You are here

The 2006 Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue

Drop-dead gorgeous women?

2006 Sports Illustrated Swmsuit issue cover models.

Fig 1. Shown from left: Elsa Benitez, Veronica Varekova, Elle MacPherson, Rebecca Romijn, Rachel Hunter, Daniella Pestova, Yamila Diaz-Rahi, Carolyn Murphy.

Of the 8 women shown above, except Elsa Benitez, the others have excessive facial masculinization.  If all the 7 masculinized women were in their twenties, except Daniela Pestova, the others would still have excessive facial masculinization.  Additionally, at the time this photo was taken, Rachel Hunter, Yamila-Diaz Rahi, Elle MacPherson and Rebecca Romijn had the faces of male transvestites.

The more interesting point is that the annual Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue is oriented toward heterosexual men, and it sells briskly, which underscores the need for this site.  If the masses of heterosexual men knew any better, they would seek alternative publications for pictures of attractive women.

There is no need to discuss the looks of Elsa Benitez and a young Daniella Pestova; the masculine looks of Veronica Varekova and Carolyn Murphy have been addressed on the “sexy fashion models?” page; the manly appearances of Elle MacPherson and Rebecca Romijn have been addressed elsewhere; and the remaining two women are addressed below.

If one were just shown pictures of the face of Rachel Hunter for the first time, it would be obvious that one were looking at a male transvestite, and it would come as a great surprise that the photos are of a woman (Fig 2).

Rachel Hunter

Fig 2. Rachel Hunter; contrary to first impression, the person shown is a woman; click for larger image.

Playboy paid Rachel Hunter over a million dollars to pose topless, hoping to capitalize on her fame, but as the following thumbnail collage shows, it had to go through great lengths -- convoluted posing -- to conceal the unfeminine physique of Rachel Hunter (Fig 3), something that can hardly be helped by even large breast implants (Fig 4).

Rachel Hunter nude in Playboy

Fig 3. A thumbnail collage of Rachel Hunter’s nude pictures in Playboy magazine; small versions of the pictures are available at gorilla mask; see Playboy online for larger samples.

Rachel Hunter nude in Playboy

Fig 4. It is surprising that Playboy came so close to revealing the flattened backside of Rachel Hunter.

The facial features of Yamila Diaz-Rahi are shown in the next picture.  Given her face, one couldn’t be blamed if one were prompted to search whether Yamila is a male-to-female transsexual, but Yamila does not have a manly physique and appears to be a biological woman with an eunuch’s face.

Yamila Diaz-Rahi

Fig 5. Yamila Diaz-Rahi.

Now, it could be pointed out that the focus in a swimsuit issue is not on the face, but on the body, and hence standards could be relaxed for the face.  However, relaxed standards should still translate to a woman’s face rather than that of a man’s (Fig 6).

Molly Sims

Fig 6. Molly Sims in the 2006 Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue; is this person a woman?

On the other hand, if indeed the focus in a swimsuit issue should be on the body, then what standards should be met if heterosexual men are the target?  It is obvious what types of physiques would be necessary here and the kind of response they should elicit (Figures 7-9).

Nikita Laska from DDgirls.

Fig 7. Nikita Laska from DDgirls.

Dasha from Model flats.

Fig 8. Dasha from model flats.

Luciana Vendramini

Fig 9. Luciana Vendramini in Brazilian Playboy (Dec 2003).

So, did the models in the 2006 Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue meet the physique standards?  Obviously, none of the big-eight except Elsa Benitez came close.  But what about the others?  Consider some samples below.

First up is Anne Vyalitsyna compared with Shay Laren (Fig 10).  Anne Vyalitsyna has a masculine face, whereas Shay Laren has a feminine though unimpressive face, which is not a problem because the focus is on the physique.

Anne Vyalitsyna, Shay Laren

Fig 10. Anne Vyalitsyna (left) and Shay Laren.

Among the somewhat masculine women in the 2006 Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue, Anne Vyalitsyna's physique is among the best looking ones, but between her physique and that of Shay Laren, which is likely to make lifetime-exclusive heterosexual men go "Dammmn!!!"?.

Anne Vyalitsyna, Shay Laren; big breasts

Fig 11. Anne Vyalitsyna from Sports Illustrated (left) and Shay Laren from DDgirls.

Anne Vyalitsyna, Shay Laren; large breasts

Fig 12. Anne Vyalitsyna from Sports Illustrated (left) and Shay Laren from DDgirls.

Next, we compare Brooklyn Decker with Corinna.  Corinna obviously has finer and more feminine facial features, and a more impressive physique.

Brooklyn Decker and Corinna from Femjoy

Fig 13. Brooklyn Decker from Sports Illustrated (left) and Corinna from Femjoy.

Brooklyn Decker and Corinna from Femjoy

Fig 14. Brooklyn Decker from Sports Illustrated (left) and Corinna from Femjoy.

Next, the manly Mallory Snyder is compared to a more feminine glamour model.

Mallory Snyder

Fig 15. Mallory Snyder from Sports Illustrated.

Mallory Snyder and Pamela from Femjoy; large breasts

Fig 16. Mallory Snyder from Sports Illustrated (left) and Pamela from Femjoy.

If Mallory Snyder were to pose like Pamela below, would her physique look anywhere as good from the perspective of lifetime-exclusive heterosexual men?

Pamela from Femjoy; big breasts

Fig 17. Pamela from Femjoy.

Next, Daniella Sarahyba is compared to a glamour model. Compare the robust and masculine face of Daniella with the fine and feminine face of Courtney Jenson.

Daniella Sarahyba and Courtney Jenson from Courtney's camera.

Fig 18. Daniella Sarahyba from Sports Illustrated (left) and Courtney Jenson from Courtney's camera.

How many lifetime-exclusive heterosexual men will find the physique of Daniella pleasing?

Daniella Sarahyba and Courtney from Courtney's camera; large breasts.

Fig 19. Daniella Sarahyba from Sports Illustrated (left) and Courtney from Courtney's camera.

Next up is Yesica Toscanini; note her robust and masculinized face.  Yesica is compared to Miss Budapest 1994, Anita Perger, more commonly known as Anita Dark.

Yesica Toscanini and Anita Dark

Fig 20. Yesica Toscanini from Sports Illustrated (left) and Anita Dark.

Yesica Toscanini and Anita Dark; big breasts

Fig 21. Yesica Toscanini from Sports Illustrated (left) and Anita Dark.

The full list of the swimsuit models, along with their pictures, in the 2006 Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue can be found here.  Only a minority of these women are feminine, which is typical of the annual Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue.  If heterosexual men are the target audience, then the appropriate choices among the models chosen for the 2006 issue would be Elsa Benitez, Petra Nemcova, Pania Rose and Maria Sharapova, i.e., 4 of the 26 women chosen.  It may be pointed out that Maria Sharapova is not feminine, but given her Tennis-star status, her looks and the general looks of top-ranked female Tennis players, it would be patently foolish for Sport Illustrated to not include her.  On the other hand, the physiques of these four women are not the kind that would make heterosexual men drool. 

