man. Don't eat much fat or have fat on you? Well you'll have angles instead. Now whether or not those angles are NATURAL is where the real problem lies-- many fashion models cannot be that thin naturally.
3. Only a professional doctor, after running various tests and a medical examination, can determine whether or not a person has "more or less" of estrogen/feminine hormones or testosterone/masculine hormones. To assume that a person has significantly more of one than the other based on their looks is ignorant and a poor use of science. Each individual is different in their biological makeup and only a doctor can determine that.
Kristin: I am surprised by your accusation that my definition of femininity centers around Northern European women. You left a bunch of comments in this entry and could not have missed my repeated criticism of “d’Artagnan” for employing the supposedly “classical concept of femininity” where, say, shorter height or smaller nose equals more feminine regardless of ancestry. I repeatedly emphasized the necessity of controlling for ancestry. For instance, concerning the elements you pointed out, controlling for ancestry, masculinization makes the nose more prominent and also broader, the hips narrower and the buttocks flatter. Therefore, when white women have more prominent but also narrower noses as well as flatter buttocks but also wider hips than sub-Saharan African women, then how could these elements be used to assign greater femininity to one or the other group, and how would it be possible to say that Northern European women are lacking point blank from the perspective of sub-Saharan Africans? Here is another entry where you left a comment, and undoubtedly read my explanation as to why a broad-faced Central European woman, Nikky Case, is feminine notwithstanding her sharp jawline and squared face; I asked the reader to consider ancestry when judging. I would not use Northern European norms to judge other European populations, let alone non-Europeans, yet you come up with your comment! Unlike you, whites have no problems telling apart their boys from girls; the problem lies with your deficient perception.
Your comment appears to have stemmed from my telling Aileen that she looks more masculine than the norm for European women, but I don’t think you know how she looks or else you would not doubt it.
Looks like Mr. Holland is making a record for himself here, "swarthy semites" and "Unlike you, whites have no problems telling apart their boys from girls; the problem lies with your deficient perception." Mr. Holland says "whites" as if he can see through the eyes of every white on planet earth.
Mr. Holland, what do you know about norms among European women or Iranian women, who are also recognized as Caucasian, or Semitic people or Sub Saharan Africans????
Can you use people's testimonies here to make your point instead of your own statements and prove that there are others out there who appreciate your site? No, you can't and simply make a mindless statement about how people who disagree are more likely to comment than those who agree, thinking that we are all naive enough to believe that. As a visitor to many many websites, political, religious, fashion, you name it, every time I observed people's comments those who appreciate the contents of a website always thank the person who created it and express their gratitude and those who did not appreciate or disagreed left their input as well. This is the only website I have ever visited that has had so many opponents posting comments, and almost entirely no supporters. Where are your supporters, Mr. Holland? Who are they? Have you deluded yourself into thinking you have any? Where are you heterosexual male supporters who appreciate your attempt to promote "feminine beauty" and to "create public awareness about the trends of unhealthy looking, masculine high fashion models" and how gays are repsonsible for the spread of anorexia and a poor body image?
You are right, Amelia. The reason cheekbones are hardly ever showing in the face of children is because of the adequate amount of facial fat that they have. If you look at picture fo children who are starved, you will see their cheekbones and jawlines showing in the same way that fashion models are. Cheekbones become more pronounced with age because of the loss of facial fat, which makes the face look thinner and at even older ages, skin becomes wrinkled.
The thing that makes pronounced cheekbones attractive to some people is the sophistication that is associated with it, it gives even a younger woman a more mature and experienced look than if her face was more roundish or oval. Mr. Holland says my cheekbones are low, but I don't think he took a good look at them. Everyone else says I have the cheekbones of a model, by the way I am not bragging.
Although, high fashion models go through great pains, sometimes unhealthy, oftentimes, to stay as thin as they are, I do find their facial structures to be appealing in some ways. I am taken by the serious looks on their faces and their aloofness. Then again, this is a matter of personal tastte and there are even men out there, heterosexual exclusively, who find women who look this way attractive and they are entitled to do so and no one has any right to label them as having homosexual or bisexual tendencies. Actually, I am happy to know that there are men out there with a variety of tastes and interests as well as women with a variety of tastes.
