You are here

Karl “models have skinny bones” Lagerfeld rejects three models for being too skinny!

At the Chanel show during the recent Paris fashion week, Karl Lagerfeld claimed to have rejected three models for being too thin.

The report:

Karl Lagerfeld revealed in Paris he had taken a dramatic stand on the size zero issue by rejecting three models for his Chanel catwalk show yesterday (Friday) because they were 'too skinny'.

"It is the first time I have ever done something like this," he said.

“I have nothing against skinny girls. But these were terrible. They looked as if they had grown up in a Third World country with no food to eat.”

“I sent them back to the agency. I did not think they should be modeling,” said the designer.

He described the three models – who he did not identify – as being so thin as to look 'almost deformed' and agreed his stance may persuade other designers to follow suit.

Why can I not believe this?

See the following pictures from the show.

Lily Donaldson, Coco Rocha, Gemma Ward

You can see just what you would expect in the form of a skinny/skeletal Lily Donaldson (left), but also a heavier Coco Rocha (middle) and a “fat” Gemma Ward!  Strange.

Watch the video excerpt from the show.

If you are reading this then you either have javascript turned off or do not have the flash plugin installed. Get Flash.

Download the video clip.

See if you can guess what is going on.  Hint: it has been rumored that Gemma Ward was dropped from Milan fashion week (roughly 2 weeks before her appearance in Paris) for being too fat; look at her above.

Categories: 

Comments

Karl Largerfeld often says one thing but then does something completely different. I can barely think of a few girls who are skinnier than Lily Donaldson is right now. He also had Kim Noorda, Snejana and Vlada in the show. Olga Shearer wasn't there so maybe she was one of those rejected girls.

I don't think that Gemma wasn't in Milan because she has gotten "fat". She probably feels she has reached the status where she can pick and choose which shows she wants to do. Daria Werbowy, Natalia Vodianova and Carmen Kass are in the same boat. They have reached the status where they can choose not to do any shows for an entire season then come back and get booked for shows like Chanel and Valentino.

Gemma's body and face has matured and she can get away with that. All these new Russian zombies and unfortunately even some seasoned models feel that they need to be rail thin in order to be on top of their game. It seems that more and more models are becoming deathly thin. I don’t know if this something reactionary or if its just an awful trend. The supermodels of the 90's looked nothing like these bony girls and adolescent boys don't typically look like skeletons.

Erik,

It would be great if you would do a blog entry about how to distinguish a constitutonally 'thin' woman apart from a malnourished/anorexic woman. This 'skinny bashing' has gotten way out of hand in the popular culture of today, and I fear sites like this one (unintentionally perhaps) will only contribute to the problem. It is far too common to hear young women today form an instant dislike of another: "I hate her, she's all skinny and stuff". I do not personally mind if my looks are not to the personal taste of most people but what I do find unacceptable is rude personal comments from those who know bugger all about me or my habits. Steps need to be taken to let the general public know that this is RUDENESS. My stats:

height: 175cm
weight: 48kg/107lb
bmi: You should be six feet under ya anorexic bitch.
daily caloric intake: 1800 - 2200 cals
body fat %: 20 (around normal)

Now from a previous physical description of myself I gave you seemed to think I was on the hypogonadal side (but still with a masculinized hormone ratio) I'd tend to agree with you on that. I just measured my armspan and it's 174cm so, yes, kinda eunachoid LOL. I'm 113cm from floor-waist. But this also means I'm a short person grown tall. Long thin legs do not weigh much compared to trunk weight, so shave of alot of what I'm 'supposed' to weigh right there. I have a really small ribcage and short torso, which means small internal organs, so shave off some more weight. I'm naturally good at long distance running, so my muscles are all 'slow twich' type - shave off even more weight. I even tried eating vast amounts of calories once to try to comply with popular beauty standards, and all i got was, wait for it...a fat gut! That is the ONLY place I gain weight! My legs stayed like sticks and I kept my concave cheeks. So however fat I get I will always be PERCIEVED as skinny by the ignorant public. I am STUCK being skinny looking and even my dietician eventually agreed with me. But even thought I am 'underweight' without being underfat or malmourished I still get uncalled for ABUSE from strangers because of my appearance. Even obese women do not get rudeness to their faces like I do.

And no I do not

-have thyroid problems or any other medical problem
-I am not some anorexic bimbette in denial - I am a mathematics honours student with an active interest in physical anthropology. I have also worked as a professional catwalk model.
-I am not just super young. I'm almost 25. Puberty was a decade ago. Oh, yeah I 'should' be filling out and 'maturing' just like 'all women naturally do' blah blah blah BLAH. (btw I grew about 4 cm between age 20 and now, interesting.)

So yes, an anomaly I may be but a biological impossibility I am NOT. This rudeness against "skinny" women must end. Whatever happened to 'minority rights'?

ERIK, HERE’S WHAT REALLY SCARES YOU

First, the four reasons why high fashion and lingerie models are usually androgynous:

1. Gay/bi male designers are entitled to dominate the fashion industry and choose the models.

Marketing is controlled by whoever sells the product most effectively. Gay/bi male designers dominate the fashion industry for a very simple reason: nobody, but nobody, is better at designing and selling high-end clothes and lingerie than they are. Gay/bi male designers are entitled to choose their models on whatever criteria they please, including choosing models who look like adolescent boys. I agree this can be bad for the self esteem of women who don’t fit that type, but hey, your definition of “feminine beauty” can be bad for the self esteem of women who don’t fit that type. Please don’t pretend you’re a champion of female self esteem when you do all you can to make women who aren’t “feminine’ feel bad.

2. High end lingerie and high fashion are marketed to affluent women in big cities and the surrounding suburbs, not “most people”.

Marketing is directed toward niche markets, not the general public. Erik, you wrote, “Marketing considerations suggest that the best policy is to appease the most people”. No, marketing consideration suggest that the best policy is to appease the most people *who have both the inclination and the money to buy the product*, not most people *in general*. Higher-end lingerie and high fashion are bought only by a small percentage of the public consisting overwhelmingly of middle- to upper-class women in big cities and their surrounding suburbs, so they are the only people the high end designers care about, not “most people”.

3. Lingerie and high fashion are marketed to women, not men.

Marketing is directed to the buyer and no one but the buyer. The idea that because heterosexual women buy lingerie to use it as a prelude or stimulant to sex with heterosexual men, therefore heterosexual men’s preferences should determine the choice of lingerie models, is as ludicrous as the idea that because heterosexual men buy pornography to use it as a prelude or stimulant to sex with heterosexual women, therefore heterosexual women’s preferences should determine the choice of female porn stars. WTF?

Marketing is concerned with how to sell a product, not with how the product is used after it is sold. The fact that heterosexual men are involved in the use of lingerie after it is sold is of no relevance to the marketing. It’s the same reason that home-cooking food (as opposed to restaurant food) is marketed to women even though men it eat it too: because in most households women do the grocery shopping, so women are the ones who buy the product. No one cares what heterosexual men think about fashion/lingerie models, and there is no damn reason why anyone should.

4. Most women are subconsciously, subliminally aroused by androgynous women– not feminine women.

A female model who looks like a gorgeous man has FAR more power over the psyche of a heterosexual woman than a feminine model ever could. There is a reason that Greta Garbo’s success as one of the biggest movie stars of all time was driven primarily by female moviegoers. Women are entranced by Garbo’s magnificent masculine beauty.

I do not believe your crusade to change the look of fashion/lingerie models is motivated primarily by legitimate concern about the health of excessively skinny models and the girls and women they influence, because you criticize masculine attributes, such as big shoulders and big rib cages and flat behinds, that do no harm to health.

There is a difference between attractive and memorable. Many attractive women look like they came off the same assembly line and two days later you can’t remember their face. Most of your “Attractive Women” gallery are in that category of uniform, cloned loveliness, one face melting into the next. Their faces have no TRACTION. They are perfect for nude or semi-nude modeling, where bodies are everything and faces are just accessories. No one will ever pay to look at pictures of them fully dressed.

This is not personal defensiveness, because I meet almost all your criteria for femininity: delicate facial features, small forehead, short small nose, narrow jaw, small chin, narrow shoulders, small rib cage, full natural breasts, small waist-to-hip ratio, wide pelvis, round behind, petite height, tiny hands, tiny feet.

You have deprived yourself of any credibility whatsoever by claiming you speak for what “most” people consider beautiful and then creating an “Attractive Women” gallery that is 100% white. Funny how nonwhite women are doing such a good job of reproducing if hardly anyone considers them attractive enough to have sex with. If your excuse is that your gallery simply reflects your own taste, then stop claiming you speak for “most people”.

You wrote: “It is not unusual for the art coming from homosexuals to display the mental illnesses more common among them...sadomasochistic elements would be a good example.” Sadomasochism is NOT a mental illness. The only objective definitions of mental illness are inability to perceive reality accurately; such as hallucinations, hearing voices, paranoia, delusions, irrational phobias and mania, or conditions that make healthy functioning impossible, such as extreme depression. I know mentally lucid, emotionally stable, healthy, happy people in heterosexual sadomasochistic relationships – including me. You are clearly casting about for any random reason to label homosexuals ill.

Erik, your inability to simply IGNORE glamorized, sexualized images of masculine/androgynous women, your willingness to create and maintain an incredibly detailed and researched website and blog to express your wish that such images would disappear, indicates that such images SCARE YOU. You write dire warnings that if the models don’t get more feminine, there will be an “aesthetic disaster”. Oooh. Shudder.

Let’s be honest about which “disaster” you’re really scared of. I wish I had a dollar for every time you write about a man who “narrowly escapes nonheterosexuality”. Narrowly escapes! Erik, do you realize that anyone who reads your references to “narrow escape from nonheterosexuality” can FEEL your inexpressible terror?

> I do not believe your crusade [...]

> [...] because you criticize masculine attributes [...]

> Most of your “Attractive Women” gallery are in that category [...]

> This is not personal defensiveness [...]

> You have deprived yourself of any credibility whatsoever [...]

> [...] creating an “Attractive Women” gallery that is 100% white.

> [...] then stop claiming you speak for “most people”.

> I know mentally lucid, emotionally stable, healthy, happy people in heterosexual sadomasochistic relationships – including me.

LOL !!!

Danielle, hunny ...

Your moustache is showing :-)

What a mental case.
Are you AFRAID of the "useless crusade" ?

Der Arschloch, I am not "Whipped Honey" or "Not from Twisty's". Erik can confirm this himself by checking the IP addresses. You fail at insulting people just like you fail at life in general. Take Erik's schwanz out of your mouth and get a life.

Whipped Honey is neither Danielle nor Not from Twisty's nor a man nor a mental case nor nor "AFRAID of the 'useless crusade'".

I support Erik's "useless crusade" to inform people of the truth that homosexual designers make female models look like boys by making them starve themselves almost to death. I oppose Erik's "useless crusade" against those aspects of androgynous female beauty that are natural and harmless to health. I am intrigued by Erik's need to erase androgynous female beauty from the fashion industry and beauty pageants; if he doesn't like it, why doesn't he just ignore it?

One day after I looked at the entire "Attractive Women" gallery, I can distinctly remember the face of only one woman in the whole gallery; like I said, nobody would pay to look at pictures of them fully dressed, but they do have lovely derrières.

> I oppose Erik’s “useless crusade” against those aspects of androgynous female beauty that are natural and harmless to health.

Screw androgyny.
It's religious bigotry.

And read the friggin' "intro"
This site is not about the promotion of Freaks of Nature.

If you don't like it: Park ur ass somewhere else.

Der Wanderer, I read your link.

Religious bigotry? Do you understand what the term bigotry means? How is a belief religious bigotry just because it's different from your belief? My belief is different from yours. Does that make you a bigot?

Do you understand that the same action can have different motives? Gay/bi male fashion designers have an aesthetic/psychosexual preference for androgynous female models. How does that prove that their motive must be the promotion of the tenets of a religion to which most of them do not even belong?

"If you don’t like it: Park ur ass somewhere else."

If Erik does not want any dissent on his blog, then he is free to disable open comments.

Am I the only one that thinks Der Wanderer is secretly gay for Erik? Erik, RUN! We all know how much you despise homos.

Sarah, I also think that Der Arschloch has some some of attraction to Erik. He certainly seems compelled to defend Erik's lame arguments to anyone who disagrees with them. His insults are genrally quite pathetic and his examples are irrelevant and useless but he tries. Trying but failing should count for something.

Der Wanderer: Danielle, “not from Twisty’s” and “whipped honey” are different people. The lowlife who has been bothering me with multiple aliases and foul comments is 8D, not these individuals.

