You are here

The transsexual parade otherwise known as the Victoria’s Secret lingerie show: part 2 - Gisele Bundchen

Part 1 is here.  This entry addresses Gisele Bundchen, and she is compared to Veronika from Czech babes (adult site).

Veronika doesn’t have the best-looking nose, but unlike Gisele, she has not had a nose job, and the face is not the focus in a lingerie show.

The masculine face of Gisele (on the left in the pictures) is obvious.

Gisele Bundchen, Veronika from Czech babes

Gisele Bundchen, Veronika from Czech babes

Gisele Bundchen, Veronika from Czech babes

Breast implants, which Gisele has, hardly help her physique look feminine.  After all, how easy is it to turn a tubular torso into an hourglass shape?  Alternatively, how easy is it to make a woman who looks like a male-to-female transsexual or eunuch look like a normal woman, let alone a feminine one?

Gisele Bundchen, Veronika from Czech babes

Gisele Bundchen, Veronika from Czech babes

For someone who is a top-ranked “sexy” fashion model, Gisele has a great-looking backside, doesn’t she?

Gisele Bundchen, Veronika from Czech babes

Gisele Bundchen, Veronika from Czech babes

As in part 1 of this series, it would once again help to point out that a woman need not be very feminine in order to avoid a transsexual/eunuchoid look.  Consider Grace from Abby Winters as an example.  Grace doesn’t have large breasts, an hourglass figure, well-rounded hips, a tiny waist or a well-developed, feminine backside.  However, there is nothing transsexual/eunuchoid about her looks.

Grace from Abby Winters

Grace from Abby Winters

By the way, contrast the face of Gisele in the following pictures, taken during the 2005 Victoria's Secret show, with Grace's.

Gisele Bundchen

Gisele Bundchen

Pictures of Grace resumed below.

Grace from Abby Winters

Grace from Abby Winters

Grace from Abby Winters

Grace from Abby Winters

Grace is not feminine enough for high-profile lingerie modeling, yet Gisele Bundchen is a big-name Victoria's Secret model!  Notwithstanding Grace not being very feminine, the following two pictures leave no doubt that Grace is still very inviting to lifetime-exclusive heterosexual men.  Nothing remotely similar can be written for Gisele Bundchen though.  Disregarding Gisele’s fame and solely focusing on her looks, heterosexual women reading this entry should note that lifetime-exclusive heterosexual men will choose Gisele only if they are faced with the choice of either Gisele or taking the matter into their own hands/a worse woman.  In other words, it is in the best interests of heterosexual women interested in attracting lifetime-exclusive heterosexual men to look feminine and generally disregard what the fashion world tells them constitute hot looks in women.

Grace from Abby Winters

Grace from Abby Winters


grace's butt is alot flatter than gisele's. adn her hips are totally straight. besides having more body fat(but gisele actually works out regularly) what makes her body mroe femme?

I absolutley agree, what is sexy about anoerexic looking uncurved, no soft cuddly wobbly hips & bumb and fake breasts? It's the fashion world's patheticness. Also look into their eyes, there is much to say about inner beauty also sexieness is a state of mind and good self-esteem (which many of these 'top' models don't have), not physical appearence.

Kristin, I don't know how you can see any true sexieness in Gisele.... Any true red blooded guy is more turned on by that last pic of grace compared to any morbid faced stick figure.

a bit off topic, but what do you think of the site

i usually find all the women that get high ratings really ugly. however, it is the general public who rates these photos.

although both you and i know gisele is unattractive, the majority of people think she's hot.

To no name posted 22.59 31/10/06 above,
don't never been to hot or not, just had a quick look, ok. I think the general public is actually brainwashed into what is expected to be "sexy", which of course changes with the generations. Over this century with photography one can see what was "sexy" at that particular time, in saying that, when there is a genuinely hot babe, regardless of which era, she is sexy even though the style's aren't the same as now.