Actually, in my personal opinion, the modeling world should move towards diversification, which will sell even more to the public because women will begin to look more for the types of clothings and cosmetics that will flatter and bring out the uniqueness of their own look instead of feeling unappreciated because of the prevalence of only one type of look. This is the healthiest approach towards this issue and men will appreciate it as well because their unique tastes will be catered to as well.
Aileen,
Yes you are definately right about the fashion industry providing a more diverse range of looks. I sometimes wonder why thin is in right now--- for the most part, fashion recycles itself-- in the 60's and 70's thin was in, then in the 80's and a good portion of the 90's the "Amazon" models were popular, like Linda Evangelista and Cindy Crawford. So one would expect this to start recycling itself...but it hasn't.
I think one of the problems contributing to this is the amount of attention people with very thing bodies are being given. Not that they should be ignored by any means; but taking a look at eating disorders and the psychology behind them, when you give an undue amount of attention (whatever it may be) to thinness especially anorexia, it actually reinforces the individual to want to become more thin, and thus validating their motivations for being thin, and believing that they actually look healthy.
So instead of slamming the thinness of fashion models, examples providing a greater range of beauty in various heights, body shapes, and musculatures would be helpful in gravitating away from Twiggy's look to a healthier Cindy Crawford-- regardless of the fact that her uppper body is toned.
Aileen: I have a bunch of things to do other than working on this site. This is the reason why this site is updated slowly and why it may take me a while to respond. I don’t need days to think over a response. Don’t delude yourself into believing that you are outdebating me. All I see from critics like you is ad hominem, misrepresentations and misunderstanding.
I have IP logs to prove that Aileen, Raymond and Maria are the same person whereas Sandy and I are not. Sandy has also left a bunch of comments around, even before her latest comment within this thread, and reading them should make it obvious that she and I are not the same person. I do not need to be posting comments here using multiple aliases to show that people agree with me; the scientific information and pictures cited are enough to prove my arguments, and your comments, especially as Raymond and Maria, show just what people who disagree with this site have to offer as counter arguments.
Using the expression “Your comment is the kind I get from pathetic homosexuals...” is not to imply that the person is one, but to simply state what kind of men are expected to leave the comment that “Raymond” did. Raymond could be a woman and hence I did not say “A pathetic homosexual like you...” I did not check the IP logs before posting it or else would have realized that it was you.
As far as the self-esteem stuff goes, I discussed it over a month ago, and have never presented arguments along the lines of not caring about women’s self-esteem at all. None of this should be news to those that have bothered to thoroughly go through the site before judging it. I have now started working around people’s arguments? I have not presented myself as a person with no liking for what feminists stand for. Just because I criticize a feminist, i.e., Heather above, it does mean that I have something against feminist demands per se. Neither have I presented myself as someone against the practice of psychology as a science. Psychology is a mixed bag; some of it is science but the rest isn’t. Psychoanalysis, which I critiqued, is not science, and as long as this discipline remains part of psychology, psychology simply cannot be regarded as a science. I don’t believe that I am being careless about my choice of words, but changing the wording used is not going to help improve the respect people have for this site because my arguments are based on data and pictures, not wording. I know you have no respect for this site and so do a number of other people out there, and this cannot be changed by carefully chosen words because people who have no interest in feminine beauty will at best remain indifferent to this site and some others will remain hostile toward the promotion of feminine beauty.
I don’t believe that I have used any belittling terms for...
Quote:
Do I need to interview a bunch of white and Iranian men to figure out who would prefer you more? Anyone familiar with the looks of your co-ethnics and white women would know the answer right away after looking at you. My friendly advice to you, again, is to beware of the white men interested in you given your more manly appearance compared to white female norms. Better be safe than sorry; no point in catching venereal diseases or HIV from men on the down-low when plenty of your co-ethnics would be pleased to date you.