Sarah: I don’t despise homosexuals. Blaming the culprits does not imply that one dislikes the entire community that the culprits belong to.

Danielle:

Quote:

“Karl Largerfeld often says one thing but then does something completely different.”

In other words, bro is being deceptive. Too bad some people fall for it.

Whereas Gemma could have voluntarily skipped Milan, judging by “fat” Gemma Ward above, it is certainly plausible that she was forced out for being “too fat.”

What do you mean that new Russian zombies feel the need to be rail thin? They have to be or else they will lose their jobs. Of course models have been becoming thinner for a while; it is the homosexuals making their presence in the industry more obvious. The issue with adolescent boys isn’t how they typically look since the homosexual designers obviously don’t like fatties. The issue is how boys in their early adolescence normally look. They are normally thin and gangly, and Lily Donaldson is certainly closer to such looks than the other two.

Not from Twisty’s: As far as women are concerned, in Western societies, there is greater stigma against obesity than against thinness. Obese white women have it worse than you, though given the much greater numbers of the obese, there are many scenarios where the obese will not be made fun of in their face.

It is interesting to hear that you have 20% body fat. This means that your musculoskeletal build is on the slight side, apart from your being leg long. Your growing taller past age 20 is also consistent with developing under below average estrogen levels.

If you wanted me to post something on naturally skinny women, then you should write an essay on your story and views, email it to me, and I will post it. It would help greatly if you also attach your pictures. If you are concerned about privacy, blot out/blur your face before sending the pictures or I will do it for you.

Whipped honey: Here is why I am not scared of anything you think scares me.

1. Nonhetersoexual men are not entitled to dominate the fashion industry; one has to earn domination. I agree that the domination is due to the homosexual designers being good at designing, but not due to their excelling at marketing/selling. Plenty of people dislike many aspects of how the industry markets its products, especially the issue of very thin models. If one dominates a business and sells highly desirable items, then one doesn’t have to be good at marketing/selling.

I haven’t pretended to be a champion of women’s self-esteem.

2. The typical person wishes to be well dressed. The products of the fashion industry are marketed to the general public. High fashion caters to the elite, and I do not need to specifically mention that high-fashion merchandize marketing should aim to appease the elite since it is obvious that one markets to potential clients. The choice of the typical high-fashion model does not reflect the need to market to the elite.

3. Agreed that lingerie is sold to women. However, most men and most women aesthetically judge women similarly. In other words, catering to the central tendency of the aesthetic preferences of heterosexual women is the same as catering to the central tendency of the aesthetic preferences of heterosexual men.

4. Most women are not subconsciously/subliminally aroused by androgynous women; see the previous point.

Other points

I haven’t argued that I am primarily motivated by the health of excessively skinny models and the girls and women they influence. I am primarily motivated by aesthetic considerations. This site is aimed toward promoting feminine beauty.

I haven’t been criticizing broad shoulders, big rib cages and flattened backsides. It is necessary for me to point out these features in many models and beauty pageant contestants to bring attention to their masculinization.

I strongly disagree that no one would pay to see feminine beauty in clothes. This is easily disproven by pictures. This shall be the topic of a future article.

When describing feminine features, I haven’t argued that a short nose, petite height or tiny hands and tiny feet are feminine. Height is largely irrelevant to femininity, and femininity is characterized by a slightly shorter nose relative to face size and smaller hands and feet for a given height.

I have explained that this site is targeting people of European ancestry, and hence the focus on white women. My argument isn’t that non-white women are less attractive; see a detailed explanation of why there are no non-white women in the attractive women section.

A sadomasochist orientation is an unambiguous, textbook example of a mental illness. I have previously run into sadomasochists defining mental illnesses in terms of a severe impairment or more obvious psychiatric conditions such as psychoses (colloquially referred to as lunacy or derangement). This is nonsense. There are plenty of non-psychotic mental illnesses and far from major impairment, some mental illnesses may even correspond to enhanced cognitive abilities.

In deciding what conditions constitute mental illnesses, one considers criteria such as statistical prevalence, nature of the condition as in most plausible origin, correlates such as comorbidity and whether the condition by itself poses a risk to the person who has it or others. A sadistic, masochistic or sadomasochistic orientation is uncommon, bizarre, apparently results from prenatal developmental disturbances, is accompanied by increased likelihood of psychiatric morbidity and brain abnormalities, occurs more frequently among people with other bizarre sexual interests, and by itself poses a risk to others (sadists), self (masochists) or both self and others (sadomasochist) regardless of whether the acts are consensual. Whereas any of these correlates by themselves wouldn’t classify the condition as a mental illness, taken together, there is no doubt that a sadistic/masochistic/sadomasochistic orientation is a mental illness. I have no problems acknowledging that people with such an orientation can be mentally lucid, emotionally stable, happy and even productive members of society, but they cannot be healthy because they are mentally ill.

I also have never stated that I believe homosexuals to be mentally ill. It is clear that psychiatric morbidity is much more common among homosexuals and bisexuals than among heterosexuals, but this does not make nonheterosexuals mentally ill.

I haven’t been saying that there will be an aesthetic disaster; there already is an aesthetic disaster.

You have misunderstood my aims. I do not wish for sexualized/glamour/fashion imagery of masculinized/androgynous women to disappear. I wish that there should be a mainstream outlet for feminine beauty appreciation. If there is a single major beauty pageant that focuses on feminine beauty, other beauty pageants can function like they do today for all I care. Similarly, I would like to see alternative fashion industries rather than the present one obliterated/transformed.

Erik, learn the basics of marketing

1. The purpose of marketing is to sell the product and make a profit - not to make people like the marketing. Whether homosexual designers are "excelling at marketing/selling" has nothing to do with whether "plenty of people dislike many aspects of how the industry markets its products". Naomi Wolf, author of "The Beauty Myth", is a perfect example of the fact that very often the people who hate fashion marketing the most absolutely refuse to stop buying the product. It's ridiculous to claim that designers who sell their clothes and make huge profits are not good at marketing just because many people don't "like" the marketing.

2. The typical person wishes to be well dressed according to the standards of his/her demographic: socioeconomic/regional/generational/urban vs suburban vs small town. The products of the fashion industry are marketed to the *niche market* for the particular product. Karl Lagerfeld does not care about the general public because the general public can't afford his clothes. You contradict yourself in admitting that high fashion is marketed to the elite and then claiming that the choice of the typical high-fashion model does not reflect the need to cater to the elite.

3. Marketing doesn't have to cater to the buyer's aesthetic preferences in order to make the buyer buy. Whether or not women who buy lingerie like the way the models look, they're buying anyway.

4. "Most women are not subconsciously/subliminally aroused by androgynous women; see the previous point" which was "most men and most women aesthetically judge women similarly."

Erik, I wrote about what causes women's AROUSAL - not women's AESTHETIC preferences. If you can't see the difference, then you don't realize that one of the basic differences between male and female sexuality is that men's arousal depends heavily on aesthetics and women's arousal is far less dependent on aesthetics. Humphrey Bogart was borderline ugly and far sexier than 90% of the handsome men I have seen.

Most heterosexual women may have an aesthetic preference for feminine women but they are subliminally aroused by androgynous women. Only lesbians, and not even all lesbians, are subliminally aroused by feminine women.

The secret of Victoria's Secret's success is that they choose models who turn straight women on.

Woldn't you agree as well that even 'life-time heterosexual men' would find some masculinity in women as attractive?

Think about it. Many women find a little femininity in men as highly attractive. George Clooney, for example, and Ryan Philippe (not too sure about his name but the man who was married to Reese Witherspoon).

Erik,are you saying that the women who find these men attractive are not 'life-time heterosexual women'?

Oh, by the way Erik, do you respond to all emails that question you about the sender's femininity? Or are you just interested in women who want to send you nudes of themselves to post on your site? Maybe that is why you skipped my message. I sent photos but they were mostly of my face. I deleted my sent box so I no longer have the last message I sent. It was a while ago, mostly when I thought you had more crediblity in judging femininity.

Erik's Statistical Analysis is 100% Bullsh!t

Sarah: Please do not do yourself the disservice of asking Erik to assess your feminity. Erik's self-proclaimed expertise on femininity is a charade dependent on one of the easiest tricks in data analysis chicanery: presenting minor deviations from the norm as if they were extremes.

I have been a semiconductor fabricator statistical process control analyst, so I know statistical extrapolation distortion when I see it. Anyone who works in data analysis and interprets data the way Erik does will very quickly get fired.

Erik's "science" consists of presenting the physical signs of female testosterone levels that are *moderately* higher than the mean and female estrogen levels that are *moderately* lower lower than the mean as proof of "masculinization". Look at the actual numbers in his data and you will find that the range of variation is small.

For example, on this page, he states:
"WHRs of 0.71 and 0.68 may not sound that different, but see the discussion of the data provided by Tovee et al. in Table 1 here."
If you follow the link on the word "here", there is no real explanation for why WHRs (waist-to-hip ratios) that are only 3 percentage points apart should be considered very different.

A variation of three percentage points from the mean is statistically irrelevant and WITHIN NORMAL RANGE. Almost every "masculinized" woman I have seen so far on this website is WITHIN NORMAL RANGE.

The only reason some, not all, of the "masculinized" fashion models on this website actually look masculine is that they are emaciated and severe malnourishment destroys the outward signs of secondary sex characteristics in both men and women.

Actor Christian Bale for his role in "The Machinist" starved his 6 foot, 1 and one quarter inch frame down to 120 pounds, and so he lost all muscle mass and looked girly:
Emaciated, effeminate Christian Bale
Healthy, masculine Christian Bale

Likewise, contrast Gemma Ward at different weights:
Healthy weight, feminine Gemma Ward in the left-hand photograph in the first set of photographs on this page, vs:
Excessively skinny, boyish Gemma Ward

Gemma Ward shows signs of hormonal masculinity, but only when her hormones are combined with excessively low body weight does she actually *look* overtly masculine. Erik is counting on you not to figure out the difference and therefore believe that a woman who is moderately hormonally masculine is MASCULINE.

In statistics this is called failing to control for variables, and it automatically renders the conclusions inaccurate and scientifically useless.

Take it from me as a former statistics professional who worked for IBM and Toshiba: Erik's numbers may be true for all I know, but Erik's interpretation of the MEANING of those numbers is 100% lies. And like most dishonest statisticians, Erik relies on excessive windbag wordiness (yes, every set of numbers really *needs* a whole frigging soliloquy of elaborate explanation) to make the reader weary of trying to follow his train of thought and hide the fact that he's talking out of his ass.

Erik's Statistical Analysis is 100% Bullsh!t, One Correction

I should have written:
Healthy weight, feminine Gemma Ward in the RIGHT-hand photograph in the first set of photographs on this page, vs:

Of course, the lef-hand photograph in the first set of photographs on this page is Lily Donaldson looking like she's about to drop dead.

Sarah: I have stated that slight masculinization in women will usually not be an aesthetic problem and is a correlate of their sexiness to men.

When it comes to face shape in men, studies have shown women's preferences ranging from slight femininity to above average masculinization; there is no clear find, but the consensus is that women generally prefer above average masculine physiques in men. So it does not follow that many women prefer a little femininity in men. Women least likely to prefer some level of facial femininity in men are those who are close to ovulation and the attractive ones. I know that there are some effeminate men who become heart throbs of millions of teenage girls/young women, but these women are mostly ordinary women/plain Janes, not the feminine and attractive ones (who prefer masculine men).

I have already told you that I respond to all emails if a reply is needed. I have responded to all queries regarding how feminine a woman is except a recent email that I haven’t gotten around to yet, but this woman is not you. I haven’t received any emails from you. I also don’t believe that you sent me your pictures for analysis.

Waena/Whipped honey: Once again, the fashion industry sells highly desirable items. Naomi Wolf needs to make herself presentable in high society, i.e., well dressed at the very least, and it will be most convenient for her to purchase designer clothing and hence patronize the industry she dislikes rather than try to stitch together good looking clothes herself. So if the homosexual designers can get feminists to purchase some of their products, you bet they don’t need special marketing/selling skills to target other customers. When they use models whose looks displease/fail to impress most people, then this is not an example of good marketing, but they don’t need to market well; their domination of the industry allows them to get away with it. In your third point, you have acknowledged that here are some scenarios where marketing need not cater to the customers’ aesthetic preferences, but this goes against your earlier implicit argument that the looks of fashion models reflect marketing considerations.