Sports Illustrated is obviously in a position to seek and select feminine and very attractive models, but no such thing is seen.  In this regard, it is not clear whether the editorial team behind the production of the annual swimsuit issue comprises of a number of homosexuals who, mindful of the heterosexual male target audience, throw in a handful of feminine women and use posing tricks to make the others look as feminine as possible or if the editors are heterosexual but largely clueless about aesthetics and swayed by what the fashion world promotes as attractive, i.e., masculine looks in women, which are preferred by gay fashion designers.

Nevertheless, the annual swimsuit issue sells well, and its sales can be attributed to the advertising power of Sports Illustrated and male heterosexual buyers who simply do not know any better.  As to why a number of heterosexual men do not know any better, the answer is partly obvious in the sourcing of the glamour models on this page from adult-oriented sites.  The domination of the fashion business by male homosexuals is so extensive that feminine and attractive women who refuse to pose nude or to deal with the casting couch remain virtually unknown.  Because of the sleazy nature of most websites depicting nudity and/or sexual activity, the models featured therein are rarely able to go mainstream.  Additionally, most heterosexual men have better things to do with their time than to peruse adult-oriented sites for pictures of attractive women.  Besides, random searches for pictures of very attractive women on the internet will result in successes that are few and far between.  Therefore, there are few commonly encountered sources that would hone the aesthetic sense of heterosexual men at-large, and it should not be surprising if a number of heterosexual men lap up the annual Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue.  This scenario does not bode well for the promotion of feminine beauty, but then this site will hopefully improve the situation and force Sports Illustrated to select more feminine models.  Indeed, heterosexual men well-informed about the aesthetics of the female form will not bother perusing a magazine known to feature mostly masculinized women.


What a fascinating website. Thank you so much for being UN PC and sharing all this eye opening info.
Im going to spread your site link far and wide to other women and men out there who need an education on the fashion industry.

To me, Yesica Toscanini seems to have a less masuline face than Anita Dark. Her cheekbones are the highest on the site, giving her the looks of a transvestite that has had a nose job and plucks their eyebrows too much.

You have a very interesting website, but your central idea seems to be that porn stars (gee, excuse me, "glamour models") represent what women "should" look like. Like if anyone doesn't have a tiny waist, full boobs, and a shapely butt, they are a broken, masculinized, eunuch-looking freako.

I don't want to get into a big argument or anything, so let me just say that I disagree. Women come in all shapes, sizes, and hormone levels. For a better example of "normal women", please avoid the porn stars and look at the Dove Campaign for Real Beauty.

C.M.S.: Anita Dark isn’t very feminine, but she is more feminine than Yesica, and although she is 31 now and about 11 years older than Yesica, she still looks overall better than Yesica. Matched for age, Yesica would be no match for Anita -- from the perspective of lifetime-exclusive heterosexual men. Finding pictures of Anita Dark when she was around 20 is not an easy task, but as the following comparison shows, a 20- to 21-year-old Anita Dark was much more feminine-looking than Yesica in her late teens.

Yesica Toscanini and Anita Dark

The following pictures of Yesica Toscanini show her masculinized facial features, and she is going to look much manlier ten years from now.

Yesica Toscanini

The following pictures of a younger Anita Dark show facial features unambiguously more feminine than those of Yesica.

Anita Perger, Anita Dark, Shelby Kane

Just a quick thought from a male point of view….

Sure, runway models are not representative of the average woman….never have been, never will be. Why?

Although it sounds far more sensational to blame the ‘homosexual fashion industry’ and their predilection towards young boys, the truth is simply this – It’s a marketing strategy, and a damn successful one, at that.

Think of it like this – a fashion company, like most other companies, is in business to sell something.

In order to sell something, you have to create demand. Enter the ‘fashion model’.

She possesses uncommon features, unrealistic proportions, and unattainable status….basically, she’s nothing like the average woman. She’s skinnier, prettier, taller, more refined, more glamorous…. Everything that an average woman wants to be, she IS, and much more.

So when that ‘model’ wears a certain kind of clothes, or is seen in a certain pair of shoes…it doesn’t take a marketing genius to predict what the average woman does in this situation… she buys the same clothes and shoes. It’s a simple and powerful marketing principle – we tend to emulate those who we perceive to be superior.

I’m not condoning, approving, or defending…just info.

On a more personal note, I’m a heterosexual male, and I’ve always been partial to very petite/slender women. Just because a woman isn’t spilling out of a huge bra and shaking a big ass doesn’t mean she isn’t sexy or desirable. I’d take the skinny waif over the buxom blonde any day.

CT: I am well aware of the Dove campaign and have thought about addressing it at this site; I might do so now that you have mentioned it. Dove is addressing a different problem than the one I am addressing. Dove is addressing the body image problem whereas I am addressing the aesthetics problem. My desire is that top ranked female models, especially beauty pageant contestants and models catering to heterosexual men in mainstream publications should be feminine and attractive. If this were realized, the body image problem that a number of girls and young women experience will remain, though it would be of a different kind, but they will at least not be prompted to indulge in negative health behaviors such as unnecessary dieting and excessive exercise in order to acquire the physique of the feminine models since dieting and exercise are not going to make one look feminine and attractive.

This site is not about how women should look like; it is about aesthetics and the looks of models and beauty pageant contestants. Regarding the glamour models shown, many of them do not engage in sexual activities on camera and are thereby best not referred to as porn stars. Hence, the generic label of glamour model is reasonable. Besides, a number of glamour models/porn stars are not feminine and attractive, i.e., it is far from the case that I think that women/models should look like glamour models/porn stars. If this site were successful in the long run, then there will be plenty of mainstream models to choose from when it comes to illustrating what feminine and attractive looks in women are about.

Jon: You may prefer a slender woman, but if you are a lifetime-exclusive heterosexual man, it is unlikely that you find broad shoulders and other masculinized skeletal features -- disproportionately seen in high-fashion models -- attractive in women.

I have addressed your notion elsewhere. The majority of women assign higher aesthetic appeal to above average feminine looks in women, and most people, including most young women, find the typical skinniness of high-fashion models socially unacceptable. Therefore, there is nothing marketable about the typical looks of high-fashion models. If unattainability of appearance is a criterion, then as I have explained toward the bottom of the "skinny fashion models" page, a tall and feminine appearance with a healthy amount of body fat is less attainable than tall, masculine and skinny looks. It is simply the case that gays dominate the top ranks of the fashion business and have a broad license as to what kind of models they can use given the high desirability for designer clothing. Gay fashion designers select looks they find appealing, the central tendency of which is to approximate the looks of adolescent boys.