I cannot understand why you and Amelia have problems being called swarthy. There is nothing wrong with being swarthy. Poor you got offended by it even though the word is an accurate description of you! On the other hand, you had no qualms coming up with ad hominem to supposedly “out-debate” me and keep coming up with annoying comments such as hypothesizing that I have “an issue against most of the women in today’s world” when I have made it clear that this site is about the looks of models and beauty pageant contestants, not women in general.
As far as the ethnic composition of Iranians goes, I have never implied anything along the lines of Iranians being a mono-ethnic group. Iran has been occupied by diverse groups throughout history, including European tribes, and it shows in the variety of looks found there. However, it has a Semitic element, and people looking at you would think Semite right away. If you believe that Iranians are Indo-Europeans, then a reality check is in order. The Indo-Europeans were a European people than spread from the Russian Caucasus region to a broad region of Europe and as far southeast as India. If you want to see examples of how they looked, search for pictures of the Tarim Basin mummies and note their hair colors, among other features. Also see the hair of this Scythian warrior; the Scythians occupied a broad region ranging from Iran to Mongolia. The original Indo-European looks in Iran are gone and some people close to them driven out by Muslims. If Amelia knew how you looked she would be able to tell that you would not fit among a group of Persians that fled Moslem persecution in Iran and sought refuge in India. They are a light-skinned people with facial features ranging from European to close to European, unlike your dark and Semitic looks. Dark-haired Iranian women with fair skin and European facial features are admired the world over, but not your kind.
Your assertion that I do not appear to be a fan of women who manage to be successful and famous regardless of their looks is nonsense; this site is not about success/fame, but about the looks of models and beauty pageant contestants. So what if Sophia Loren was widely admired? Manly Gisele Bundchen has been described as the most beautiful woman in the world by some authorities, too. Am I to lend credence to what “authorities” have said or consider how these women look? So what if some women aspired to acquire the abnormal-looking cheekbones of Sophia Loren? Some women aspire to acquire the super-skinny looks of high-fashion models even though there is no aesthetic merit in skinniness as far as most people are concerned. Some people will try to acquire some features of famous women, but this does not mean that the desired features are of merit by themselves. Monica Belluci is not added to the attractive women section because she is insufficiently feminine rather than because she is famous.
I am getting tired of having to point out materials within this site that you should have read prior to commenting. What do I know of norms among European women? Read this page for just one example, which describes the outline of the average North American white female and also some other ethnicities; it also presents some data on Iranians. It should be obvious that your face is more masculine looking than the average North American white female's.
Some people have left appreciative comments here, and I have received a number of appreciative emails, too. People who appreciate this site will typically at best be able to come up with a one-liner expressing their appreciation, but most wouldn’t bother whereas the ones disturbed by it would be prompted to leave lengthy comments. This should be intuitive. Anyway, I don’t care if you believe that most people do not appreciate this site. I have some things to do and will do my job regardless of what others think. Who appreciates this site and who doesn’t will become obvious to most in due time.
You must make an effort to understand this site before leaving more comments or else you are not welcome to do so.
Amelia: You wrote:
Quote:
Talk about remarkable distortion! I am not trying to promote diverse figures, but specifically those that are examples of feminine beauty. There is no argument here along the lines of what a “true” female body should look like; “true” female bodies naturally come in wide varieties. The illustrative examples are supposed to help convey what feminine beauty is supposed to look like. Promotion of feminine beauty does not require debasement of other looks, which this site is not doing; a contrast with other looks suffices to show what is feminine. I have not argued that women should strive to achieve feminine beauty.
Regarding the discussion of self-esteem issues, a website with more than a few pages will not be able to highlight links to all of its pages just about everywhere. It is the responsibility of the reader to go through the site and understand it before critiquing it.
The reason that there is information on facial structure here is because it is needed to show how masculinization and feminization change face shape; without this information, my arguments will be dismissed as subjective. Nobody should infer that this information is provided because I want women to do anything about their facial features.