I am not contradicting myself by saying that high fashion is marketed to the elite but the choice of the typical high-fashion model does not reflect the preferences of the elite. What evidence is there that the elite prefer women in the more masculine range? Most studies that have assessed people’s preference regarding femininity in women have used college students as judges, a demographic that has higher than average socioeconomic status (SES), and these studies have not revealed a correlation of femininity preferences with SES.

Where is your evidence that women are subliminally aroused by androgynous women? How is it possible to “turn on straight women” by using women?

Don’t accuse me of faulty statistical analysis. If you have a background in science, then you should realize that a 3% deviation cannot just be dismissed as statistically irrelevant. The relevance is decided by the matter under consideration. In chaotic systems, a 3% deviation in initial conditions can result in a strikingly different outcome. If you were launching a rocket toward the moon, a 3% error in some calculations will make the rocket miss the moon by a distance greater than the moon’s diameter, and so on.

It is also interesting to note that in spite of an apparently decent background in science/statistics, you have interpreted a difference between a WHR of 0.68 and 0.71 as one of 3%. 0.71 is 4.4% higher than 0.68 (taking 0.68 as base). More importantly, you have to consider the range of WHRs found in women. For instance, you don’t see WHRs of 0.3. Nearly all young adult women will fit within a WHR range of 0.6 – 1.0. A WHR difference of 0.03 will be 7.5% of this range. If you were to sample, say, female college students, a good baseline reference for fashion vs. glamour model comparisons, you may get something like a normally distributed WHR range of 0.64-0.84 with a mean of 0.74 and standard deviation of 0.04 (example here), which would make a 0.3 WHR difference equal 0.75 standard deviations. Don’t you think a 0.75 S.D. difference matters?

I have explained the difference between the reported WHR of fashion and glamour models. High-fashion models are bound to have a low circumferential waist measurement as a result of their skinniness, but their smaller breasts means that they have broader rib cages for a given hip size, and a broader rib cage will horizontally stretch the waist in front view, which is important to an hourglass approximation. This is how glamour models and high-fashion models can look much more different than what a superficial examination of crude reported circumferential measurements suggests. If you look around this site, you will also encounter information on masculinization in many Playboy centerfolds, the source of the glamour models in the table. So Playboy is hardly a source of feminine beauty in the first place.

Is emaciation responsible for masculine looks? Look at this woman and ask yourself if she looks masculine. Your images of Christian Bale don’t help assess his masculinity. Even an effeminate men can develop large muscles by taking anabolic androgenic steroids. Skeletal proportions would be a clue, but your pictures don't help. Search for more of his pictures. Take a look at his skeletal proportions (shoulder width/hip width); he isn't masculine [among men]. The picture of Gemma Ward shown above is recent, whereas the one you pointed out is an earlier picture. Gemma Ward is in her early twenties presently but started out when she was 15. Her hips are bound to grow wider, but note her broad shoulders/broad rib cage and face; how is this feminine?

Erik, It is really lame to say that models are getting skinnier because gay designers are making their presence more obvious. Fashion insiders have known about the sexualities of various prominent designers since the beginning of the industry. The supermodels of the early 80s and early to mid 90s look nothing like the girls of today. You are saying that, for some reason, gay designers developed an appetite for pubescent boys in the late nineties. Your explanations suck, Erik. You can manipulate your collected data to serve your purposes but when the time comes to apply them to the high fashion industry you fail miserably. You know nothing about high fashion or the people who design it so your hypotheses are always ridiculous.

from left to right: Nadja Auermann, Christy Turlington, Claudia Schiffer, Cindy Crawford, Stephanie Seymour

Erik, get this through your head: The ONLY measure of good marketing is whether the product sells and makes a profit!

If designers sell and make a profit while "they use models whose looks displease/fail to impress most people", then that IS "an example of good marketing".

Your silly idea that marketing is supposed to make people "like" it makes it clear that you have never worked in sales. Anyone who has worked in sales can tell you that sometimes the most effective advertising actually makes the viewer uncomfortable.

No, I did not go against my argument in my third point, because both are true: the looks of fashion models reflect marketing considerations, AND there are some scenarios where marketing need not cater to the customers’ aesthetic preferences. There is no contradiction between the two because sometimes the best way to appeal to marketing considerations is to go against customers' aesthetic preferences. Sometimes customers respond more to being shocked or jarred than to being aesthetically pleased.

College students may have only slightly higher than average or even lower than average socioeconomic status in America where 40% of the population has college degrees. College students in general are not the elite to which the high fashion industry caters; most of them cannot afford the clothes.

Your insistence that "most people" should be the focus of the marketing of products that "most people" can't even afford is seriously irrational.

What women want in a lingerie model

"What evidence is there that the elite prefer women in the more masculine range?"

One more time: What sells may not have anything to do with the aesthetic preference of the buyer. Women in the elite belong to a socioeconomic culture that, in general and with the exception of anomalous places like Los Angeles, regards public displays of overt sexuality as socially unacceptable lower-class behavior. Elite women, and middle class women who want to think of themselves as part of the elite, pride themselves on being more ladylike in public than working class women, regardless of how they behave behind closed doors. Elite and aspiring-elite women want lingerie models who reflect their preferred sexual self-image: sexually private, reserved, dignified, subtle, selective, rarified, UNAVAILABLE TO THE AVERAGE MALE.

The kind of lingerie models you want lingerie catalogues to use project the polar opposite of those qualities. Their *invitation* to the male viewer, their overt sexuality, is exactly what women buy Victoria's Secret and La Perla to feel different from.

Women in the elite do not necessarily find women in the "masculine range" more attractive, but they do find them far more acceptable for lingerie catalogues, because their moderate, not-extreme female secondary sex characteristics makes their sexuality subtle enough for genteel women to be comfortable with seeing them semi-nude.

Many heterosexual women feel a visceral reaction to the signs of masculinity in a man, and a weaker, more subliminal reaction to those same signs in a woman.

How it is possible for women to turn on straight women

"Where is your evidence that women are subliminally aroused by androgynous women? How is it possible to “turn on straight women” by using women?"

Heterosexual women are sexually aroused by the physical signs of masculinity. The physical signs of masculinity can exist in both men and (to a much lesser extent) women.

Arousal and desire are two different things. Arousal is the state of feeling turned on, to whatever degree, great or small. Desire is the longing for actual sexual contact. A heterosexual woman feels desire only for men. A heterosexual woman can feel arousal by both men and women. The difference between arousal and desire may be hard for men to understand because men automatically feel desire for anyone who arouses them.

I read somewhere, and I cannot remember where, that there was a study that proved women are more turned on by music than by pornography. Only a man would be surprised by that. Most women have at least one experience of becoming sexually aroused while listening to music, without sex or masturbation, without another person present, without looking at a photograph of another person, aroused by the music itself. It's not even possible for a woman to have sex with a song. Women can be turned on by things they cannot or do not want to have sex with.

The effect that androgynous women have on heterosexual women is so subliminal, so under the radar, that most of them do not even recognize it for what it is. They are much more aroused by men, but being heterosexual women, with very rare exceptions they do not want to see men in women's clothes because they are repulsed by or at best indifferent to men wearing the accoutrements of femininity. An androgynous female model in beautiful women's clothes gives them both aesthetic pleasure and subliminal sexual stimulation.

Proof? Nobody will do a real scientific study of this subject since the standard line in academia is that fashion and lingerie models are to be blamed for making women feel bad about their bodies or for encouraging the "objectification" of women.

Erik's Statistical Analysis is 100% Bullsh!t, Part III

Quote:

"Don't accuse me of faulty statistical analysis. If you have a background in science, then you should realize that a 3% deviation cannot just be dismissed as statistically irrelevant. The relevance is decided by the matter under consideration."

In the manner under consideration, waist to hip ratio, the difference between 0.68 and 0.71 is not huge or even big.

Quote:

"It is also interesting to note that in spite of an apparently decent background in science/statistics, you have interpreted a difference between a WHR of 0.68 and 0.71 as one of 3%. 0.71 is 4.4% higher than 0.68 (taking 0.68 as base)."

You know damn well I was not taking 0.68 as a base and determining what percentage 0.03 is of 0.68. You know damn well I was looking at the whole 100 point range and seeing that the difference between 0.68 and 0.71 is 0.03. Anybody who passed 7th grade math and thinks about it for twenty seconds knows what I meant. If you are going to try to discredit my knowledge of statistics you better try much harder than a simple and obvious arithmetic trick.

Quote:

"If you were to sample, say, female college students, a good baseline reference for fashion vs. glamour model comparisons, you may get something like a normally distributed WHR range of 0.64-0.84 with a mean of 0.74 and standard deviation of 0.04 (example here), which would make a 0.3 WHR difference equal 0.75 standard deviations. Don't you think a 0.75 S.D. difference matters?"

Erik meant a 0.03 WHR difference, not a 0.3 WHR difference, for the benefit of anyone who reads this.

Whether a 0.75 standard deviation "matters" is entirely subjective; it depends whether you personally care. What is objective, and what you yourself have explicitly admitted, is that a 0.75 standard deviation is still well within the normal range. Quote from you: "a normally distributed WHR range of 0.64-0.84".

ERIK, YOU JUST ADMITTED THAT THE "MASCULINIZED" 0.71 WHR (WAIST-HIP RATIO) IS WELL WITHIN THE NORMAL RANGE! IT IS NOT EVEN CLOSE TO THE HIGHEST END OF THE NORMAL RANGE, 0.84, LET ALONE OUTSIDE THE NORMAL RANGE!

EVERYBODY PAY ATTENTION: ERIK SCREWED UP AND ADMITTED THAT ONE OF THE WOMEN'S CHARACTERISTICS HE CALLS "MASCULINIZED" IS WELL WITHIN NORMAL RANGE!

ALMOST ALL OF THE WOMEN'S CHARACTERISTICS ERIK CALLS "MASCULINIZED" ARE WELL WITHIN NORMAL RANGE.

Danielle: Do not confound supermodels with regular high-fashion models. Supermodels have attained enough status to afford to somewhat deviate from the norm. It is true that the 1990s supermodels weren’t as thin as regular high-fashion models today, but high-fashion models in the 1990s were generally thinner than the supermodels, and the homosexual influence is still obvious in the general skeletal proportions of the 1990s supermodels. See face close-ups of the five women you mentioned, in the same order. I have already addressed the fact that with increasing tolerance of homosexuality in the latter half of the twentieth century, the influence of homosexuals in the industry became more obvious in terms of high-fashion models becoming thinner and more masculine. So it isn’t that the homosexuals have developed their aesthetic tastes recently, but they have been able to make it more obvious with increasing tolerance of homosexuality in the general public.

Whipped Honey :
I know you won't take a second thought about my comment, but really, I don't believe you. You should really have to produced proof for that theory.The unconscious arousal of hetero woman by androgynous one. Some brain detector examination, maybe. I know people lie, but brains don't, and it would show, if it is true, what you say. But I don't lie to myself, if I was subconsciously aroused, I would know somehow, wouldn't I? I know a woman can be aroused by many attractive men, but then she doesn't necessary desire them, and as far as music goes, that is sooooo true, I give you credit for that, but androgynous women, NO. They don't even look masculine enough, just ugly, deformed, sometimes like cute boys, but not enough to make me aroused.I am only repulsed after watching them.
Androgynous fashion models don't convey to me message of "sexually private, reserved, dignified, subtle, selective, rarified, UNAVAILABLE TO THE AVERAGE MALE" .....BOLONEY, I know so many of them, women with such ANDROGYNOUS looks, and THEY ARE THE ONES THAT ARE THE LEAST PICKY ABOUT DISPOSABLE MEN. THEY CHASE THEM, NOTHING LADYLIKE.BUT MEN CHASE THOSE LADYLIKE FEMININE ONES, AND THEY ARE VERY PICKY ABOUT MEN, WITHOUT EXCEPTION.
BELIEVE IT OR NOT.

Must correct myself: 'You really should have produced the proof.....'
And, yeah, some of them look manly to pass as man, facialy, but then they are too ugly for me to make me aroused.

PROOF THAT HETEROSEXUAL WOMEN ARE AROUSED BY OTHER WOMEN

"A Sex Difference in the Specificity of Sexual Arousal" by J. Michael Bailey, professor and chair of psychology at Northwestern University

If you're interested, read the full article and learn how the study controlled for variables. Here, I will quote key points:
Quote:

Three decades of research on men's sexual arousal show patterns that clearly track sexual orientation -- gay men overwhelmingly become sexually aroused by images of men and heterosexual men by images of women...

But a new Northwestern University study boosts the relatively limited research on women's sexuality with a surprisingly different finding regarding women's sexual arousal.