"My desire is that top ranked female models, especially beauty pageant contestants and models catering to heterosexual men in mainstream publications should be feminine and attractive."

You should realize, then, that "attractive" is PURELY an opinion. Most heterosexual men that /I/ know do NOT like "feminine" women, as you define it. I know there are men out there that like "feminine" women, but you don't need to be pushing this shit like it's fact that if a woman isn't "feminine" she's ugly and/or a eunuch.

Tany: What constitutes attractiveness is far from mere opinion when broad agreement in the general population has been amply documented (see FAQ). Nowhere have I said that unfeminine women are ugly or eunuchoid. The masculine women shown on this page are not ugly, but some do not have the faces of women. Besides, I do not know how you have managed to come across heterosexual men who do not appreciate feminine curves.

What on Earth is wrong with you? Your FAQ page pretty much states that if a man prefers "masculine" looks, he either A) is gay, or B) has something wrong with him mentally. Why is it so hard for you to believe that a man may *gasp* find something attractive that you, personally, do not? A man doesn't need to have something wrong with him mentally [or be homosexual] for him to have a different opinion on women.

There have been SEVERAL instances on your site where you've referred to women with "masculine" features as eunuchs.

In your FAQ, you also state you are attempting to "[increase] the prevalence of feminine and attractive women among top-ranked models and beauty pageant contestants." which leads one to presume you truly believe non-feminine = unnatractive.

Even if the entire population of this country thinks "feminine" looks on females are more attractive, it is still, and always will be, an opinion. It may be an opinion shared by a vast group of people, but it's an opinion nonetheless.

"This site also intends to promote high aesthetic standards among female models in general."
Like they don't have ENOUGH high standards to meet? I think the last thing models [that are usually intended to attract WOMEN to buy the clothing, by the way] is a man putting more ridiculous "standards" that he believes all women should meet because he believes anyone who goes against his opinion is wrong.

Tany: Nothing is wrong with me, but something is wrong with your reading comprehension. I have not said that a man who prefers masculinized looks in women is either gay or mentally abnormal. Gays are not the only people who are not lifetime-exclusive heterosexuals; the latter group includes bisexuals, too, and most people falling into this category mostly lean toward heterosexuality in adulthood. Men who like masculinized women are obvious candidates for either not being lifetime-exclusive heterosexuals or having narrowly missed nonheterosexuality. The citations about increased psychiatric morbidity among nonheterosexuals associate a preference for masculinized looks in women with brain abnormalities. This association is of a statistical nature and is not guaranteed. I have specified that whereas every single incidence of a preference for masculinized features in women cannot be called abnormal, given the association of the latter with mental abnormality, this preference is appropriately designated anomalous and is abnormal in a number of cases.

Some women with masculinized features do indeed look like eunuchs, and I don’t see why you have a problem with calling a spade a spade.

As far as unfeminine equating to unattractive goes, there is a threshold of masculinization beyond which most if not all people will find the woman unattractive. This threshold is not the same for all people, but for most people, high-fashion models cross this threshold, on average.

If the aesthetic preference of the majority for women with above average femininity is a mere opinion, then it is an opinion just like the sky looking blue in the daytime to most people is a mere opinion.

As far as the promotion of high aesthetic standards goes, this is only for models, not for all women as you have stated, and there is nothing ridiculous about feminine standards. Most women, like most men, aesthetically prefer feminine looks in women, and one should not be deluded into believing that the looks of high-fashion models are selected taking into consideration that they will be catering to female clients. Anyway, this entry is about a publication that caters to heterosexual men, yet features mostly masculinized women.

Look at it this way. If homosexuals want to have magazines, fashion shows and beauty pageants featuring masculinized women, including women who look like male transvestites, male-to-female transsexuals and eunuchs, they can very well have these things, but there should be at least one prominent mainstream outlet where feminine beauty is appreciated for those who are enamored by feminine beauty. There is no such thing at present, and this is the reason why this educational site is needed.

To me, this website seems to have been written by a bunch of closed-minded boys. This site is just as bad as those trashy gossip magazines and the fashion industry promoting thin bodies and dieting. People are all different and everybody has different tastes. I know many of my male friends find Kate Moss, for example, extremely sexy and attractive, others prefer more rounded figures. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. You say many times "a model should be feminine and attractive." Women shouldn't have to be anything. This entire website is written from an incredibly shallow point of view. There is so much pressure for women to conform to so-called 'ideals' and seeing yet another website about 'perfection' in a woman makes me very angry.

Helen: The nature of this site does not reflect closed-mindedness but heterosexuality instead. I was born with a liking for feminine beauty; I just can’t help it. Whereas not all people have the same tastes, there is broad agreement in the general population when it comes to what constitutes physical attractiveness, and this site reflects the broad consensus, as per numerous studies cited elsewhere within this site.

If you read carefully, you will note that this site is not about how women in general are supposed to look like. This site is partly about how models and beauty pageant contestants should look like in situations where masculinized women are not required. This entry focuses on a publication targeting heterosexual men, and it is appropriate that the choice of models therein reflect the central tendency of aesthetic preferences among heterosexual men.

I don't get the point of this site either...
Women buy the clothes high-fashion models wear and men buy porn with big boobed bimbos. (It doesn't seem like men are paying much attention to the faces there, because... wow, there's alot of ugly going on. But neither can anyone remember the faces of 90% of the runway models. It is about the clothes.) Everyone's happy. And most women in pageants are just butterfaces. It's always like the runner up is the prettier one.

Bree: Read the comments thread carefully and also the FAQ page to better understand the purpose of this site. The main purpose of this site is to promote feminine beauty. For instance, you have acknowledged that most participants in beauty contests have unimpressive faces and less attractive women often outcompete more attractive women. On the other hand, when you observe top sporting events or nominations for the Nobel Prize in science, the candidates are drawn from the best people available and the winners are the very best among the outstanding. Similarly, beauty pageants should be about the most beautiful women and the highest aesthetic standards. There is a lot more to this site; just go through it.

Besides, everyone is far from happy. To address two issues relevant to this site, the aesthetic preferences of homosexual fashion designers create problems; read the eating disorders page; and when mainstream publications targeting heterosexual men, such as the annual SportsIllustrated swimsuit issue, and even beauty pageants feature mostly masculine women, how can heterosexual men well-aware of the nature of feminine beauty be happy?