Kristin: What makes Grace more feminine than Gisele? What is this? Grace has a more feminine face, naturally larger breasts, relatively wider hips, more rounded hips, and her backside is more feminine than Gisele’s (see another picture of Gisele’s backside).

dot: You can surely come up with a pseudonym instead of a dot. The site is irrelevant to this entry. If you find the highly rated women at this site really ugly, then you have atypical preferences. No, the majority of people do not think that Gisele is attractive, certainly not the majority of those that have bothered to examine Gisele as shown above. The public overwhelmingly prefers femininity in the looks of women, but homosexual fashion designers, the people who dominate the fashion business, prefer women with masculine looks, which partly explains the stardom of women like Gisele. Gisele’s status has nothing to do with the preferences of the general public.

Yes I aggree with you, the general public prefer femine looks, and your explanation on why "butch" looking women make stardom, makes perfect sense, thanks Erik

i don't think my name matters. i don't mind you calling me dot.

and i didn't say that all of the women on this site were really ugly. i was refering to the women that get high ratings on

although i don't know many men who actually find gisele attractive, almost all the men i know are in love with adriana lima, and no, she isn't masculine at all. she is a victoria's secret model, but they rarely ever use her for any other fashion shows, because of her feminine looks, so no, not all of the VS models are trannies.

dot: Using a name instead of a dot facilitates discussion, and is preferable. When I talked about highly rated women, I was obviously referring to the hotornot site since I have not presented public ratings of the attractive women shown within this (feminine beauty) site. If you read part 1 of the Victoria’s Secret series, you will encounter a statement implying that not all Victoria’s Secret models have a transsexual/transvestite or eunuchoid look to them. Such looks, if present in a large number of Victoria’s Secret models, will justify the title, especially if it is shown that the more feminine ones are still not feminine enough for the job. How feminine Adriana Lima is will be addressed in a subsequent entry.

this pic better showed to me how tubular gisele's body is--- from behindit looks like she has junkin the trunck--- but herprofile brings light to the issue

If anything she has nice legs, but no breasts and terrible posture, slouching, maybe just how she happens to be just in that pic, however, I don't find her sexy or attractive, whereas the dark haired one above (Grace) is, maybe because she looks a lot like my first girlfriend, and her eyes and face are bery pretty compared to Giseles chisled features. What say you Kristin?
and dot? (are you a Dorothy or a Douglas)

The owner of this website has way too much free time on her hands and needs to seek professional help for her sandy vagina. This is so incredibly pathetic. Grow up. Life isn't fair. And yes, I used vulgarity in the same paragraph where I told someone to grow up. Get a pair and deal with it.

Well well, Alec, it sounds like you actually need to grow up, no one I don't believe in the above discussion thread has said anything about life being "unfair"
You are obviously the sort of person who can't have a debate without getting personal, as that's simply what this blog page is about... discussion and debate, not website owners been insulted about her pubic hair color or how much free time she has, which of course you have you must have too, hence your comment after viewing the page.

I must say I somewhat agree with Alec. While it may seem that the fashion industry is out to brainwash civilization into becoming obsessed with young boys, I highly doubt there is any such conspiracy taking place. I think a truly unbiased study of femininity in women would take a far less definative approach. It was an interesting study of comparing body types, but I think it would have held more bearing without the sarcasm and prejudice.

So who cares if people believe Gisele Bundchen is sexy or not? Beauty is after all in the eye of the beholder. I just hope individuals will one day be able to think for themselves rather than letting someone else do it for them. Turn of the TV damnit!!!! It will rot your mind without you even knowing it.

Richard: The fashion industry is not trying to “brainwash civilization into becoming obsessed with young boys”; no such thing is implied within this site; there is no conspiracy argument here. Homosexual fashion designers are simply selecting models with the looks they find appealing. Stating unflattering truths does not constitute sarcasm. Anyway, there is no “nice” way of bringing some problems addressed within this site to the attention of the general public.