In contrast to men, both heterosexual and lesbian women tend to become sexually aroused by both male and female erotica, and, thus, have a bisexual arousal pattern...

the scant research on the subject does hint that, compared with men, women's sexual arousal patterns may be less tightly connected to their sexual orientation...

The Northwestern researchers measured the psychological and physiological sexual arousal in homosexual and heterosexual men and women as they watched erotic films. There were three types of erotic films: those featuring only men, those featuring only women and those featuring male and female couples. As with previous research, the researchers found that men responded consistent with their sexual
orientations. In contrast, both homosexual and heterosexual women showed a bisexual pattern of psychological as well as genital arousal. That is, heterosexual women were just as sexually aroused by watching female stimuli as by watching male stimuli, even though they prefer having sex with men rather than women...

"The fact that women's sexual arousal patterns are not all predicted by their sexual orientations suggests that men's and women's minds and brains are very different," Bailey said.

Pornographic films are a MUCH stronger sexual stimulant than photographs or film footage of women in clothes or lingerie, so the corresponding sexual arousal would have to be MUCH weaker. In other words, heterosexual women looking at women in pornographic films get clearly gentially aroused, while heterosexual women looking at women in clothes or lingerie get only subliminally/subconsciously aroused. No, I'm not claiming straight women get wet looking at fashion magazines. Please try to understand what I am saying.

Bron: You wrote: "But I don’t lie to myself, if I was subconsciously aroused, I would know somehow, wouldn’t I?"

The conscious mind does not know most of the content of the subconscious mind. For instance, every moment of your life is recorded in your subconscious memory. Your conscious mind cannot possibly store that much information. Hypnosis has proven successful in unearthing verifiable, accurate subconscious memories that had been totally lost to the conscious mind.

Subliminal advertising works because it triggers subconscious responses of which we are not even aware.

Bron, I am not accusing you of lying. It is not dishonesty; it is simply unawareness. I am not accusing you, or any other heterosexual woman, of wanting to have sex with women. The study makes it clear that, as I said, arousal and desire are two different things.

"I know a woman can be aroused by many attractive men, but then she doesn’t necessary desire them, and as far as music goes, that is sooooo true, I give you credit for that, but androgynous women, NO... I am only repulsed after watching them."

In this context, by arousal I mean not overt genital arousal but mild, extremely slight, subliminal arousal. You may very well be repulsed by androgynous women, but repulsion and arousal are not entirely mutually exclusive. Repulsion is an *emotional* reaction; arousal is a *physiological* phenomenon.

"Androgynous fashion models don’t convey to me message of “sexually private, reserved, dignified, subtle, selective, rarified, UNAVAILABLE TO THE AVERAGE MALE” .....BOLONEY, I know so many of them, women with such ANDROGYNOUS looks, and THEY ARE THE ONES THAT ARE THE LEAST PICKY ABOUT DISPOSABLE MEN."

Image vs Reality. You are not fooled by the image because you have seen the reality. Most women have not.

You know many androgynous fashion models so you know that their image - sexually private, reserved, dignified, subtle, selective, rarified, UNAVAILABLE TO THE AVERAGE MALE - is very often different from their reality - often, not always, promiscuous and undiscriminating. Those who know many female porn stars know that their image - sexually voracious and unable to get enough - is very often different from their reality - often, not always, low libido, sometimes even totally frigid women who regard sex as business, not pleasure.

Advertising is about image, not reality.

Erik, It’s funny that you are using my "status" argument, which you tried to shrug off earlier in this post. You have not proven that these supermodels deviated from the high fashion norm of the eighties and early nineties. Every woman there, with the exception of Cindy Crawford, is an example of a typical high fashion model body in that era.
You cannot prove that the public became more accepting of homosexuality in the late nineties when the models started to get emaciated. There was no big difference between how gay men were viewed in 1998 and how they are viewed now. Your hypotheses are still ridiculous.

Those close ups you provided only show that the homosexuals have a much better idea of what a beautiful woman looks like than you do.

Compare:




with the sloppy hoes from your “attractive women” section:




You really think you can criticize anyone’s aesthetic? People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.

That bunch of supermodels from 1990s were never as pretty as on those covers from previous post. NEVER. They were not remotely as girlie. Claudia made trillions of photos and on every photo she is showing the same angle of her face, just to hide her ugly chin and make her hideous eyes less apparent, they are so close together as if they are going to melt into single eye and she can become cyclopes' bride. Cyndy always looked as cow, manly, ugly face. Couldn't stand the sight of her. And Christy has really fat lips and sloppy nose, (which is not visible on that photo above), it also reminds me of some kind of bovine. So overrated, all of them. I remember I've read somewhere, that even Lagerfeld, who pushed Claudia previously, later called her 'APPARITION FROM THE PAST' (or monster, I am not sure, that is rendering from my language). Photos of their faces from link are much more accurate and they show their pathetic looks.

Whipped Honey:
I still miss something, that research you posted prooves what I already knew, and I apologize if I disengaged myself from it; namely that 'heterosexual women tend to become sexually arouse by both male and female erotica'... so, by female erotica, that I can trace in my mind, regardless of how subtle it may be: because images of nudity remind a person of sexual act, and that is understandable, even if it isn't so apparent, but subtle reminder and so forth subtle arousal, but that is when you see desirable, beautiful, healthy human shape. Androgynous female bodies in lingerie are not erotic images for me, and that research prooves nothing in the sense that heterosexual women get more aroused by androgynous women than by feminine ones. Quite the opposite.

I must sound naive to you, but you should know that I've read a lot of literature about subconsciousness years ago and I know what that is, and I also know, that it does manifest itself. So being the quiet, meditative person, I am acquainted with self analysis, 'self examining of heart'; and every physiological change of mood, emotional disturbance or mental itch, that is not conscious, I break down and analyse, every chance I get (if I have a peace and quiet), and must say I successfuly trace the source steming from subconsciousness.

Hey Danielle, you should really click the link to Anna S.'s photos because even if that photo of hers you posted is crappy, she really is pretty. You should not judge her looks based on that single photo without seeing all of her other better looking photos.

Bron, it's clear that you don't like how the supermodels looked. I find it funny that you had so much negative stuff to say about the looks of the supers and very little to say about Erik's "attractive women".

I don't believe that the majority or even a large group of people find Cindy Crawford, Christy Turlington and Claudia Schiffer unattractive. Cindy and Claudia were superstars both in the high fashion world and in the general media.

Calling someone an "apparition form the past" isn't really insulting maybe you meant aberration.

I don't know why Christy's "sloppy nose and fat lips" would not be visible in an almost full frontal picture of her face.

Claudia took plenty of pictures from different angles.



Her eyes aren't extremely close together. They aren't much closer than the eyes of Erik's "models".

Brenda, I have seen the other pictures of Anna S. and I don't think she is very pretty.

Whipped honey: Buyers are not prompted to buy clothes because fashion imagery makes them uncomfortable. It should be clear that marketing skills are of little relevance when you are selling well-desired items and people do not have alternatives. In the case of clothing, pleasing imagery will generally be more likely to prompt a buyer to purchase the clothes than displeasing imagery. The choice of models does not reflect marketing considerations, period. Sales are not a measure of effective marketing when you are operating under monopoly-like conditions and selling necessities or close.

The point about college students wasn’t just their higher than average SES, but that there is no indication of a correlation between femininity preferences and SES in the college student samples. Some college students are very rich, others middle class and some even lower class. There is no evidence that college students from rich backgrounds generally prefer masculinized women.

How can you believe what you wrote about what women want in a lingerie model? Women wear lingerie in private, and do I need to state what the typical purpose is? Do you seriously believe that having lingerie models with masculine characteristics so that they suggest a reserved sexuality that is unavailable to the average male is in anyway consistent with the typical purpose of wearing lingerie?

Heterosexual women are no more subliminally aroused by masculinization in women because they are attracted to masculine characteristics in men than heterosexual men are subliminally attracted to feminine characteristics in men because they are attractive to feminine women. It appears that you have a homosexual component to your attractions and are extrapolating it to others. You have described yourself as being into S&M. Homosexual and bisexual women are overrepresented among those into S&M.

Your study by Bailey, Chivers and others doesn’t prove that heterosexual women are sexually aroused by women. These authors did a subsequent study where they exposed women to footage of monkeys or apes having sex and also non-sexual stimuli. Guess what happened? The women displayed “sexual arousal” to the monkey porn but not the non-sexual stimuli. Are you going to say that women are aroused by monkeys and apes, too? The fact is that the vaginal response in these studies cannot be described as indicative of genital/sexual arousal, though the authors unjustifiably use this label; it is just a genital response not indicative of sexual arousal.

Your references to the subconscious recording of everyday events, recovery of past memory through hypnosis and subliminal programming have been debunked in the psychological literature. Start with the work of Elizabeth Loftus.

I have a typo in the statistics part, namely writing 0.3 instead of 0.03, which you have noted, but this is a minor issue. Of course you were taking the whole 100-point range into account when describing the difference as a 3% difference, but what is the point of considering this range? What proportion of women have a WHR below 0.5? The entire 100-point range is meaningless. And when I talked about the normally distributed range, I was talking about a Gaussian distribution/bell curve, not the colloquial normality that you have inferred! What kind of a statistician are you?

I have never described a 0.72 WHR as outside the normal range or something that is masculine. Among women, a WHR of 0.72 would fall below the 50th percentile and couldn’t be described as something in the masculine range. The reported average WHRs of the top-50 fashion models shown within this site is about 0.7, but do these women look feminine on average? You do not infer masculinization from a single feature but overall looks. I have also pointed out the issue of a low waist circumference by virtue of thinness and a broad rib cage stretching out the waist in front view in high-fashion models, i.e., the circumferential measurements should be interpreted with caution. I haven’t been equating just about any level of above average masculinization with developmental or statistical abnormality. However, a 0.75 S.D. higher average WHR in the case of fashion models is obviously more masculine than in ethnicity-matched glamour models.

Danielle:
First photo you posted now, is scary enough for me.
Vast majority of Claudia's photos were showing the same angle as your third photo with cigar. A little girl, my sister collected them,every one she saw and I remember, she posed the same on every photo, frontal was very rare.She saw her as goddess. At the end of 1990s, Claudia came into our country, we could see her in person. Then this girl said that she just can't understand what she saw in her, that she wasn't beautiful at all. I never saw a difference. Danielle, honestly, CLAUDIA IS SCARY. HER EYES ARE EXTREMELY CLOSE TOGETHER, How much closer could they be?? I am not saying she is the exception of human kind, but that is not beauty. Other people notice it too. And she has double chin. Every other person I knew at that time said SHE ISN'T BEAUTIFUL AT ALL, true, they said she isn't ugly either.And she was really big at that time, household name, everyone knew her, and were oblivious of other supermodels.
Don't talk to me about Cindy, I saw enough of her in live shows , she looks like cow, half of her face is her jaw. Macho. And large group of people take what you give them, they are no reference for me. One commenter on youtube asked: "who is she,... I hear much of her,... she looks like some ex celebrity prostitute." (something like that)
I always thought Erik's women are ugly,or unattractive, with some exceptions, but I also think that you hate them so much, that you don't see they are no uglier than supermodels, they look at least softer, more gracile. And many of them have super bodies.

Maybe I will post some pictures

Oh ignore that double chin, it is something else, very square chin maybe, looks very robust sometimes.

And I don't know which words Lagerfeld used, I didn't read it in English, but the article said how he insulted her, and that people on the streets and in pubs DON'T DARE to give remarks about her looks, she is too rich.

Homosexual Designers Do Not Have a Monopoly

"Sales are not a measure of effective marketing when you are operating under monopoly-like conditions and selling necessities or close."

mo·nop·o·ly
1 : exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action
2 : exclusive possession or control
3 : a commodity controlled by one party
4 : one that has a monopoly

To prove that homosexual designers have a monopoly, you would have to prove that they have legal priveleges that heterosexual designers don't have, or that they have command of the supply or exclusive possession or control of either the necessities for fashion design, such as fabrics and garment factories, or the necessities for fashion marketing, such as advertising space in magazines and television commercials. They have none of those things.

The term monopoly has been distorted to mean market dominance, and that is not what it means. Dominating a market through preventing the competition from having access to sufficient amounts of the necessities for producing and effectively selling the product is a monopoly. Dominating a market through producing goods more in demand than one's competitor's goods is not a monopoly.