Replacing one beauty ideal with another won't help selfconcious girls. I don't think heterosexual men have any more right to dictate what the perfect woman should look like than gay men. Action against eating disorders promoted by a prevalence of very skinny women in the media would be to allow women of very different (healthy) shapes model clothes (reflecting the actual bandwidth of bodyshape in the female population). I would appreciate that.
The other problem... you just can't make me believe any man is unhappy because the naked chick in playboy has a somewhat broader ribcage. I also don't think porn needs to be "mainstream". There are lots of magazines and webpages out there catering to specific prefernces. Heterosexual men liking masculinized women "because they don't know any better" is not a problem. It's not like they'd shun a feminine woman when they have a chance with one. Nobody gets hurt.

Bree: Most men and women share the same idea about what looks good in women, namely feminine beauty. Therefore, this site is not about establishing a new feminine beauty ideal, but about the reasonable expectation that there should be at least one mainstream outlet for the appreciation of feminine beauty since this is the what most people hold as the ideal for women.

No one here is talking about mainstreaming pornography; pornography cannot be mainstreamed; to talk about a mainstream outlet for feminine beauty appreciation is to talk about the establishment of a big publication along the lines of the annual SportsIllustrated swimsuit issue or a prominent beauty pageant where the women are feminine and attractive. In order to be mainstream, this outlet has to avoid nudity.

yamila is beautiful so you are saying yamila is overall feminine? can you do an annalysis on the following supermodels naomi campbell, helena christenson and singer mariah carey

Simy: Who has said that Yamila looks feminine? Do you see a feminine face when you look at her? Her physique is not manly, but this does not mean that it is feminine; her breasts appear to be fake. Naomi Campbell is masculine, Helena Christensen has a masculine-looking face but not a masculine body, and Mariah Carey is in the normal-to-feminine range.

I was reffering to yamilas body not her face as you had mentioned in your site her body is more feminine, i agree with you her face is more masucline.i agree with you on naomi campbell looking masculine as for helena christensen i dont find her face masculine if anything i think her body is more masculine than her face, her body is tall, lanky and not in proportion and her back and backside is certainly not feminine, she doesnt have an hourglass figure either. i agree with you on mariah carey being more on the feminine side.

However even mariah sometimes appears masculine to me body wise

Congratulations on creating a website that offers a fresh alternative to the stick-thin, boyish looking standard the world of high-fashion modeling has tried to push on us. I am a straight young woman, and I completely agree that the glamour models used as examples are much more aesthetically pleasing to look at. I understand that high-fashion models are thin and have plain faces in order to distract us from their appearance and cause us to pay more attention to the clothes they are advertising, but this doesn't mean they are more attractive than other women. In fact, quite to the contrary, I find women who have healthy curves and delicate or "girly" faces to be extremely pleasing to the eye, and these androgynous supermodels to be someowhat odd to look at (and my opinion is credible because of its objectivity, since I'm straight and a female...arousal isn't a factor here).

I have a few bi-sexual male friends who may find the androgynous look of supermodels appealing, but most all heterosexuals I know would prefer the glamour models anyday. I don't find these nude models degrading, because they are being photographed to display the beauty of the female body. Artists and painters do the same thing without being reprimanded, and they always use(d) soft, feminine women; never sickly-thin or manly-looking girls.

Too many people out there complain about the current state of what's considered beautiful in a woman without knowing the why's or how to change things. Your website offers intellectual insights and is very well put together. Thanks for exposing the truth!!

Mindy: Thank you for your comment, but a slight correction is needed. Fashion models are used in many ways that are not consistent with their use as “clothes hangars” -- e.g., excessive hip swaying, deliberate exposure of breasts/nipples, bizarre make-up, etc. Therefore, it is not correct to assume that the looks of fashion models are selected to avoid people being distracted from focusing on the clothing. Additionally, if you consider fashion photography (applicable to fashion magazines), regardless of what kind of model is used to model clothing, people have all the time they need to examine the clothing in detail, i.e., being distracted by the looks of the model is not an issue. Fashion designers select models they find physically appealing.

CT: I finally addressed the Dove campaign for real beauty in the context of body-image/esteem problems among women.

You think Naomi Campbell is MASCULINE?! Wow, you really ARE blind. And please quit calling women "transvestites." You are so rude and mean. There are people who naturally look like models and I know damn well you're hurting their feelings with such comments.

mariah carey had a dreadful boob job and has a thick middle---how is she feminine? i see naomi has middle of the road-- i think since she is part chinese, her facial features (most notably protruding cheekbones and defined jaw) is due to that east asian ancestry. she said this in an interview---that she is part asian. many jamaicans are. tyson beckford has a similar ethnic background---and looks like the truyly masculine version of her. her body is so muscley--but she is a classically trained ballet dancer so... all i know is in person, she is just glowing and insanely, overwhelmingly delicate and beautiful . she isn't super feminine, but no gisele.

Mar: As I have replied to you elsewhere, women are not being called male transvestites and transsexuals here; some models and beauty pageant contestants have the looks of male transvestites and male-to-female transsexuals, and pointing this out is simply an accurate description of their looks, which I would normally avoid, but it is necessary within this site. Look carefully at the pictures of Rachel Hunter above and tell me whether she looks like a normal woman. Naomi Campbell looks masculinized; I don't see why anyone would dispute this.

Kristin: As I recall, Mariah Carey did not have a thick middle as a non-overweight young adult. I am not aware of her having gotten breast implants. Even if she did, my recollection of her pictures as a young adult suggest a woman in the normal-to-feminine range.

If you are trying to promote natural beauty in women, then you should be choosing the everyday woman. They are women, right? Even these porn stars/glamour models you choose are unrealistic. They are beautiful, but not mainstream. Women, with broader ribcages, or smaller hips, are still WOMEN. They don't look masculine, because they are WOMEN. That's how women look! That IS the woman. Not all women are as curvy or busty as porn models, but that doesn't make them masculine- they're still women. And thats the true woman- what ever she looks like.
What people find attractive is decided by the mainstream media and western philosophies... you are a prime example of this. In fact, if you look into history, many different regions of the world had a totally different view of feminine beauty- some being the opposite of what you site. Parts of the pacific islands actually found women with a more tubular middle, rather than hourglass, attractive. It is all dictated by culture. But a WOMAN, whether she have a big or small ribcage, no curves or lots of curves, is still a WOMAN. Those features are not masculine if a WOMAN has them- they are just the features of a natural woman.

Melody: I agree that women, regardless of how masculine or feminine their physical appearance is or how curvy or slender they are, are all women. However, there are a lot of people who prefer physical features in women that are molded in a developmental environment of somewhat above average estrogen levels and somewhat below average androgen levels. I believe that such individuals should have the opportunities to appreciate the female form they like, something that is also ideally suited for modeling purposes in an alternative fashion industry. There is definitely scope for using ordinary-looking women as models for selling clothes, though this is unlikely to be a high-profile endeavor. In my estimation, there should be two alternative fashion industries, one using feminine and attractive women to undermine the gay-dominated one and the other using ordinary-looking/mildly pleasant models for women neither pleased by the use of skinny women nor feminine beauty for modeling purposes. I will have more to say on this later.