As far as promoting awareness of variety among women goes, I am not contradicting myself. I want to see more feminine looking women among models and beauty pageant contestants as part of feminine beauty promotion rather than in order to promote awareness of diversity. In this age of global television and the internet, not to mention multiethnic big cities, many people have seen tremendous ethnic diversity in looks; if there is any need to promote awareness of diversity in looks, this site will not concern itself with it.
I am not dispelling beauty myths by promoting the myth that ‘“real femininity” is about being an hourglass figure.’ The argument here is about feminine beauty, not femininity per se. There are feminine women around who are not examples of feminine beauty. An hourglass figure should be considered as a reference standard for feminine beauty; it is not an absolute requirement.
You are mistaken that the use of women with healthy physiques rather than an hourglass look is sufficient to combat the negative influence of skinny fashion models. Without convincing women at risk for developing anorexia that a competing healthy aesthetic standard is of merit and desired by most people, there will be no significant impact. Feminine beauty is naturally appreciated by most people, and women who are great examples of it are needed to combat the negative effects of skinny fashion models. Regarding high standards of feminine beauty, you can rest assured that promoting it will not be corresponding to unhealthy behaviors, as I have already explained under the heading Cosmetic surgery in relation to the promotion of feminine beauty within the page that addresses body-esteem issues. Masculinized women will end up with a distorted or cartoonish figure if they use a corset.
You have again asked “How on earth are women supposed to strive for a figure that they weren’t born with?” Once again, this site is not about what women are supposed to strive for. As far as women being allowed to determine what is feminine and beautiful goes, femininity of physical appearance is not a matter of opinion, as a tremendous amount of data cited within this site shows, and most people share their sense of what constitutes beauty; there is an intrinsic element to aesthetic appreciation that cannot be changed, though there is room for manipulating what some people find beautiful by associating some looks with high status and thereby desirability. As far as women having better self-esteem goes if there were not men around specifying what constitutes feminine beauty, my arguments would not bother you if you did not recognize that the nature of feminine beauty portrayed here represents reality. If I were promoting obese women here, I don’t think that you would be disturbed by this site because the typical person in Western society does not aesthetically appreciate obesity. You are more than welcome to find like-minded individuals (think Aileen) and try to set up a site to define what you feel is feminine and beautiful; I will let my readers know of it when it is done.
Some of the minutiae of aesthetics discussed here are applicable to European women but not other ethnicities. For instance, East Indian women have naturally higher waist-to-hip ratios than European women, on average, and are thereby not required to present the appearance of the hourglass extremes shown within this site to constitute examples of attractive women among their co-ethnics. So why are you bothered? Do not compare yourself to European women.
I need to redefine an hourglass figure? An hourglass approximation is a rough one and in front view only. The pictures/looks speak for themselves; there is no need to attempt mathematical precision.
As far as my neglecting the “real” issue, i.e., comparing healthy physiques to unhealthy ones, or the necessity of focusing on unhealthy body depictions goes, why do I have to keep repeating that the purpose of this site is to promote feminine beauty? Feminine beauty corresponds to health although health does not necessarily correspond to feminine beauty. The primary purpose of this site is not to promote health.
You wrote:
Quote:
Manly fashion models are not being slammed here; the people/circumstances that have put them in a position of high status are being critiqued. The negative health consequences of fashion imagery featuring skinny women have been extensively addressed on the eating disorders page. The looks of average women have also been addressed, often in the form of numerical data; go through the entire section that addresses aesthetics in international beauty pageants.
When you say that many women would like high cheekbones because it adds structure to the face, you are confusing the height of the cheekbones with their horizontal prominence (which figures into the structure issue). The argument here is not that high cheekbones equals masculine per se. The argument is that masculinization causes a higher placement of the cheekbones on the face.