The belief that beauty is in the eye of the beholder has been falsified many times over; see this, this and this for proof that although there is no universal agreement, broad agreement exists in the population.

Yes Erik, I have to agree with you, especially your last paragraph, although be it a generalised statement, as of course personal tastes/chemistry is a deciding factor.
I remember a girl back in high school who was considered by most to be the sexiest/most beautiful, by all the fella's in my form class, but also my many others. I moved away and never saw her again until 23 years later I bumped into her when on a holiday, she was beautiful at 14/15, but also at 38 I don't think there would be many other 38 year old women that could outclass her beauty, I look at many "models" and still think to myself if they were all lined up beside her, even now years later, she would beat them, pants on.

Henry: Related to your anecdote, there is the issue of the stability of attractiveness in life. Whereas absolute attractiveness diminishes with age, relative attractiveness is generally stable in lifetime. In other words, attractive children will typically grow up to be attractive teenagers, then attractive young adults, and so on. However, it seems that too many high-fashion models have a different profile, namely that they were unpopular, teased or picked on as a result of their looks when they were kids, but as teenagers/young adults they ran into a model scout and quickly became top models. What happened all of a sudden to make these women attractive? Typically, these women never became attractive as far as the general population is concerned; they were just lucky enough to run into model scouts looking for women with looks that would please male homosexual fashion designers.

Erik... Yes I believe you are correct, because it's not a case of a small percentage of "models" looking generally unattractive, or boyish, or beanpole (like our infamous subject above in the last pic) But there seems to be a High percentage of models which are just Unfeminine.
On another topic, Why do (generally) Lesbians detest males and contact with males, but they so mimic and try to be like Males by going unfeminine, or "Butch"....???
What say you Senior' Holland?

Henry: Lesbians tend to be masculinized, and a number of their behaviors, though natural for them, come across as if they are trying to act in a masculine manner, which is bound to appear odd because they are atypical for women and lesbians are not men. As to why they disproportionately dislike males, there is no single answer. They have high rates of mental disorders for starters. Additionally, given their looks and atypical behaviors, some of them have had negative experiences in their interactions with men. Some of them may also be jealous of the natural masculinity of men.

As far as wanting to "get to know her better", I would much prefer to hang out with a woman built like Grace than with supermodel Gisele. Partly because I've hung out with Really Beautiful women who were way too high-maintenance, and with average-looking, curvy women who accept who they are, and don't start the day needing to Make An Impression on the masses.

However, my main loves have all been lush, feminine, curvy women, taller than my meagre 5'5", who I hit it off with as people after the initial attraction.

On the Off-topic bit on lesbians: I've met a few butch man-haters, but by and large, most lesbian womenfolk just don't want a relationship with males because of the way guys treat women. Not because lesbians are jealous of genetic males' masculinity - ghod knows, I'm not terribly hypermasculine, have more in common with some of these supermodels.

SkinnyGirlMasculinized: There is nothing wrong with being androgynous. However, androgynous women are not suitable for lingerie modeling. Between Gisele and the “cow,” which one do you think the typical heterosexual man would want to "milk"?

Sorry but your feminines womans are fat and not beautiful !!!
I prefer Gisèle as this big cow !!!
If you like women to reproduction : good for you !
but sexy is not that…
androginy is not a fatality !!!

Disagee totally. "Fat" is "overweight" and "unhealthy", and most womenfolk in the developed world fight with others' perception of media-controlled "beauty". If you're skinny, that's the cards your genetics have dealt you, but it is also not the norm.

Besides, I don't sleep with gnomes...

Out of Curiosity is there a correlation between physical characteristics one has and characteristics they are attracted too on the Feminine-Masculine Scale?

I don't think these women are fat. I wish their butts were like the ones on the right picture column in the backside section. Nice round butts!

Of the women on the page I prefer Veronika but I wouldn't kick Gisele out of bed if she had a great personality and a kind heart. I don't find girls like Gisele very attractive and they don't find me attractive. I tend to attract and be attracted to the ones with the small breast and butts like on the right column on the backside section.