I have largely avoided using porn stars, and if I am successful in the long run, I will not have to use nude models so much, either, and things will become more mainstream. Beauty is not entirely dictated by culture; there are intrinsic elements, too.

I think you meant low "testosterone" levels in the post above. Androgen is what turns into Estrogen.
Anyway, it would be useful to know that its now always about what men want. Women models aren't here solely for man's pleasure. These models are advertising women's bathing suits. The only thing they are advertising to men unfortunately are their bodies- and you still beat them down. Here are these beautiful women and you go and say they look like men. Instead of advocating for something useful like self-esteem or portraying beauty for what it is- a broad and untamed spectrum- you insult women that are already "the best of the best". Women shouldn't have to feel bad about themselves because men say they should fit a certain image. They've been doing that for centuries too long. Beauty is ever changing.
Your website is only taking women backwards as you consistently reitterate how they should fit a certain image and be a certain opinion of aesthetically pleasing. Women are not here to please men. They are humans not commodities. They should not be the women you keep at home while you fantasize about your playboy/glamour shot girl or whatever you want to call them.
It'd be appreciated if you weren't so critical. All these women are gorgeous and many more in this world. If you critisize models this way, what do you say about other women on a daily basis? Do you critisize yourself this intensely?
Once again, women are not here for men's pleasure. They are human beings and should not be subservient to what men want.
You are just replacing a negative with a negative. (models shouldn't look this way- they should look this way). If you're going to put so much time into a website, why don't you make one that tries to change the world for the better? Instead of bitching about how the popular models in magazines are "masculinized" and aren't pretty enough for you.

Normal woman proportions

this is a really helpful website on women and how they should look.

sorry that site doesn't work. here you go:

image link

Pisham: The Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue is not about advertising swimsuits; it is supposed to function as eye candy for heterosexual men. The point of this entry is not to bash/criticize the models pointed out, but to critique the people/circumstances responsible for making the choice of SI models, which requires that the masculinization of SI models be pointed out.

This site is not arguing that women should fit a certain image. Haven’t you noticed that it is focusing on models and beauty pageant contestants? There are actresses, singers and other celebrity women whose looks are not addressed here except in rare cases in response to reader comments; I do not care how these women look. This site is about aesthetics. There are scenarios where feminine beauty is required, as in the SI swimsuit issue given its target population, and all I am saying is that feminine beauty should be used when it is required, not that feminine beauty should always be used or that women should look feminine. This site does not in any manner imply that women are here for men’s pleasure or that they should “be subservient to what men want.”

to erik: Whereas you may believe how women should look like, I don’t believe that women should have a particular look. See my reply to Pisham.

OMG! rachel hunter is fugly. your criticism is precise. many of the women purported to be "supermodels" don't even exhibit femininity. i'll put veronica zemanova or susana spears up against any of the so-called supermodels on any day of the week.

"Anyway, it would be useful to know that its now always about what men want. "

Your site is basically saying that fashion models should change to be more pleasing to men. You did not directly say women should bev

"subservient to what men want." But that is the point of this website. To change the fashion models so they please you more.

"It’d be appreciated if you weren’t so critical. All these women are gorgeous and many more in this world. If you critisize models this way, what do you say about other women on a daily basis? Do you critisize yourself this intensely? "

I'm repeating what I said before because you tend to avoid addressing certain things that I write you.

"Your website is only taking women backwards as you consistently reitterate how they should fit a certain image and be a certain opinion of aesthetically pleasing (yes, you aren't saying all women should fit a certain image, you are saying super models should. but you know as well as I that fashion is part of the media which dictates cultural ideas of beauty, therefore, women will be expected to fit these ideals in order to be attractive.) . Women are not here to please men. They are humans not commodities. They should not be the women you keep at home while you fantasize about your playboy/glamour shot girl or whatever you want to call them. "

Pisham: A change in the looks of fashion models is desirable from two standpoints: reducing the likelihood of some girls and women believing that good looks lie in skinniness and aesthetic purposes. Note that most men and most women judge female attractiveness in a similar manner. Therefore, the aesthetic goal is from a general public perspective, roughly half of which comprises of women. Hence, this site cannot be described as saying that "fashion models should change to please men."

Once again, the criticism here is of the people/circumstances responsible for selecting masculinized fashion models rather than the looks of the models. Pointing out the masculinization of fashion models does not equate to criticizing their looks. Like I said, I don't care how most women look like. What purpose would it serve to criticize the looks of women?

I have already addressed all points you made in your previous comment. I am pleased to see you acknowledge that I am not insisting that all women fit a certain image, but you have incorrectly concluded that I want super models to fit a certain image. This entry is not about big-name models per se, but about models in a publication that is supposed to function as eye candy for heterosexual men. It is reasonable to argue that such a publication feature predominantly feminine and attractive women. One needs a variety of models, and feminine women would not be appropriate for some modeling tasks. Therefore, there is no argument here that big-name fashion models pr se should fit a certain image.

You are correct that numerous women draw a sense of what looks are desirable by looking at fashion models, but then I am not insisting that all fashion models have a specific look, and if you read around, you will come across me saying that it is unlikely that the gays who dominate the fashion business will be switching to using feminine models. In other words, one will have to set up an alternative fashion industry if one wanted to predominantly use feminine and attractive women as fashion models. This would mean that there would be competing standards in the limelight and women would not get the impression that there is only one look that is desirable.

You also have to consider that feminine beauty cannot be acquired by indulging in negative health behaviors and that most women already harbor a feminine beauty ideal, i.e., I am not pushing something at odds with the preferences of most people. Once again, I don't believe that women are here for men’s pleasure.

No I think Elsa Benitez and Rebecca Romijn are the hottest in there and i'm a straight guy.

Noooooooo. I by far prefer the Sports Illustarted Swimsit models.
Like one of the posters in this thread,I prefer slender/petite women. Not a women with big saggy breasts (regardless if they are natural or not)and not a big ass.
I find those features disgusting, and matronly.
Small to medium breats and butt hips,bone structure and slim. All of those sports Illustrated Swimsuit modles have hot faces and bodies.

Yes I'm a hetrosexual male. Sorry

What the fuck is wribg with you Erik?!

All the women supermodles and such are all very femminine!

The other women you think are femminine are plain jane fat cows with hanging cellulite and need to trim their bushes! Nasty!

Chris/Elijah: You must stop using multiple aliases and repeating your points over and over again.

g2go: If you believe that these fashion models are feminine and that the feminine women that I am showing are "plain jane fat cows with hanging cellulite" then you are wasting your time here.

I just think that the women you show look like dogs and are homley compared to the real v.s,sports illustrated swimsuit models.