What exactly do homosexual designers have exclusive ownership, command of supply, or exclusive possession or control of - besides their own TALENT? More talent is NOT a monopoly!

bron, I know that you don't think Claudia Schiffer is attractive but I am not seeing any evidence of "cyclops eyes" in any of her photos or videos. She has strong features like many models do, that includes a prominent jaw. I don't think her jaw takes anything away from her overall attractiveness. She looks like warm dog food now but I think she used to be rather good looking. Full frontal pictures of her face are very common as well.


The tip of christy's nose doesn't touch her upper lip. The angle of that picture makes her nose and her lips look close to each other but everyone's lips streches closer to their noses when they smile widely.


If the tip of her nose came close to touching her lips you would be able to see that in these images.

I think she is pretty.

I don't hate Erik's "models" but I do think most of them are plain or ugly. I don't think very much of their bodies. Most of them are curvy but I think someone's body can look good whether or not they have a tiny waist. I don't usually like the "soft" look on women. It looks weak and is rather uninteresting.

The Difference Between a Product's Marketing Appeal and a Product's Real Purpose of Use

Erik wrote:
"How can you believe what you wrote about what women want in a lingerie model? Women wear lingerie in private, and do I need to state what the typical purpose is? Do you seriously believe that having lingerie models with masculine characteristics so that they suggest a reserved sexuality that is unavailable to the average male is in anyway consistent with the typical purpose of wearing lingerie?"

Erik, your mistake is that you assume that marketing always works by presenting the product for its actual purpose of use. Marketing often works by presenting the product for the buyer's fantasy, which may have little or nothing to do with the product's purpose of use.

For example, the Virginia Slims women's cigarette advertising campaign with the slogan "You've come a long way, baby" showed black and white photographs of scenes of life in the 19th or early 20th centuries contrasted with color photographs of contemporary women enjoying current technology or opportunity. The marketing appeal was the buyer's fantasy that her smoking habit proved she was modern and liberated and so much freer than her female ancestors. Of course, the real purpose of use of cigarettes is to enable nicotine addicts to avoid the horrible withdrawal, but who would buy a brand of cigarettes with ads that say, "You better smoke now before you start getting headaches and cold sweats, baby"?

The fantasy of the elite or aspiring-elite woman who buys lingerie is that she is a kind of sexual rare flower, both highly desirable and exclusively available only to men she deems worthy of her. Her man's fantasy may be just the opposite, he may fantasize that his woman in lingerie is a prostitute and he's customer number 512, but the one who buys the lingerie is usually her, not him, so the marketing targets her fantasy, not his.

PROOF THAT HETEROSEXUAL WOMEN ARE AROUSED BY OTHER WOMEN, PART II

Erik, you are now flat-out lying about Bayley's and Chivers' research results.

"Your study by Bailey, Chivers and others doesn’t prove that heterosexual women are sexually aroused by women. These authors did a subsequent study where they exposed women to footage of monkeys or apes having sex and also non-sexual stimuli. Guess what happened? The women displayed “sexual arousal” to the monkey porn but not the non-sexual stimuli."

Here is the truth about Bayley's and Chivers' subsequent study:
Quote:

Eighteen heterosexual women and 18 heterosexual men viewed seven sexual film stimuli, six human films and one nonhuman primate film

Erik, how did you turn "sexual film stimuli, six human films" into "non-sexual stimuli"?
Quote:

Women showed small increases in genital arousal to the nonhuman stimulus and large increases in genital arousal to both human male and female stimuli. Men did not show any genital arousal to the nonhuman stimulus and demonstrated a category-specific pattern of arousal to the human stimuli that corresponded to their stated sexual orientation.

Erik, how did you turn "Women showed... large increases in genital arousal to both human male and female stimuli" into "women displayed 'sexual arousal' to the monkey porn but not the non-sexual stimuli"?

"Are you going to say that women are aroused by monkeys and apes, too?"

The women in the study showed "small increases in genital arousal" when watching primate porn, so apparently, the answer is yes, but only a little.

"The fact is that the vaginal response in these studies cannot be described as indicative of genital/sexual arousal, though the authors unjustifiably use this label; it is just a genital response not indicative of sexual arousal."

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

Erik, you just made me laugh out loud. The study measured and documented the known, verifiable physiological signs of female genital sexual arousal, but because the women were slightly turned on by something you don't like the idea of women being turned on by, primate porn, you decide their measured, documented genital arousal is "just a genital response not indicative of sexual arousal"?

The men were not at all aroused by primate porn, but the women were slightly aroused by it; further proof of the conclusion of the first study: Men are aroused only by whatever they want to have sex with, but women are aroused even by things they don't want to have sex with.

Wow, I completely messed up the formatting on my previous post. I somehow even managed to underline my by-line! How did I do that?

Sorry. I would add a blush-with-embarrassment smiley, but even the smileys won't work for me.

Erik, I want to respond further to your reply to me, but for some reason every time I open this page, the heading "Post a Comment" and and the links "Smileys" and "Comment formatting guidelines" are underlined and the result, as seen in my previous post, is that my entire post, even the by-line, is going to appear underlined. Please post and tell me how I can fix this. Thank you.

Whipped honey: The formatting problem is fixed. You didn't close the underline formatting command, making everything below underlined. Preview before posting. The smiley problem was a coding fault by me. Sorry about it; the smileys should now work. I will reply later.

Danielle
The photos I posted show the reality, yours don't. I've seen a lot of them in motion/videos and many photos, they have such shortcomings and repulsiveness. But you won't admit it. Claudia's photos you always post are so unrealistic, sure she looks good when she is made to look like somebody else, angles of posing to shorten her face, maybe stretching horizontaly, whatever the technique, softening the angles; how could she change so much in 10 years, to evolve in such creature?
http://www.zabra.si/tmp_web/freaks/str.jpg
http://www.zabra.si/tmp_web/freaks/stern.jpg
http://www.zabra.si/tmp_web/freaks/claudia22006.jpg
http://www.zabra.si/tmp_web/freaks/LTgw.jpg

Proportions don't change so much. She is not even old chronologicaly in this moment as we speak. If you wanted, you could see evidence of her cyclopes eyes, it is visible. Maybe some comparison with average unattractive people would help:
http://www.zabra.si/tmp_web/freaks/LOrealgirls255031497.jpg
http://www.zabra.si/tmp_web/freaks/052107.jpg
http://www.zabra.si/tmp_web/freaks/claudia1.jpg
http://www.zabra.si/tmp_web/freaks/claudia1_big.jpg
http://www.zabra.si/tmp_web/freaks/claudia2.jpg

And Christy is just so plain repugnant, I know many girls, who just hate their features, which they share with Christy, not that they wouldn't want to be famous like her. But women who have such nose and lips, hate it, want to alter it. And that long face (distance between her eyes and tip of nose). Honestly, I would hate to look like her.

Woman should be soft and tender, not some android. I like to look weak, and it is very interesting to sooo many people, not men exclusively. If beautiful, the face is beyond being merely interesting, it is all the superlatives, cause it is rarity, gem.
Weak or fragile look takes nothing away from it's overall attractiveness.

If I stop replying, it won't be cause you changed my mind. You can't.It won't help you either if you keep on putting on sweetest airbrushed altered photos of theirs, but there won't be many more of them.
You are obviously determined to lie yourself, and I have more important things to do in my life.

Oh yeah, these photos I posted are also very kind to her, it is not like she just happened to wake up and was photographed.

LOL bron, I'm not lying to myself about anything. You keep bringing anecdotal "evidence" into your posts and expect that that will convince me. You are the one who is lying to yourself.

I did not post any candids of her because I could not find any candid pictures of her when she was in her prime during her early twenties. The candids you have shown are displaying a much older woman than the one in my photos. She's about 37 right now and if those pictures are recent then it would not be fair to use them. I am still not seeing any evidence of "Cyclops" eyes.

I am honestly supposed to believe that you know a whole lot of women who supposedly look like Christy and they all want to change their features. Whatever! I still believe that she is beautiful and you pictorial "evidence" did nothing to disprove that.

We clearly have a different aesthetic sense of what is beautiful. I don't think women should be "soft and tender". Women can look good when they are tall and strong. I don't think weakness is attractive in anyone. I find strength and confidence attractive.

Your arguments are very weak so you can't convince anyone of anything. I agree that you are wasting your time.

Danielle: What do you mean that I am using your ‘“status” argument’? You didn’t read carefully enough the study cited at the link about the homosexual influence in the 20th century. In this study, the average BMI of high-fashion models in the 1990s was 17.8 and in another study of 300 fashion models published in 1997, the average BMI was 17.57. The 1990s supermodels were obviously heavier. Cindy Crawford was known for being quite muscular and “voluptuous” by high-fashion modeling standards.

The public didn’t become more tolerant of homosexuals all of a sudden. It has been a gradual process in the latter half of the twentieth century. Here are two references:

Quote:

Avery, A., Chase, J., Johansson, L., Litvak, S., Montero, D., & Wydra, M. (2007). America's changing attitudes toward homosexuality, civil unions, and same-gender marriage: 1977-2004. Social Work, 52(1), 71-79.

Hicks, G. R., & Lee, T. T. (2006). Public attitudes toward gays and lesbians: trends and predictors. Journal of Homosexuality, 51(2), 57-77.

Tolerance of homosexuals has improved in the past 10 years. How else would be you be seeing the mushrooming of GLBTQ groups over campuses, an increasing number of gay pride week/month celebrations, more vociferous demands for same-sex marriage, etc.? How else would you be seeing GLB groups (gay-lesbian-bisexual) transform to GLBT groups (gay-lesbian-bisexual-transgendered), then increasingly to GLBTQ groups (gay-lesbian-bisexual-transgendered-[gender] queer)?

Similarly, high-fashion models didn’t become thin all of a sudden. Over the second half of the twentieth century, they gradually became more masculine and thinner.

The pictures you posted of the 1990s supermodels are often small (with respect to the face), blurry, shot from angles that obscure masculine features, have parts of the face hidden by hair or are from professional photoshoots, where it is a safe bet that they have undergone some decent digital editing, a dramatic illustration of which has been featured in the evolution film by Dove. The close-ups I featured of the models make it clear that these women do not have feminine faces since no feminine faces could be made to look masculine at any angle. I am not calling them ugly. I personally do not know of anyone who feels that Christy Turlington and Claudia Schiffer were unattractive as young adults, and Bron is the first person that I have come across who has described Claudia Schiffer and Christy Turlington as looking pathetic/repugnant. My point is that the top-notch status achieved by these women is largely a consequence of the gay domination of the fashion business; the general public has been generally exposed to professional, airbrushed, enhanced-by-make-up photos of these women.

The pictures you took of the “sloppy hoes” shown by me are from effectively amateur photography with almost no likelihood of airbrushing; two of the women are taken from pages featuring somewhat masculinized women, and one of the pictures (Anna S., last picture) is not featured in the attractive women section (Anna S. looks much better: Pic 1, Pic 2.

Danielle:
Not a lot of women who look like Christy, but who share some of features with her,( ok, to be precise I know at least 5); if she has nose or lips like her, she doesn't look like her really. That is anecdotal? Then refuse it. Can't believe that some people where I live didn't have so much admiration for Claudia, since they see prettier girls on streets? Anecdotal? Ignore it. (I admit they had to be strong persons to defy the mass hysteria induced by media).
Another anecdotal thing for you to reject: there was in the 1990s even a live radio talk in my town and yes, beside those favourably disposed,many people voiced unfavourable opinions on their looks.
And Danielle, Claudia looks just the same on photos I posted as she looked in the 1990s. Only on a few of her earliest photos, she looks pretty. And how much closer could her eyes be? Are you serious?

Just compare the photos , mine and yours, and any of yours, when you are making the point, you always put such, that the model is looking much prettier, softer (??) than otherwise, to show how beautiful they are. That is how I know you lie. Obviously, you too know what is pretty, but then deny that certain components. That was all the lying I attributed to you; but then you went to call me liar, very sincere of you. I will not lie to conform to the world and say that they are pretty, to me they aren't. Repugnant, as Christy, yes, indeed.( one of the meaning of word is: averse, not that she makes me puke). And NO WAY am I the only and first person to say that, but how can I offer evidence of hearsay, it would be ANECDOTAL.
WHERE DO YOU PEOPLE LIVE? Look at the web, how furiously people are commenting upon the looks of current top models and other "beautiful" celebrities. Of course, the 1990s are past and internet was not so common household expedient then.

There was some suggestion on this site, that preference for some features are probably intrinsic, I think that stands for face too, there was a study that demonstrated that volunteers prefered women with small lower faces, and have marked rises in subconscious brain activity when looking at pictures of them.
For that reason I don't need to ask someone how pretty they think someone else is. ( they always come first with that subject). But their choices tell me how honest they are.