Masculinized women look better if they workout and keep a healthy weight. Anorexic skin and bones girls are not attractive just pitiful. When I see one I wonder how much longer she has to live.

I'm going to take some figure drawing classes sometime so this site is going to help a lot!

Name: Some correlation between one's own looks and the masculinity-femininity of a desired partner is expected, and I may address this at a later date. Your comment about not kicking Gisele out of bed if she had a great personality and a kind heart is appreciated. In long-term relationships, personality and nature are very important, and easily more important than physical attractiveness.

Erik, very good, I agree with your Jan 16 post.
I have tended to see that when a women is genuine in her attractiveness of character and personality, that it produces a physical attractiveness, the same goes for one who is "a real bitch" or one that has a grudge about the world or men, that it doesn't matter really what genetic beauty they happen to have received, they then also become less physically attractive. One can even see in the eyes and facial expressions if there is a stable, loving, outgoing, sexy, women within, one that doesn't have a low self esteem and a negative outlook on life.
Even if they are great at hiding their true self, it only takes time and at some stage it is exposed. I believe true beauty is a women who is physically attractive and at the same time humble about it, and has an attractive personage. Mix unattractive physical features with a big chip on the shoulder and you have a true Ugly woman.

I still don't find Giselle at all attractive, I can imagine her at times can be really bitchy, and she does look like a surfboard with a bra, arms and wig, in the pic above.

Well, there are of course butch lesbians who wish to be masculine, and lesbians who are attracted to that, but many lesbians are in love with femininity, our own and that of our partners.

Women like Gisele don't do much for us, either. On a purely physical level I'd much rather dive into Grace than Gisele. :)

However, you should take out the phrase "transexual parade" unless you can actually establish that these women are ts. Heidi for example has a child, I believe, something no transexual woman will ever be able to do.

Is it psosible some of these women are AIS? It's been rumored for years.

Marguerite: The term “transsexual parade” is not supposed to imply that actual male-to-female transsexuals are being used but that too many of Victoria’s Secret models have a transsexual look to them. Regarding AIS (androgen insensitivity syndrome) in genetic males, the complete form can be ruled out among models such as Gisele because their masculine appearance suggests that they are responsive to androgens, but the manifestation of the partial form varies greatly, and AIS is rare, i.e., very few -- at most -- of the apparently female fashion models are genetic males with partial AIS. If you are sexually attracted to feminine women, you will find a lot of interesting pictures here, and are probably receptive to some of the goals of this site. It would be cool to have lesbians like yourself working toward the promotion of feminine beauty as it would contrast sharply with the lesbian core of NOW that would flip upon encountering this site.

Anyone who thinks Gisele is manly and not one of the most beautiful woman in the world is jealous. Grace, above, is gross looking. You lesbian chicks needs to stop being jealous.

Bob: People who believe that Gisele is manly and not among the most beautiful women in the world are normal heterosexuals and lesbians like Marguerite, not jealous women. It is not surprising if male homosexuals, who almost certainly count you among them, find Grace to be gross looking and eunuchoid Gisele to be ravishing.

Yet more stereotypical psychoanalysis of Lesbians. What else is new?

I've been told I run parallel to "Femme" Lesbianism. That stated, I, personally, find Gisele to be sexually enticing to the utmost in criterion; note, Tom Brady seems to concur. Gisele is nothing short of abysmally erotic. Ooooh, I'm getting tingles just mentioning her! In fact, I may as well concede the point she's my primary motive for religiously viewing the annual VS fashion shows.

I believe her sculpted, angular, facial bone-structure looks strikingly beautiful, stunning and exotic. From an artful stand point, it's much more preferable and becoming than a round, flat, non-sculpted bone-structure. Why do you suppose high/prominent cheekbones, for instances, are globally sought after and identified as highly favorable? Globally, a contoured facial appearance of both men AND women is alluring.