Damn does a woman have to have super narrow jaw, tiny nose,tiny lips, big huge breasts, big ass,cellulite to be considred femminie?!
I hope not!

g2go: You have posted under numerous aliases such as Chris, Chris2, Elijah and a whole bunch of others. This is the last warning to you. You have repeated your points many times. Repeat them once more or use another alias and your comments will no longer be entertained. You will get nothing out of this site...don't bother with it.

Erik I think you protest to much. Are you still in the closet?

Dude, just stop. You obviously have a problem, sexual dimorphism has been shown to be a racist-sexist pseudo-scientific method. You don't like skinny girls, that's fine. Gays basically run the fashion industry, again, no argument, but saying women are masculine or eunuchs because you don't like their features is wrong and disingenuous. You like what you like, don't use fake logic to prove you are right and anyone who disagrees has the potential for being bisexual or gay.


I agree abe.

Joe / Abe: Sexual dimorphism doesn’t exist? Even apart from sexual organs, haven’t you observed physical differences between men and women, on average? Sexual dimorphism applies to differences between the sexes, not to differences between ethnic groups. So how can it have been shown to be racist? Why would I describe a woman as masculine or eunuchoid if I disliked her looks? I could dislike a woman’s looks for a variety of reasons. If a model looks masculine, then she has to be described as such as far as the article above is concerned, and beyond some level of masculinization, the odds that men who are attracted to her are proper heterosexuals are bound to drop.

I basically like your site and your train of thought; all the more unfortunate it is that sometimes you have gone to the other extreme trying to justify your cause. Let's see for example the pictures of Daniella Sarahyba on this page. Yeah, she's not much from the perspective of figure as seen on Fig 19, but she has a markedly pretty and womanly face on that picture. You obviously saw that and carefully selected a much more unfavourable picture of her (Fig 18) to criticize her as masculine in the facial features. That picture simply doesn't do her justice. Of course she may again look different on a third picture, I have no idea. But that's sure once you're trying to back up your position on a semi-scientific basis, you should strive some more to look less biased.

Oliver: Fig. 19 is a small picture, not sufficient for evaluating the facial attractiveness of Ms. Sarahyba, but it is clear that her physique isn’t feminine regardless of the comparison. Her facial features are much clearer in Fig. 18. An attractive person should look good from all angles. If the face shape of Ms. Sarahyba looks good in some pictures but not good in others, then her face shape cannot be designated as good looking, especially if these pictures happen to have been taken professionally, which is the case in her two pictures shown here.

Erik, wouldnt you agree that Yamila Diaz is more femenine than the other women in the picture? you can clearly see that her hips are more femenine, she has more of an hourglass figure than the other women.

Elizabeth: Yes, Yamila's waist-hip proportions look more feminine than those of most others in the group photo, but I think she has breast implants. It is her face that mainly spoils it for those who prefer feminine beauty.

What a nut job you are.

No joke. This webpage is one of the weakest statements I've ever heard on female beauty. You should have your eyes gouged out and fed to you.

what is attractive is sunbject to taste like everything - music, art etc.

I too agree that some models are mannish looking - Rachel Hunter is a good example - but all this peudo science and "eunuch references" are just unnecessary - you dont like these girls ok - others do. Who cares if the fashion industry is run by gays? Fashion is ridiculous and ireelevant.

I suggest you use your obvious intelect for something worthwhile.
(But thanks for Corinna - my favourite!)


I have followed this entire thread. Very interesting.
Even though I, too, prefer thinner women with smaller breasts, your points about the models cited in Sports Illustrated seem undeniable. I confess that I never gave it much thought before.
My impression of why heterosexual men buy the Sports Illustrated swimsuit edition is that it is one of the few times in our society where the "ogling" of women is considered acceptable. If men bring SI home and "check out the women," even their wives won't object.

fucking sexy

This website is trying really hard to pretend to be professional about defending itself. The truth is there is rampant homophobia all over this site and it’s kind of silly to suggest that gays are behind the deterioration of society and femininity. Women’s biggest enemies have always been themselves. Girls treat each other like crap and expect insane aesthetic demands out of each other. For instance, how many guys honestly care what shoes a girl is wearing? Most girls I know also look better without makeup, but that doesn’t stop them. Let’s face it, gay guys can be good at fashion, they know more than 10 colors, which is more than I can really say for myself.

As for this “glamour model” debate. Shay Laren and Anita Dark are most definitely pornstars; try typing in “Shay Laren dildo” or “Anita Dark lesbian” in Google search and see what kind of hits you get. Let’s call a spade a spade, right?

In general I agree that most supermodels are kinda fugly. I prefer a woman with curves, as Mixalot would say a girl “beans and rice didn’t miss”. But Sports Illustrated perhaps has its reasons for including physically fit, well-dieting girls in it’s Swimsuit Edition and most people I know wouldn’t call any of these women non-feminine or eunuch looking.

I think admiring women who get paid for getting naked over women who get paid by staying in a ridiculous, virtually unattainable physique isn’t a quite a step in the right direction. Healthier? Dietary-wise. As far as self-image goes, not much better. Whether girls want to lose weight, want bigger breasts, butt implants, botox or whatever, we might as well face it, girls might be permanently compromised. All of that aside, plenty of guys and girls alike might think Shay Laren is hotter than Rebecca Romijn, I could go either way, but there’s also a bit of a social stigma against pornstars. Who has more self-respect issues, the girl puking up paintchips or the girl diddling herself on webcam?

If all girls cared about was getting laid like most of their male counterparts than they wouldn’t have a problem. You might not get top pick, but chances are there’s someone out there who’ll gladly oblige you. I think the obsession with aesthetics any which way or another refers to some deeper issue that women have that can’t be explained away by “gay men are evil”. It’s a problem women have had for a while now, a problem which this website does NOT help.

Travis: What homophobia have you encountered? Keep in mind that facts cannot be prejudiced. My argument isn’t that gays are “behind the deterioration of society and femininity.” Gay fashion designers, not gays in general, are responsible for setting the standard among high-fashion models, and these standards trickle down to beauty pageants and the SI issue.

Anita Dark is a pornstar but not Shay Laren. A pornstar can certainly do glamour modeling, and if most of the models shown are glamour models but not porn stars, then glamour model is appropriate as a generic label.

I agree that most people wouldn’t describe Sports Illustrated models as “non-feminine or eunuch looking,” but most people haven’t read this article or taken a careful look at SI models and compared them to more feminine women.

This article and the website in general are not about “admiring women who get paid for getting naked.” If even beauty pageants or sources supposedly catering to heterosexual men such as the SI swimsuit issue are largely devoid of feminine women, then where does one seek feminine contrasts? And if the aesthetics of the physique were to be addressed, you would need pictures of women in minimal dress.