Dear Danielle,
I too find strength attractive , but the one pertaining to character, and confidence, when stemming from integrity.
Also softness and tenderness as complementaries and fundamental.

But you don't find it attractive as facial quality:

http://www.zabra.si/tmp_web/freaks/soft.jpg

Erik, The supermodels are not obviously heavier with a BMI higher than 17.57. All these women were very thin and I did say that they all had the typical high fashion model body of their era with the exception of Cindy Crawford. Unless you can prove that these women are heavier then I won't just take your word for it.

You cannot prove that there has been a tremendous change in the way society views homosexuals. More social organizations that are specifically focused on gay issues may have developed but that does not necessarily reflect a greater acceptance of homosexuality. There may be other reasons for the rise in social awareness in the gay community.

The differences between the looks of the most recent high fashion models and the high fashion models of the eighties and nineties are pretty drastic. I never said high fashion models became thin all of a sudden. They have always been thin.

I cannot believe that you are honestly trying to accuse me of posting small blurry pictures of models faces. My pictures are often much larger and clearer than yours. You post the tiniest pictures of these model's faces from various angles. You are the same dude who posted fuzzy ass black and white pictures of African tribeswomen as examples of black features and you are telling me that my pictures are misleading. STFU!

If my pictures are deceptive because they are showing the models at their softest then I can accuse you of showing them at their harshest. You often use photos from editorials as evidence so stfu about that.

I don't know why you criticize Dove's campaign for real beauty. You want "real feminine" women to be idolized in the media when that really helps no one. You feel duped when you find that these models do not live up to your unrealistic expectations. Don't worry you have no chance of ever hooking up with them. Even if the top models were as feminine as feminine gets, your fat, pimpled ass wouldn't stand a chance. Give up.

What year are you living in Eric? Amateur photography is easily photoshopped. These aren't Polaroids, Erik. I am sure they used digital photography. It is perfectly reasonable assume that they may have been tampered with. I am also sure that they picked the best pictures of a set to post on their websites. These women are either ugly or plain and you simply have no defense for that.

Whipped honey: Homosexual designers are operating under monopoly-like conditions when it comes to the choice of female models because there is a single fashion industry that they dominate; what explains the domination is a separate issue. There are no alternative industries that they need to suppress.

The purpose of cigarette ads is to associate smoking with class, hipness, coolness and glamour, all desirable conditions, not having nicotine-dependent individuals avoid withdrawal symptoms. By analogy, the purpose of a lingerie ad would be to suggest that if you purchase this lingerie, you will acquire the appeal of this woman, which is what your man wants. It is in this sense that the use of masculinized models is inappropriate since the woman’s fantasy is to be highly desired by her partner, but her partner prefers feminine women.

I didn’t lie about the Bailey and Chivers study. The authors had non-sexual stimuli as a control. I didn’t focus on the human porn because it had already been covered in their first study and the find was replicated in the second one. How can you conclude that the response to the monkey/ape porn is indicative of "genital arousal"? Consider the odds. The vast majority of people with bizarre sexual interests such as zoophilia/bestiality are men. Williams and Weinberg attempted to recruit zoophiles for a study, but they could find only a handful of women and hence had to publish their study on zoophilia in men (sample size = 114). Yet, Bailey and Chivers find no man sexually responding to the monkey/ape porn but the women being genitally aroused by it? What are the odds? And what in the world would make women aroused by monkeys/apes? They should look hideous to women. If you consider penis size, you are looking at the following average erect lengths: human (5.5 inches), chimpanzee (3 inches), gorilla (1.5 inches) and monkeys with even smaller penises. So there is no reason for women to be sexually responding to monkeys and apes.

The research is useless. Using their measure of “genital arousal,” the authors cannot distinguish homosexual from heterosexual women or zoophilic from non-zoophilic women. They have documented a genital response, not genital arousal.

Danielle: The supermodels were heavier than the sub-18 BMI models. Don’t take my word for it; just look at them. Apart from Cindy Crawford, look up pictures of Christy Turlington and Stephanie Seymour. They were heavier than the norm.

I gave you two studies depicting changes in attitudes toward homosexuality in the second half of the twentieth century, largely in favor of homosexuals. One hardly needs to cite them. The push for same-sex marriage, domestic partner benefits, hate crimes legislation and anti-discrimination ordinances pertaining to homosexuals and bisexuals seen in recent years were not observed to anywhere the same degree in the 1980s and 1990s. Then, there are also polls asking people on their views regarding homosexuality, and the views have become more favorable with time. And, the issue isn’t so much acceptance of homosexuality but tolerance of it.

I don’t know what you mean by a drastic change in high-fashion models between the 1990s and present. Look at the two cited studies on BMI. There is no drastic change in body weight. You are just letting imagery of the supermodels mislead you. Models have changed over time, but you ignore the possible reasons behind the 20th century curvilinear trend in the femininity of fashion models.

The face picture of Claudia Schiffer that I posted is larger than the face size in most of her pictures posted by you. I generally make it a point to post clear and large pictures of women’s faces unless I cannot find them. As far as the pictures of Africans go, most of the pictures you are talking about are on the first page of the section addressing aesthetics in international beauty pageants, and none of these pictures are part of the argument. Other pictures in this section illustrate various points; they don’t form the basis of the arguments. Showing models at their softest and harshest is something that has been part of your exchange with Bron. My point is that a feminine woman cannot be made to look masculine at any angle. Hence, if I can clearly show a masculine face shape in a model, and it is unlikely that this is due to digital editing, then she isn’t feminine.

I have clearly explained my criticism of Dove’s ads. No point in repeating it.

Of course amateur photography is easily photoshopped, but is it being so? The pictures of these women are posted in large sets. If one is using photoshop to alter shape, then one will have to do so consistently across the entire set. You expect them to have the time and resources or even the inclination to do it? And why would they leave a few freckles and fine wrinkles here and there? When it comes to airbrushing, there is no comparison between professional pictures of high-fashion models and the pictures of the nude models I have been showing.

Erik, you still don't get it: Female *arousal* and female *desire* are two different things!

Quote:

"I didn’t lie about the Bailey and Chivers study. The authors had non-sexual stimuli as a control."

What non-sexual stimuli? The article on Bailey's and Chivers' subsequent study, to which you referred me, does not mention any non-sexual stimuli at all.
Quote:

"I didn’t focus on the human porn because it had already been covered in their first study and the find was replicated in the second one. How can you conclude that the response to the monkey/ape porn is indicative of “genital arousal”? Consider the odds. The vast majority of people with bizarre sexual interests such as zoophilia/bestiality are men. Williams and Weinberg attempted to recruit zoophiles for a study, but they could find only a handful of women and hence had to publish their study on zoophilia in men (sample size = 114). Yet, Bailey and Chivers find no man sexually responding to the monkey/ape porn but the women being genitally aroused by it? What are the odds?"

The odds that women could be aroused by primate porn even though female zoophiliacs are extremely rare are 100% because women CAN be *aroused* by primates without *desiring* primates. The odds that men could be aroused by primate porn evne though male zoophiliacs are rare (more common than female ones, but still rare) are perhaps 1% or less because men CANNOT be *aroused* by primates without *desiring* primates. Hence, all the women were slightly aroused by primate porn and none of the men were.

Erik, is the concept of separating arousal from desire too hard for you?
Quote:

"And what in the world would make women aroused by monkeys/apes?

The women in the study were not aroused by monkeys/apes per se; they were aroused by *sexuality itself*. Film footage of monkeys apes doing anything besides having sex would not have aroused them. Men are aroused by what they desire; women are aroused by SENSUAL STIMULI IN GENERAL.

Bron agrees with me, and that's saying something because she and I almost never agree, that women can be aroused by men they do not desire and women can be aroused by music, without sex or masturbation, without the presence of or visual image of another person. Women can feel arousal without desire and women can be aroused without visual stimuli.
Quote:

"They should look hideous to women. If you consider penis size, you are looking at the following average erect lengths: human (5.5 inches), chimpanzee (3 inches), gorilla (1.5 inches) and monkeys with even smaller penises. So there is no reason for women to be sexually responding to monkeys and apes.

Are you so naive that you think women cannot be aroused by that which looks hideous to them? Ever heard of HUMPHREY BOGART? The ugliest man ever to become a major Hollywood movie star - and easily one of the five most popular male sex symbols in Hollywood history. The first time I saw a photograph of Humphrey Bogart, the caption said he was the big heartthrob of the 1940's, and I thought, why? He's not even average looking! Then I saw "To Have and Have Not" and I understood. Humphrey Bogart's power over women is his irresistable voice - men's voices affect women almost as much as music affects women, because women react with their ears the way men react with their eyes - and his palpable aura of true masculinity, not machismo, which cannot be faked.

Your quotes on primate penis lengths are just plain funny. The women didn't give a damn about the primates' penis length because they were NOT attracted to the primates! Can you comprehend that? They were turned on by sexuality itself, with no desire to have sex with the primates. That is why both straight women and lesbians are turned on by pornographic films of both men and women. It is the sexuality itself that *arouses* them, regardless of whether they *desire* the participants.
Quote:

"The research is useless. Using their measure of “genital arousal,” the authors cannot distinguish homosexual from heterosexual women or zoophilic from non-zoophilic women. They have documented a genital response, not genital arousal."

The authors used the already well-known techniques for measuring female genital arousal, which always causes extremely specific physiological reactions that never occur in the absence of arousal. I'm female, and believe me, the ONLY way those physiological reactions occur is if I am aroused. There is no "genital response" that causes those reactions without arousal. The authors in their initial study found no distinction between heterosexual women and homosexual women in their *arousal* patterns - not in their *desires*! As to distinguishing between zoophilic women and non-zoophilic women, the authors never studied zoophilic women so they never had the opportunity to make a comparison. Presumably zoophilic women would have been more than just slightly aroused by the primate porn, and if so, that indicates that women of any sexual orientation can are strongly aroused by humans of either gender, but their ability to be aroused by non-humans is much weaker, though not nonexistent.

Erik, your inability to distinguish female *arousal* from female *desire* seems to borderline autistic. Your ignorance of the psychosexual differences between the genders is astounding.

> I’m female, and believe me, the ONLY way those physiological reactions occur is if I am aroused.

Oh STFU Whipped Phoney, ur 100% WRONG

And how did I come up with that percentage ?

Well, you said you get *aroused* with Zoophilic pr0n, so follow me and meet La Griffe du Lion

Nota Penis: Don't take the "standard deviation" stuff personally.
I'm not calling you a lesbian.

"Well, you said you get *aroused* with Zoophilic pr0n, so follow me and meet La Griffe du Lion"

Where did I say I get aroused by zoophilic porn? I never said that.

I said the women in Bailey's and Chivers' study got slightly aroused by primate porn, NOT zoophilic porn; meaning primates only with no humans. How they would have reacted to zoophilic porn IF they had seen it is a different issue; I do not know of any studies on that subject.

As to how I myself would have reacted had I been one of the women in that study, I cannot know for sure, but since all the heterosexual women in the study registered slight arousal, it is not unreasonable to think that my reaction would have been similar to the other women's.

Erik, I cannot judge the BMIs of the supers by just looking at pictures of them. These women were all VERY thin. If you are offering no proof other than "just look at them" then I won't take your opinion seriously.

You have not established that there is a significant correlation between the greater tolerance of homosexuality and an increasing masculinization of fashion models. You are continously presenting that hypothesis as if it is a fact. It is not a fact. You have argued that high fashion models are thin in order to shock audiences then you argued that their thinness is similar to the build of pubescent boys now you are arguing that they are thin and getting thinner because of a greater tolerance of homosexuality. The only consistancy of your arguments is your underlying homophobia.

First you say models are getting thinner because of tolerance of homosexuality now you are syaing that they haven't really gotten thinner at all? Please stop writing bullshit. The NEWEST top models who have just arrived LOOK very different from the supers. The supermodels looked like women. These new girls look like sullen, ugly russian children. This new development is the one I am adressing. I have no problem with the thinness of the models of the nineties and even the early 2000s.

You posted one picture of an older Claudia Schiffer's face from one angle where her hair partially obscures her face. My pictures are not much smaller with regards to her face and you can see her features clearly. I was going to post larger pictures of her face but they needed to be resized and I couldn't be bothered to do that. If these "masculine" models can be made to look "feminine" then what is your problem? "Feminine" beauty is being honored by those photographs. You are just a self hating queer that needs to find a milion different reasons why you are different from "teh evil gay pederast designers".