A plain ol' "round" or "flat" face is considered aesthetically inferior. Ask any professional, licensed make-up artist and hairstylist. In hair and make-up school, via a plethora of camouflaging methods, they teach how to make a prospective client's face (if "round," "diamond" or "heart-shaped") appear more oval, narrow and thin/angular at the midsection through the jaw-line. Why? Because that's what's considered beautiful, and, yes, even by straight women. Read a professional hairstylist and make-up teaching manual for more info; tons of them written, published and taught by STRAIGHT WOMEN, mind you.

-R: What stereotypical analysis of lesbians are you talking about? When I talked about lesbians like Marguerite, I meant those like her rather than all lesbians being like her. The extent of preferred masculinization in a female partner varies among lesbians, even if you were to restrict yourself to the feminine ones or the masculine ones only.

Are high/prominent cheekbones globally sought after among women? Check out the cheekbones page and tell me if people in general would prefer the high/prominent ones to the normally regressed ones. It is the fashion industry, more specifically the gays it, with a liking for masculine/robust cheekbones among women, a preference shared with others who find masculinized women appealing.

I am not presenting round and/or flat faces here. Oval and non-broad faces are the norm among the women shown in the attractive women section of this site. So what is your point in mentioning make-up artists' and hairstylists’ opinion of round or flat faces?

the girls you are showing as more sexy that Giselle are FAT and not that pretty. I know this sounds shallow but some of the pictures are actually borderline disgusting with all the body fat/cellulite haging from their bodies.

giselle is not my favorite model but it is a disgrace to compare such a firm body with these cows. plus she is pretty feminine for how thin she is -it is true that she doesn't have a very feminine waist she has boobs and a feminine ass.

plus do you realize that by claiming that women have to have huge cow boobs to be really "women" and not androgenoys freaks you are creating a counter-stereotype that is as restrictive and unfair as the super-skinny models that women complain about?

I am actually naturally thin. I am not by anyt means flat chested, but my boobs are not that large. I have curves but they are not extremely accentuated because I am not FAT.
That doesn't mean I am less of a woman tha the cows you present or that I cannot have children or satisfy a man or breastfeed. Nor does it mean that I do not appeal to truly heterosexual men.

Do I need to look like a cow ready for milking to be feminine? EEEEEEEEWWWWW i don't think so and I'm really proud of my body as it is.

crazy people: The comparisons in this entry are about femininity, not sexiness, though with respect to sexy as in sexually appealing, it is obvious who between Gisele and the other women would be found more sexually appealing by lifetime-exclusive heterosexual men. Neither Veronika nor Grace has cellulite or misshapen fat deposits. Additionally, Gisele Bundchen has breast implants, and take another look at her backside before calling it feminine.

You are confounding skinniness with masculinization. There are skinny feminine women around (example). Gisele is not masculine by virtue of her slenderness. A woman does not need to have large breasts in order to look feminine as opposed to androgynous; take a god look around the site. Slenderness does not translate to the inability to have children, inability to sexually please a [heterosexual] man, not being able to breastfeed well or not appealing to exclusively heterosexual men unless the woman happens to be medically underweight. A woman is not more or less of one, regardless of her level of body fat or masculinization.

gisele is truly one of my favorite models. she just exudes a certain something, exotic-ness is the term i guess. i don't find her attractive because she is famous, but when i first saw her my mouth fell to the floor. i personally just find her striking.
about her body shape, wouldn't one (female) find it difficult to have more curves at such a small weight as gisele's? she's about 5'10 and 130 pounds. this is not to say that she's anorexic. according to a weight chart she can be classified as healthy. and besides, wouldn't we want people to be in a healthy weight range vs grace or fat women. that aside, how can one expect gisele to have a huge butt or boobs at her weight? its very rare, at least i don't know many women like this. woopdee do, she had a boob/nose job...what about the other million women that had the exact same thing done last year.
now about her face, its angular yes, and i agree with -R angular faces are more prefable in teh art world. they photograph better and are more striking. even in literature, angular faces are praised..take ayn rand's the fountainhead for example and the description of the protag, howard roark. that aside, i still find her facial structure very compelling and her face very beautiful and exoctic.
i don't think its a transsexual parade..i mean look at tyra banks, she had front and back and was pretty.
its okay gisele, i still find you very attractive

Davo: You think Grace has an unhealthy body weight, that she is too fat? If so, then this is craziness. Grace would be too fat from the perspective of gay fashion designers because her curves, in part, prevent her from looking like a boy in his early adolescence, but normal people should not find Grace fat.