As to my failure “to address some rather obvious things regarding facial features and bone structure,” here is my reply to your three points:
Quote:
It is surprising that you “sometimes wonder why thin is in” when the clear answer is provided here. Contrary to your impression about not-so-skinny fashion models in the 1980s and 1990s as opposed to skinny ones in the 1960s and 1970s, there has been a trend toward increasing skinniness among fashion models from the 1960s onward. You appear to have been mislead by the supermodel phenomenon that characterized part of the 1980s and 1990s. Whereas the supermodels, i.e., the most famous ones, were not super skinny, the norm among high-fashion models was skinny. Please go through and understand this site before critiquing it.
Amelia,
a sorry idiot is a sorry idiot, just ban him. The rest of society has spit on his face and left him with all of these complexes.
These comments that we are posting here, Mr. Holland, no longer even address you, they just expose how narrow minded, lame, and demeaning your comments are when you respond to them. Yet, I still ask, where are your supporters???? You have none. You are a lone wolf, Mr. Holland, that has lost the entire pack. While everyone else out there is enjoying life, and moving forward, you are in your sedentary backward place, boiling with anger because you are a societal reject. Enjoy your life.
You should have enough sense to realize that the word swarthy is not an appropriate term to describe relatively darker shades of skin. I would like you to use that word face to face when speaking to someone in describing them and see the reaction you get. It is clearly not appropriate. By the way, not all semitics are swarthy and neither am I. In fact, anyone who has taken a good look at Arabs and Jews, can tell that my features are not in the least semitic, they are a blend of Slavic and East Indian in appearance. In fact, semetic peoples themselves describe me as such. You have no way of categorizing people. The rest of the world has admired Sophia Loren, Monica Bellucci and some other models whose looks you do not favor, and they do not need your favor either. Obviously, they had something to offer, in terms of looks, class, and reason that you do not and are still used as examples of female beauty.
The fact remains, you have no supporters and have interviewed and spoken to no one about anything to prove your point.
Where are your supporters now to defend you?????
I just went over the site, every page:
"I am getting tired of having to point out materials within this site that you should have read prior to commenting. What do I know of norms among European women? Read this page for just one example, which describes the outline of the average North American white female and also some other ethnicities; it also presents some data on Iranians. It should be obvious that your face is more masculine looking than the average North American white female’s."
Mr. Holland there is nothing on Iranians or the vast majority of ethnic groups here, you simply have the audacity to place a black woman's picture next to a white woman's picture and make comparisons as to which is more feminine than which and have the audacity also to say that Halle Berry got a nose job to appeal to the tastes of African Americans. Again, you do not represent the opinions of African Americans either because you interview none of them. Furthermore, there is only one random photo shot of Aishwarya Rai and of one other East Indian actress wearing colored lenses where you compare here to a very grotesque looking woman and compare their levels of femininity.
Furthermore, with respect to your rudeness and presumptuousness that I be wary of white, European men who take an interest in me given the higher probability that they have AIDS and other venereal diseases, I would like to let you know that unlike the women you have an apparent liking for (if you can make a judgemnt like that about me then I am most definitely in position to make judgements about you who is nothing more than what others have described as a PE major), I am not the cheap promiscuous type that engages in sexual relations, let alone unprotected sexual relations, with anyone random person who has attraction towards me. Most men earn their way into my life and I am in the business of rejecting 95% of the men who show attraction.
The simple fact that oftentimes I attract the attention of almost every man in the room regardless of what the other females in the room look like is enough indication that I am above average in looks. Can every man in the room have a tendency towards bisexuality and have AIDS and veneral diseases, the probability is very very low. Plus, your comment is useless, it has no meaning and is purely baseless. Its just losers like you that no they do not stand a chance with desirable respectable women and so they make the comments that they do. Your kind is a sad, sorry story. I am not bragging about myself, but have to set you straight in the eyes of others who are offended by you. Even if Amelia or Kirsten or anyone were to see how I looked, they wouldnt think the way you do. I get enough compliments from people at work, in my life, those who come across me on a day to day basis to know that I am special and beautiful. It is clear you do not like women who are happy with themselves and the comments you make towards me are a clear indication. Now, I leave them here for everyone who reads these to see who you are.