You are trying to give excuses for why your slut models look like shit but it's not working. Your models look like shit because the men who access those sites are not interested in their facial beauty. They are interested in jacking off at the sight of their asses and titties. If men were really interested in their faces then they would be airbrushed within an inch of their lives.

High fashion models elicit a different reaction in potential consumers. They can look feminine or masculine and they look good with clothes ON. The same cannot be said for those fugbeasts that you call "attractive women".

Emaciated models were popping up in the late nineties but it is becoming normal for the newest girls to look like death. This girl probably booked the most shows out of every other model this season:
Olga Shearer
I think the difference between the looks of high fashion models of the eighties and nineties and the looks of girls like this is pretty drastic. Even more established models like Lily Donaldson, Kim Noorda and Natasha Poly are starting to waste away. I find it unattractive and disturbing.

Lily Donaldson
Kim Noorda

Some people believe Muicca Prada started the trend of booking "very frail, very pale and very thin" models for shows. It may be more than that but your explanations are really ridiculous and unsatisfying and they reek of homophobia. It would be better if you knew more about the industry you are analyzing. Stop using models.com as your source for verything model related.

Here are pictures of Natasha Poly that I was meaning to post.

Erik, I agree and disagree with you

I agree that homosexual men dominate the fashion industry, but not by monopoly; by superior talent.

I disagree with your belief that a successful heterosexual fashion industry is possible. The near-absolute homosexual dominance of the fashion industry indicates that there is some link between fashion design talent and male homosexual psychology.

I agree with your belief that the homosexual designers want the models to look like adolescent boys because of their own attraction to adolescent boys.

I disagree with your belief that high fashion models look like boys because of their natural attributes. Some (not all) of the high fashion models look like boys because the designers require them to starve themselves until all outward signs of female secondary sex characteristics are stripped off their bodies. These same high fashion models at a HEALTHY WEIGHT would look feminine and lovely.

Whipped honey: It is time to end the discussion about Bailey and Chivers’ useless studies. You have claimed that sexual arousal and sexual desire are not linked in women. Where is the proof for this? The Bailey et al. studies do not prove this. They have employed a test known as vaginal photoplethysmography (also known as vaginal pulse amplitude). This test suffers from the following shortcomings: 1) no absolute scale, making between-participants comparisons problematic; 2) the test provides a relative measurement of vaginal blood flow and no anatomic information, i.e., no validation of a direct relationship with vasocongestion; 3) is affected by movement; 4) has a confound in that the very act of vaginal insertion of the apparatus would stimulate the tissue; and 5) often fails to find a correlation between the genital measure of arousal and subjective reports of arousal. The citations for these shortcomings are:

Quote:

Heiman JR. Psychophysiological models of female sexual response. Int J Impotence 1998;10:S84-S97.

Laan E, Everaerd W. Physiological measures of vaginal vasocongestion. Int J Impotence 1998;10:S107-S110.

Meston, CM. (2000). The psychophysiological assessment of female sexual function. J Sex Educ Therapy 2000;25(1), 6-16.

None of these shortcomings are mentioned by the authors. I looked up their studies. In both studies, heterosexual and homosexual women “genitally responded” to male homosexual pornography too! In the second study the authors cited an unpublished doctoral dissertation that reported no differences in women’s “genital arousal” to audio narratives of rape and consensual sex. Granted that women typically do not want to be raped, but why should they be genitally aroused by a rape scenario? Don’t you think it reasonable that something is not right with the measure of “genital arousal”? The authors argue that their studies as well as those of others using a similar apparatus suggest that the female genital arousal response is an automatic/reflex response to any sexual stimuli. They then argue:

Quote:

Having reflexive and low-cost vasocongestion to nonspecific sexual features may have improved fitness in ancestral environments by reducing the probability of adverse events such as injury during sexual intercourse.

What are the chances that the likelihood of rape, including rape by animals, was high enough for such a response to evolve? In the second study, the authors did use a neutral, non-sexual stimulus. This is mentioned in the abstract. Read the papers if you wish.

Humphrey Bogart doesn’t look ugly to me. The women who responded to him were responding to a man and a masculine characteristic in him.

I disagree with your “agreement and disagreement with me.” I have acknowledged that homosexual men appear to have a higher incidence of the talent/abilities needed to reach the top among fashion designers, which allows homosexual men to numerically dominate the top ranks of the fashion industry, but this is responsible for why they effectively have a monopoly with respect to specifying the norms seen among high-fashion models. In other words, the effectively-monopoly-like factor is not inconsistent with the talent factor.

I believe that alternative fashion industries are possible. When it comes to fashion designing, talent is not the only factor. There are undoubtedly many heterosexual men who could be outstanding at fashion designing, but the nature of the job doesn’t appeal to them. If you can start a low-key alternative using feminine women, then the possibility of working with the kind of women they like will create an incentive for more heterosexual men to take up fashion designing, and with advances in computer software, you can have some heterosexual computer geeks delve into fashion designing since using computers in a game-like/virtual reality situation attracts many heterosexual men. So don’t bet against alternative fashion industries.

I haven’t argued that high-fashion models always naturally look the way they do. Some of them obviously starve to maintain their low body weights. Women with masculinized skeletal proportions will not look feminine even if they go from skinny to normal, though curves (not excess body fat) will make them look more feminine.

Danielle: If you can’t figure out that the 1990s supermodels had BMIs of 18-plus by looking at their pictures (not when they started, but when they had earned the supermodel designation), then I can be of no assistance to you. My point is that present high-fashion models in general are not drastically thin compared to their 1990s counterparts; you are just addressing the 1990s supermodels. There has been a gradual thinness trend over the past couple of decades. I didn’t say that current models are not thinner than their 1990s counterparts, on average.

The correlation between increasing post-mid-twentieth century tolerance of homosexuality and increasing masculinization of female high-fashion models is well-established. What is not well-established is that there is a causal relationship between these variables. However, I have made a strong case for a causal relationship between the curvilinear 20th century trend in high-fashion models’ femininity and the curvilinear trend in the public tolerance of homosexuality, and you have yet to offer an alternative, let alone a better hypothesis.

You said that the only consistency of my arguments is my underlying homophobia when the fact is that you consistently either fail to understand them or deliberately misrepresent them to waste my time. You wrote:

Quote:

You have argued that high fashion models are thin in order to shock audiences then you argued that their thinness is similar to the build of pubescent boys now you are arguing that they are thin and getting thinner because of a greater tolerance of homosexuality.

No! Something shocking attracts attention, but it can be shocking only if used sparingly, not consistently, or else there would be nothing shocking about it. So the typical thinness of high-fashion models doesn’t qualify here. The second part should read that the typical thinness of high-fashion models is part of a package of looks that makes them resemble boys in their early adolescence (not pubescence). The last part should read, taking advantage of increasing tolerance of homosexuality in the general public, the male homosexual designers have increasingly selected female models to their tastes with lesser concern for having their sexuality outed and suffering adverse repercussions. So the second and third parts are completely consistent.

In the face picture of Claudia Schiffer that I posted, whereas some of her hair is covering part of her eye and cheekbone, the other side is clear, and her jawline is clearly shown. Your pictures are worse since in a number of cases the hair is covering even more of the face or the other side isn’t clearly shown or the faces are smaller or the pictures are blurred. Again, feminine women will not look masculine form any angle, and Claudia obviously doesn’t have a feminine face. My problem isn’t with using posing and make-up to make masculinized women look more feminine, but I am making people ask why not use feminine women instead of having to resort to tricks? The answer to this question explains the looks of fashion models and lingerie models.

If you cannot come up with a proper rebuttal, you need to stop commenting. Don’t repeat that I am a self-hating queer.

I am not coming up with any excuses for why some of the feminine women that I have come up with look like “shit.” All I did was to explain that it is unlikely that the pictures of these women have been airbrushed at all, let alone to the substantial extent often seen in professional fashion photography.

Most people disagree that high-fashion models look good in clothes.

Bailey's and Chivers' Studies are Confirmed by Real Life Phenomena
Quote:

"It is time to end the discussion about Bailey and Chivers’ useless studies."

Erik, you don't get to cherry pick which studies we will discuss to limit the discussion to those studies that reach conclusions you like.
Quote:

"You have claimed that sexual arousal and sexual desire are not linked in women. Where is the proof for this?"

Where is your disproof for this? Why is there a burden of proof but no burden of disproof? Why should the fact that sexual arousal and sexual desire are linked in men be considered proof that they must be linked in women as well?

My proof is my own experience as a person with a female body and female sexuality, and the accounts of the many, many women I have both known personally and encountered through the media. Erik, does it tell you anything that even BRON who agrees with you far more often than she agrees with me, agrees with me that women can be *aroused* by men they do not *desire* and that women can be *aroused* by music alone when it is not even possible to feel *desire* for a song? Do you realize that girls who become hysterical during pop stars are having music-induced orgasms that the presence of the same musicians while not playing their music cannot induce?

Of course women can be *aroused* by and feel *desire* for the same stimuli, but they can also experience the two phenomena separately. This may simply be beyond your comprehension because you are a man. Just please note that you cannot find a single woman who disagrees with me, not even Bron, who disagrees with me about everything else!
Quote:

"The Bailey et al. studies do not prove this. They have employed a test known as vaginal photoplethysmography (also known as vaginal pulse amplitude). This test suffers from the following shortcomings: 1) no absolute scale, making between-participants comparisons problematic;"

Comparisons between participants do not depend on absolute scale. If I compare how fast 10 people are driving, I do not need an absolute scale of what constitutes "speeding" in order to compare how much faster or slower one driver is than another.
Quote:

"2) the test provides a relative measurement of vaginal blood flow and no anatomic information, i.e., no validation of a direct relationship with vasocongestion;"

You are misleading by citing issues that do not explain away the huge difference in heterosexual women's measured arousal to human porn vs primate porn. Why would the former cause far more vaginal blood flow than the latter if it did not cause more arousal?
Quote:

3) is affected by movement;"

Again, you are misleading by citing issues that do not explain away the huge difference in heterosexual women's measured arousal to human porn vs primate porn. Why would the former occur with far greater movement than the latter?
Quote:

"4) has a confound in that the very act of vaginal insertion of the apparatus would stimulate the tissue;"

Again, you are misleading by citing issues that do not explain away the huge difference in heterosexual women's measured arousal to human porn vs primate porn. Why would the former be far more confounded by vaginal insertion of the apparatus stimulating the tissue than the latter?
Quote:

"and 5) often fails to find a correlation between the genital measure of arousal and subjective reports of arousal."

MANY sexual studies of either men or women or both fail to find a correlation between the genital measure of arousal and subjective reports of arousal because subjective reports demonstrate what the people studied want to believe about their own sexuality. Although the article I linked doesn't mention this, I know from another source which I can no longer find that Bailey's and Chivers' initial study found that among the men studied who subjectively reported themeselves as bisexual, the vast majority were aroused only by male bodies in pornography and not by female bodies. Most of the men who subjectively self-reported as bisexual were in fact homosexual. This doesn't mean the measure of arousal was invalid; it means the men's subjective self-reporting was delusional.
Quote:

"In both studies, heterosexual and homosexual women “genitally responded” to male homosexual pornography too!"

Further proof that the study is accurate. Many women ARE sexually aroused by male homosexual pornography, just as many men are sexually aroused by lesbian pornography. The difference is that men prefer actual filmed/photographed lesbian pornography, whereas women are more likely to prefer non-explicit/written/drawn/painted male homosexual pornography. If you don't believe me, I suggest you google the words "slash fiction", "Harry Potter slash", "yaoi" or "shonen-ai". There's a huge Internet phenomenon of non-explicit/written/drawn/painted male homosexual pornography created by females for female audiences.
Quote:

"In the second study the authors cited an unpublished doctoral dissertation that reported no differences in women’s “genital arousal” to audio narratives of rape and consensual sex. Granted that women typically do not want to be raped, but why should they be genitally aroused by a rape scenario?"

Erik, you think women aren't aroused by rape scenarios?! Rape is by FAR one of the most popular female sexual fantasies!
I won't even bother to post links to any of the hundreds or thousands of studies of female sexual fantasies that conclude that rape is consistently in the top 10 and very often number 1. You can find them easily yourself.

Your mind-blowing ignorance of female sexuality is on display in your belief that since "women typically do not want to be raped, but why should they be genitally aroused by a rape scenario?" Women are very often aroused by scenarios they have no desire to act out in real life, because fantasies, unlike realities, are completely controllable and have no unwanted consequences.