Yes, women compete with each other and many women have issues with looking attractive, but they are not responsible for establishing the skinny and masculine norm among fashion models. The people responsible are homosexual fashion designers in general and to say this is not to imply that “gay men are evil.”

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder! Yesica is the hottest S.I. model in my eyes! All those ladies are hot! All of yours are hot, too.. but not as world class as S.I's!!

Physical beauty sucks- and I have always hated hourglass women and other super feminine looking women. I'm a 24 year old female and I've been sick all my life for not being "beautiful" or "feminine" enough. I've always felt insecure. Physical feminine beauty has always been my worst enemy! Other women have always been my mortal enemies- especially the very feminine ones.

damn these girls are hot

To me, all your "more feminine" looking women just seem more dull and bland. Unless you got into the ideal ratios with male and female faces I don't think I'd be sold on your ideas.

What I think underlies this whole discussion is the idea that women should fit a certain ideal of beauty. Of course a lot women will resent that because they do not fit the ideal. I think the real problem is that our society, western society that is, particularly the US is obsessed with sex, youth, and beauty. Women have been dehumanized and turned into sexual objects. It is my opinion that too many women base their intrinsic worth as people on how attractive they are.
However it is also a fact that beauty is a very real thing. There is not going to be total consensus on it because people never completely agree on anything. But there are some things that are universal when it comes to beauty. Believe it or not the author of this article is right about some things. There is a biological reason for practically all the traits that are considered attractive in both men and women, and that is why they are practically universal. Female attractiveness advertises health and the absence of disease as well as the ability to successfully bear children of good genetic makeup, and raise them to maturity. These are the traits.
Clear skin is a sign of general health. Long legs, are a sign of sexual maturity. You will note that when women are pregnant their breasts enlarge in order to store milk. The breasts also enlarge during intercourse due to the flow of blood. Red lips are a sign of arousal and so are blushing cheeks. An hourglass figure with rounded hips signal a wide enough pelvis to easily give birth. Also, what we consider an attractive face is by and large a symmetrical face with well-proportioned features. A feminine face is a face with a smaller chin, raised eyebrows, and a rounded jaw line.
Of course if you don’t look like that you’re going to be at a disadvantage just like Danny DeVito isn’t going to attract as many women as say Jude Law, at least based on a first impression. But alas life isn’t fair. I think the problem with society is not that we see beauty, it’s that we put it on such a high pedestal. The truth of the matter is it’s just a first impression and frankly if Danny DeVito has a kick ass personality or is amazingly intelligent and Jude Laws an idiotic dick Danny might attract a lot more women. And, certainly they have the same value as human beings.
Another thing is personal taste of course I love Milla Jovovich for instance even though she’s flat chested. I also like Gong Li, Halle Berry, and Selma Hayek. But I guess I’m just an eclectic kind of guy I also listen to classical, classic rock, heavy metal, opera, hip-hop, alternative, punk, and jazz. To each his own.

Firstly Sports Illustrated Swimsuit issue is not intended as masturbatory material, it is supposed to be beautiful athletic woman in bikinis. Frankly it promotes one of the healthier mass market images of female beauty. Secondly there is no simple universal answer to what is beautiful or attractive. I like Natalie Portman, I recognize she looks like a 12 year old boy, but I am not interested in 12 year old boys, just natalie portman. further the exact opposite is true when it comes to male models, the most successful male models are those with feminine features. people tend to go toward the androgynous. you say at one point that masculine models are not "marketable" but the exact opposite is true. the reason masculine models are used is not some evil homosexual conspiracy it is because over time companies noticed that ads using masculine models moved more product than did ones using feminine models. the only motive existent in america and possibly in human beings in our modern capitalist society is the profit motive. either it makes money or it doesn't and these models make money.

YOU ARE lifetime-exclusive heterosexual, erik. you judge women, the real males don't judge. they find all women are their opposite of sex.

take the orange dots off thier nipples dude,we all know what they look like,we've all seen them.they are nothing to be ashamed of,or embarrased of.youre not fooling any one.except yourself.its like janet jacksons NIPPLEGATE all over again!OH MY GOD!NOT A NIPPLE!HOLY SHIT!THE WORLD'S GONNA END!!!!

Kami: Nothing here suggests that women should fit a certain ideal of beauty. The discussion is about the models that appear in a specific publication and what kind of looks would best suit the general preferences of the publication’s target audience.

Chris: The argument isn’t that SI should use nude models. Artistic photos of feminine and attractive bikini-clad women would not serve as masturbatory material. The argument is also not dependent on universal criteria for beauty. Basing the selections on majority preferences is reasonable.

Successful male models are not necessarily effeminate. Male models tend to have normal to masculine faces though many have thin physiques. A general preference for androgyny has not been documented in controlled laboratory studies examining people’s aesthetic tastes.

I did not mention an “evil homosexual conspiracy.” The homosexual designers are doing what pleases them and they get away with it because they sell desirable items (designer merchandize) in the absence of a competing fashion industry not being dominated by them. It is patent nonsense that the masculine looks reflect observations that masculinized women sold more products.

TJ: The mild censorship makes the images more suitable for a wider audience. And, I haven’t censored them all. In Corinna’s picture, the nipples could barely be seen and hence there was no need to censor them, and in my estimation there was no need to censor the nipples of Rachel Hunter because most people wouldn’t be aroused by her appearance.

I have no idea why you have spent so much time compiling this web page but its fascinating...

All you have to do is read the FAQ and you'll realise that this website is a joke.

And I laughed while reading the page entitled "Improve your looks", "addresses some steps women can take to make themselves more physically attractive".

This website is just a silly gimmick to promote your adult websites, links provided!

aaronimpact : I think the same to u also, awhile reading this websit I find it quite funny, both FAQ and also the comments, lol it quite relax when u have the hard work and spend sometime reading on here, one of the most amoucing websit I have known.

To erik : I know your intenion and I wish u'd be more brave to write it straight way from your mind? perhape people are understand u more? I find it's nice what u are trying to attribute, but please do not ridicul to anyone. I do not like how u compare pictures of supermodel to the glamour models, they are both beautifull on their way.

What I have seen in your article is nothing!

You attempt to provide YOUR physical preferences in women as a definition of feminine, when in fact it is nothing more than YOUR PREFERENCES!

Far too many men are programmed by others to view only women with large amounts of body fat deposited in the breasts and ass as the real women to nail sexually and be the ones to marry and make babies with.

I myself was one of those. I always used to look for so-called hourglass shaped women, right up until I started to realize that the hourglass shaped women far too often required two chairs (one chair for each butt-cheek (sorry if I offended any large women, but see comments below about my own family's genetic tendencies) to sit on after they have had a kid or three.

My family has enough big body genes, that I do not need to reinforce excessive body fat by marrying and making babies with women who also carry big body genes.
So I made the conscious decision to concentrate on women who do not carry large amounts of body fat.