I just finished observing some photographs of supermodel Gisele Bundchen and must say that on a personal level, I think that she is stunning, though not perfect. Only her nose and chin may need surgical alteration in order to achieve a closer degree of femininity and perfection. Her tall, slender physique, though too slim and emaciated for healthy norms is overall very aesthetically pleasing as well as her facial bone structure. Great skin, hair, and ability to manueaver oneself in a variety of attires...she has these. Of course, she hits it off with superstar Leonardo DiCaprio, then there is something obviously right about her. The titanic hottie that all the girls wanted found himself i the arms of 5'11 supermodel. For her height, her waist to hip ratio of approximately, 0.71 is very good as well as her long sleek legs and not to mention that she actually appears to have naturally voluptuous breast and even they have been surgically altered, I will say that the surgeon should be sought after by all women who are seeking breast enhancement and want to look natural at the same time.
Hey Amelia,
Although I admire the looks of Gisele Bundchen, I will go back to my orignal assertion that diversity is much needed by the modeling world. I will explain my personal definition of diversity as I speak of it here.
By diversification, I mean that not only should different racial and ethnic groups be represented in more equal numbers given the fact that the western world in general, European countries, the United States, Canada, some Latin American countries, and Australia are becoming more of a melting pot with a larger and more diverse selection of fans of fashion, clothing, and cosmetics, but also that different body types, which entails different bone structures, heights, proportions, facial configurations be represented. I think in past times and even so today, the modeling world did, in fact, cater to a more specific group of people and the reason many were underrepresented was because of their lack of presence in the realm of show business, fashion, and other forms of media or simply because of their lack of willingness to speak or to express their concern about being underrepresented. At the turn of this century, with the presence of Jennifer Lopez in the music world and some other pear shaped stars, luckily many women can take pride in being pear shaped whereas there was a previously a big stigma attached to it.
In my opinion, the most aesthetically pleasing standard for any woman is what would make any particular woman appear most aesthetically pleasing in her own right, while maintaining her health, both physically and mentally. There is nothing wrong with a woman being unusually thin either in the fashion world as long as the woman is proven to beh healthy and is proven to have a look that is achievable for her particular body type, which can be proven by submitting to a regular physical, which should be used as a standard and if so many supermodels stopped denying to the public that they are, in fact, starving themselves to look the way they do. Also, if a woman simply has a tendency towards having less body fat than some other women she can be used as model for women who are on the thin side.
The problem with the modeling world, I believe, is that women are forced to aspire towards something that is not achievable by all of them and this induces feelings of inadequacy inside of them, which is unhealthy, and can retard personal growth and an appreciation of one's own unique traits and abilities. Actually, I explained this phenomenon to a male friend of mine who is trying to understand women, that in order to have a successful relationship with a woman, every man needs to realize that it is every woman's right to feel beautiful. The modeling world, at this time, is much more limited in its selection of aesthetically pleasing looks. What we need to move towards is a situation in which every woman has a model that she can not only aspire to, but identify with, and who can model clothes, hair styles, and cosmetics for her that flatter her own particular look and not necessarily the look of another.
Also, modelling and fashion need to be treated as works of art, in my opinion. The most credible artist is one who can work with a variety of mediums to produce a eye catching work. There is no reason why male homosexuals would not be able to do this if the status quo shifted a bit.
I forgot to mention that we need models with various skin tones, eye colors, and hair colors in a variety of combinations in order to explore the art of make up and hair color and how it plays into accentuating one's beauty. Women with predominantly European features are not necessarily more aesthetically pleasing on an international level than women with more East Asian, Southeast Asian, East Indian, Middle Eastern (semetic or Indo European), or North African or Sub Saharan African features.
I remember a Vietnamese man in my Communications class saying that he would not ever choose a blonde girl over an Asian because he had a personal affinity for the eye structure of Asian women