Women's rape fantasy is being forced to have sex with a man she WANTS to have sex with. Real rape is being forced to have sex with a man she does NOT WANT to have sex with. That makes all the difference. Women's rape fantasy never involves being maimed or killed, even though it may involve the fear of being maimed or killed. Real rape often involves being maimed or killed.

The whole industry of romance novels, which account for one third of all paperback sales in the United States, is an industry of selling written rape fantasies to women. The covers typically portray a man forcefully holding or in some way overpowering a woman. The sex typically involves some form or degree of coercion.

Women swoon during the marital rape scene in "Gone With The Wind" because it is a perfect example of the female rape fantasy.

The appeal of the female rape fantasy is that because the woman does not consent, she has no moral responsibility for the sexual act, and is therefore totally freed from all guilt or shame.

Men may not understand women's rape fantasy because, for obvious reasons of evolutionary psychology, men do not feel any conflict between desiring promiscuous sex and being considered desirable as a mating partner.

Quote:

"The authors argue that their studies as well as those of others using a similar apparatus suggest that the female genital arousal response is an automatic/reflex response to any sexual stimuli. They then argue: "Having reflexive and low-cost vasocongestion to nonspecific sexual features may have improved fitness in ancestral environments by reducing the probability of adverse events such as injury during sexual intercourse." What are the chances that the likelihood of rape, including rape by animals, was high enough for such a response to evolve?"

100%! Rape was the EVOLUTIONARY HISTORICAL NORM. The idea that rape is wrong did not even exist until relatively recently in homo sapien history, and there is no indication that earlier members of the Homo genus even understood the CONCEPT of sexual consent.

A friend of a friend of mine worked as a professional rape counselor, and she said it is not at ALL uncommon for women to become aroused or even orgasm during rape, and that the feeling that their bodies have betrayed them is often more traumatic than the rape experience itself. The disconnect between the rape victim's emotional anguish and her body's reflexive erotic reaction to sexual stimuli can cause rape victims to hate their own bodies.

Yes, it is entirely likely that women evolved a generalized responsiveness to any sexual stimuli in order to make rape less likely to result in injury.
Quote:

"In the second study, the authors did use a neutral, non-sexual stimulus. This is mentioned in the abstract. Read the papers if you wish."

Again, I refuse to open any zip files. If you want to make a point by referencing information, then post the information or a link to it.

Erik, your insistence that Bailey's and Chivers' studies must be invalid because the reach conclusions you find unbelievable simply demonstrates how little you know about female sexuality.
:ohh:

Why there will never be a successful heterosexual fashion industry

Quote:

"In other words, the effectively-monopoly-like factor is not inconsistent with the talent factor."

Your definition of the word monopoly would get a failing grade in any economics class. Market dominance through superior talent is NOT monopoly.
Quote:

"There are undoubtedly many heterosexual men who could be outstanding at fashion designing, but the nature of the job doesn’t appeal to them."

This statement proves you have no artistic talent of any kind. If you had any form of artistic talent, you would know it is impossible to have artistic talent without enjoying the nature of its use.
Quote:

"If you can start a low-key alternative using feminine women, then the possibility of working with the kind of women they like will create an incentive for more heterosexual men to take up fashion designing"

Further proof that you have no artistic talent. Anyone who has any form of artistic talent does not need the incentive of working with those whom he/she finds sexually attractive in order to want to use that talent. For the moment I will leave aside your insistence that most heterosexual men prefer "feminine" women, which is highly debatable to say the least but that's a different topic. The point is, if a man has real design talent then he will want and NEED to design regardless of whether he finds the models sexually attractive, and if he needs the incentive of models he finds sexually attractive to get him to design clothes, then he has no real design talent and merely uses fashion design as a means to meet women he finds attractive.

Artistic talent DEMANDS expression, with or without amenable conditions or rewards or fringe benefits or incentives of any kind. Mozart composed in penniless squalor without pay because he HAD to. Emily Dickinson wrote her huge volume of unpublished poetry because she HAD to. Vincent Van Gogh kept painting without ever selling a single painting because he HAD to. If heterosexual men don't design because they HAVE to, regardless of whether they find the models attractive, then they do not have real design talent.
Quote:

"with advances in computer software, you can have some heterosexual computer geeks delve into fashion designing since using computers in a game-like/virtual reality situation attracts many heterosexual men."

Yet even more proof that you have no artistic talent. Anyone who has design talent does not need design to be turned into a videogame to make it interesting to him. All your talk of incentives for a heterosexual fashion industry misses the point: Real artistic talent requires no incentive whatsoever, and anyone who requires an incentive to create art has no real artistic talent.
Quote:

"So don’t bet against alternative fashion industries."

Erik, it is plainly obvious that you have no artistic talent at all and have never worked in any form of marketing. If you had any real idea how either of those two areas work, you would know exactly why there will never be a heterosexual fashion industry no matter what. Heterosexual male psychology is simply not conducive to fashion design; the process by which boys become fully heterosexual and permanenently lose any capacity for homosexual response necessarily involves losing the particular type of aesthetic sense necessary for high-level fashion design. The fact that you cannot name one single great and greatly successful heterosexual male fashion designer would tell you something, if you weren't closing your eyes and putting your hands over your ears.
:down:

Elaboration on women's arousal by sound

Quote:

"Humphrey Bogart doesn’t look ugly to me."

Humphrey Bogart doesn't look ugly to you because, like the vast majority of heterosexual men, you judge male looks far more leniently than you judge female looks. If you saw Humphrey Bogart's twin sister who looks like a female version of him, you would definitely find her ugly, no matter how "feminine" she might be. Homosexual men do not have this lenience in judging male looks, which is why Humphrey Bogart is one of those hugely popular heterosexual male sex symbols who has NO fan base as a sex symbol to gay men.
Quote:

"The women who responded to him were responding to a man and a masculine characteristic in him."

Humphrey Bogart's masculinity alone without good looks cannot account for his sex symbol status because there have been other male movies stars who were also very masculine without good looks, such as Edward G. Robinson, who never became sex symbols.

Women respond to Humphrey Bogart's VOICE. Why do you think it is that as a young actor in the silent film era of the 1920's, he was able to get only one film role in that entire decade, but as soon as sound film began in the early 1930's, he began to get regular film roles and gradually became a huge movie star? Humphrey Bogart is an example of how women are aroused by what they hear, which is why women are aroused by music.
8-/

ERIK'S DEFINITION OF FEMININITY IS AN INVALID CONTRADICTION IN TERMS BECAUSE FEMININITY MEANS CHARACTERISTIC OF WOMEN BUT ERIK DEFINES FEMININITY AS CHARACTERISTICS MOST WOMEN DON'T HAVE

Simply put: Femininity means characteristic of women, and therefore any definition of femininity that excludes most women is automatically invalid.

Erik's definition of "femininity" is actually exaggerated hyperfemininity. Erik's definition of "somewhat masculinized" is actually more than normal femininity. Erik's definition of "masculinized" is actually normal femininity or slightly androgynous femininity.

A truly masculinized woman is one who has male hormone levels as high as the average man's and female hormone levels as low as the average man's, and almost NONE of the women Erik calls "masculinized" meet the criteria. Truly masculinized women are very rare and Erik has almost no photographs of them on this website because the real thing makes it impossible to keep passing off the fake. Put a photograph of a truly masculinized woman like 1980's tennis star Martina Navratilova next to the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Models and it becomes impossible to persuade anyone to view the swimsuit models as "masculinized".

Erik, what does someone with a BMI of 18 or just below 18 look like? Do they have bones popping out of their skin? I had a BMI below 18 at one point and I never looked bony. How big do you think those supermodels were? I have read articles that suggest that both Claudia Schiffer and Naomi Campbell had BMIs of 17.7 and 16.5 even in their 30s. What do you think they weighed when they were at the top of their games? My point was that the supermodels represented the typical model body of that time. You have not proven that the all the supers had BMIs over 18. Stop assuming that you can tell a person's weight by looking at photos of them.

You have not made a strong argument that the greater tolerance of homosexuality is responsible for the increasing thinness in fashion models. It has been widely suggested that Miuccia Prada set the trend for increasingly thin models. You wouldn't know that because you know absolutely nothing about the fashion industry other than which designers are gay and which models look like men.

I am not failing to understand any of your shitty arguments. You clearly took the time to make this ridiculous website so I don't see why your time is so precious now.

Only one of my photographs of Claudia can be called "blurry". her facial features are clear in all of my pics. She is in her 20s in all of the images I selected and her face isn't being obscured by her hair in most of them.

I don't need to go to great lengths to rebutt your "arguments" because they are as shallow as a kiddie pool. Your opinions aren't facts and you aren't presenting strong arguments just because you say you are.

Your models are ugly. There is simply no excuse for that. I called them sloppy hoes and then you said that they were not airbrushed. You were clearly trying to explain why they look so bad.

That page you linked to suggests that most people think fashion models are too thin. It did'nt mention anything about how they look in clothes. Nice try.

This is your website. You want an alternative industry (LOL). It is up to you to find better looking models and create better arguments. You know nothing about fashion or business and marketing. I suggest that you study those topics instead of talking out of your ass.

http://content.ytmnd.com/content/5/4/b/54bf1d60f8d40ad91e88d556f8c2288a.jpg

Erik, you _really_ have people who disagree with you.

I'm still on your side by the way.

Danielle and Whipped Honey, a lot of stuff Eric says makes sense AND is backed up by some models in the industry regarding his theories of why models are so sickly dying thin, and just because something isn't PC and you don't like it doesn't make it untrue. Bron is right that many of the high fashion models are masculine looking, in one of the photos Cindy Crawford that Eric posted she looks like a man!! If she were feminine then there is no way she would look like that however the angle and lighting!! She might look unattractive on a bad day but she WOULDN'T LOOK UNFEMININE.

Also yes as a woman I agree that for us the rape fantasy is common as it's only a fantasy where you get to pick the one you have sex with and it's unlike the reality, and all the stuff related to that you mentioned- and the fact that arousal and desire for women are 2 different things, unlike men who desire usually what they're aroused by.

However, Eric's points about homosexuality's becoming more tolerated than ever during the past 10 yrs and that having a negative effect as far as forcing models to literally starve themselves do death which is wrong and inhuman is also true. And can be proven as it's backed up by some models online if you take the time to research and look. Models having experienced this behaviour know the reason why and have no reason to lie.

Again just because you don't like something and it's not politically correct doesn't make it untrue. And you could come up with counter arguments without being insulting to Eric or others. I don't know the guy but he HASN'T INSULTED any of you when he talks about his arguments which he is entitled to discuss, and if you disagree with what he says so much& find no merit in the site one would wonder why you bother coming back to fight? Insulting the authour just because you disagree with him and calling him names just makes the reader think poorly of you because you disrespect those who disagree with yr opinions- and you insult ppl who have beliefs that aren't PC. We can disagree with others without disrespecting them. Your attitudes are uncalled for and reflect badly on you. I wonder how you would feel if Eric continuously insulted and called you names every time you disagree with him the way you do with him?

We need to respect others' and agree to disagree , things can be true even if not |PC or liked by others. He deserves respect for coming up with this interesting and informative site- whether or not we disagree with some of all the content.

And FYI there ARE GTREAT HETRO MALE DESIGNERS - AND HETRO FEMALE DESIGNERS - AND LESBIAN DESIGNERS, so NO contrary to yr belief what ppl wear doesn't have to correspond to what gay MALE designers want only - with absolutely NO diversity and women dying- if it weren'r for the unfortunate fact that as Eric says they are the ones to DOMINATE THE INDUSTRY- I SAY UNFORTUNATE AS PPL HAVE DIED COZ OF THEIR NUTTY STANDARDS NOT COZ OF THEIR SEXUAL ORIENTATION. I'm not attacking ppl's weight or orientation. Only the fact that some women have to died to fulfill some gay designers crazy unreal ideal. Nothing more.

Eric is pretty much doing the same, & the fact he wants a hetro alternative running alongside for other women is to his credit frankly.

And there is a LONG LIST OF GREAT HETRO DESIGNERS POSTED ONLINE BY THE WAY; WILL FIND AND POST IT FOR YOU): ONE OF THE BEST HETRO MALE DESIGNERS IS RALPH LAUREN.

Learn to treat others with respect EVEN if you don't agree with them; that's class and intelligence. I couldn't find one instance of Eric disrespecting either Danielle or Whipped Honey or calling them names. Only the opposite.

Good luck Eric, and I admire yr putting up with unfair attacks and disrespect in an age where sadly being PC is considered more important than being truthful , saying what you really believe even if unpopular, and backing it up by stats and science. Good luck.

Click here to post a new comment