I also do not care for women who go for plastic in their bodies or other such fakery.

Your statements are seen for what they are, a personal preference and an attempt by you to sell your products... which mostly contain women with large amounts of body fat.

HAHAHAHAHAHA. This is among the dumbest things I have ever read. Way to get the worst pics you could of the SI models too and compare them to high quality pics of no name girls that are a dime a dozen. HAHAHAHAHA, so dumb.

I think Men with more feminine features (not making them any less of a man!) would find the Sports Illustrated model with masculine features more attractive. I fit this feminine ideal you're talking about. I know I only get turned on without stimulation by men with very masculine features. I am told alot of the time I have "bad taste" but I just don't find men with femine features like Leonardo DiCaprio or even Brad Pitt sexualy attractive.

I agree with you on most of them. Some of the S.I. women are PRETTY manly - looking, IMO though. A lot of the non-S.I. girls are beautiful, not all of them, but wow! Nikita Laska, Shay Laren, and Corinna are my favorites. Amazing!

Guy, you are totally gay. No "life-exclusive heterosexual male" actually comes up with the term, "life-exclusive heterosexual male," and then uses it repeatedly. Your fatal flaw is that you arrogantly claim to know the universal mind of the hetero male, and then spend dozens of paragraphs inadvertently proving otherwise. You doth protest too much, my friend. Not only are you gay, but you are gay fascist trying to create some quasi-Riefenstahlian aesthetic-- wait, I'm going to stop now. I've just wasted too many calories on a closet homo. Forget what I said,'re as manly as they come.

Dude, you are the biggest fucking idiot on the world wide web!!!!!

Sorry but my pecker is too hard to think about comparing these chicks! As long as there is no buldge in the front other than the top, The chicks are smokin'! All of 'em, call me low-standard if the SI swimsuit models are not hot enough for you...I DON'T GIVE A FVCK!

This is possibly the stupidest, most pointless, deluded lot of tosh masquerading as science that I have ever seen in my life.

What a load of complete and utter crap. The simple use of the term 'lifetime exclusive heterosexual' is so riddled with homophobia and fascistic intent. So someone who once experimented with another man, and decided that wasn't really his thing, is 'tarnished' and no longer a 'lifetime exclusive' such a crock of shit.

What business is it of yours who finds what attractive and what their sexual preference is?

This website is pointless offensive, homophobic, and fascist.

Disgusting. You should be ashamed of yourself

the main problem here is that you dont have a firm grasp on either the PURPOSE or commercial mandates of the fashion industry. fashion is not in the BUSINESS of beauty. living in manhattan I see models all the time and know a number of girls who have modeled big shows and done print work. anyone with a clue who's actually seen models IRL KNOWS as axiom that models are not "beautiful" they are not "pretty." in person models are abnormally skinny, have abnormally small heads, very masculine body proportions and the faces are unremarkable. the only truly beautiful thing you see on most girls is nice skin. on occasion you see a beautiful girl model but they are not selected for such, and a true beauty in the modeling world is a random outlier among a population selected for another, different purpose... much like occasionally seeing a beautiful volleyball player among women selected for height and athletic prowess.

models are essentially clothes hangars. they're uniformly skinny and 5'7"-5'10" because they need to fit the clothes. NOT because homos are inflicting a world view upon us. models are purposefully androgynous because they cannot overpower the clothes with great beauty or personality and because WOMEN themselves find these types of women to appear cool and sophisticated.

MEN do not BUY CLOTHES. actual MALE preferences towards beauty are nowhere to be found in the fashion equation. you seem incredibly clueless about how anything works. MEN are nowhere in the SI swimsuit equation either. JULE CAMBELL, a WOMAN been editorial chief of the SI swimsuit issue since its inception in the 60s. She personally chooses the models and controls every aspect of the issue. She is NOT A MAN. she does not CARE what you find attractive. GET A CLUE. Her mandate at SI is to make even swimsuits RELEVANT and FASHION FORWARD, NOT to give you images of beautiful women you can go into the bathroom with.

You make some points with your site but really you're ranting like you have no idea what end is up. Models are androgynous and masculine and aren't actually pretty? WOW ORLY NEWS FLASH WATER IS WET

Ed - Good job on stating what most men know of fashion models. They are absolutely not pretty. There are a few here and there that are, but most are not. I agree with a good portion of what you are saying.

I disagree with the general idea though that the models themselves are not the designers idea of what is attractive. If they are to fit the clothes, the designers do have the intent of stating they feel that women should be size 0, flat chested and tall. There are perfectly plain Janes out there that would not overpower the clothes designed for *normally proportioned* women. These could be the clothes that *make* the normally *plain* women *beautiful*. However most of the clothes that high fashion tends to show off are god awful creations of people so high on thinking they know what beauty is.

This website is just another stab at normal women and what they should find themselves desiring to look like for the benefit of men. Women should want to be healthy, not thin like a model, not fake implanted chest. There is a normal amount of fat to be healthy. This is what screws up womens minds with *what they should look like cuz its what the world feels what beauty is* rather than what they should look like because it is healthy (healthy NOT being a fashion model size 0). I would also say it is a stab at homosexuals and fashion designers as well. Though I don't mind Fashion designers being stabbed a few times LOL. It is also trying to force an image on men of what is beautiful by calling into question their sexuality (which most men would fiercely defend gay, bi or straight). Only men who have had gay experiences can find these SI models attractive? And you are the authority why? I find Elle (while not my ideal woman) to be attractive. Same goes for Elsa. I have had no homosexual attractions/urges in my life. Please explain this one.

BTW, FYI I am a 5'5" man (yep short) and currently about 10lbs overweight (seasonal gain in winter lose in spring/summer, helps keep me warm in the Buffalo snows). I do not like women that are ridiculously thin (if she weighs less than 110, she better be less than 5' tall). I tend to like my women proportionate to a 5'3" 120-130 lbs or so. This matters so you can understand.

To combat extremism, one does not have to first travel to the other side of the extreme. All it does is lengthen the trip to moderation.

Oh Ed, the other thing i disagree with is that Men DO BUY CLOTHES. Otherwise, we'd all be naked. Men just don't buy clothes like women because Men's clothes don't get the clearance prices women's clothes get LOL.

I think all of the sport swimmingsuit models above this article are very attactive and feminine. slim, slender waist and curving legs, very good shape in my openion. I do not like robust women with big breasts and board round face I prefer well face's structure and well chin like Benitez, Veronica Varekova, Elle MacPherson and Rebecca Romijn. throught they look not that gentle and sweet like audrey toutu or malion cottilard but still they have good structure.

here, History of boylish fashion model.

History of boyish fashion models

Chanel was to become one of the most influential designers of the twentieth century.