This entry is not about expecting Gisele to have feminine curves, but pointing out that she is inappropriate for lingerie modeling. I don’t think that a million women have a breast/nose job in a year, but Gisele’s having undergone cosmetic procedures needs to be pointed out because these procedures have made her more feminine-looking (yet the woman is far from being describable as feminine).

Within this site, there are numerous examples of more feminine and thereby less angular faces photographing well. Masculinization is not synonymous with angularization, i.e., it would be easy to find angular faces that look more feminine than Gisele’s (example). Besides, in lingerie modeling, the focus is not on the face.

Just because Victoria’s Secret uses a feminine model here and there does not mean that it does not look like it is using a lot of male-to-female transsexuals in its lingerie show. And no, Tyra Banks is not feminine; she got breast implants at some point; and there is more to her looks (example) that is best addressed in a separate entry.

I am impressed by and grateful for all your work and research, but your conclusion that fashion designers' decisions (at least when they choose their models) are based solely on their homosexuality is ludicrous. To be a successful fashion designer requires top tier creative talent and top tier business sense. Business sense means knowing how to sell your clothes - and since your fashion line lives or dies on the runway - you better know how to make those clothes look great.

In a fashion show you have fifteen minutes to make an impact on everybody in the room, including those people who are sitting 200 feet away--because they're the ones deciding whether to buy your line.

To make an impact at a distance (and, as Marquart would say - to look recognizably human), a model needs striking facial features--and striking means robust cheekbones, large eyes, a strong jaw and chin, and a strong forehead.

Unfortunately for human biology, striking can resemble masculine because a woman's softer facial features are a direct result of estrogen stunting the developement of her facial skeleton. That is why a woman looks more childlike than a man.

Fashion designers choose models with highly articulated facial skeletons and use them as blank slates, applying cosmetics to achieve any look they want, including super-feminine, while ensuring that the models will still make a strong impression at a distance.

Your argument is also one sided: you only point out the what you call - masculine - facial features of the models - but you ignore their feminine features - large eyes (which also are there to be seen at a distance), large intercanthal distance, great anterior projection of the cheekbones (a major marker of feminity), submalar fullness, tiny noses, full lips, thin skin, tiny frail bones and flatness of the buttocks (this is a major misconception on your part - a man's buttocks are bulging and muscular - a woman's are flat as a result of reduced musculature/lack of testosterone - rent a porn film if you don't believe me.)

Instead of comparing these runway models to non-runway models, you should be comparing them to male runway models - then you will see that they have strong female faces, not male faces.

P.S. Non-runway model women use cosmetics to look more striking, ie to compensate for a less developed face (think about why men do not use them). Are these women trying to look more masculine to attract homosexual men?

I side with Erik. I have never thought high fashion models look striking. In fact, I have always thought they are the blandest looking women in the planet. All people I know used to think the same until supermodels reached the popularity that they have now.

I think Erik did not overlook their feminine features. Of course it is a given that they will have feminine features because they are biological women. However, compared to the average women, they look masculine. That is what Erik is giving emphasis in this website.

Another thing: your suggestion that Erik should instead compare the female runway models to male runway models is INVALID. It does not make any sense to compare two things of different kinds. It's like comparing a monkey to a see which of them looks more like a monkey. Duh. Of course women would look feminine beside men! There is no question in that. But the female runway models are BIOLOGICAL FEMALES and so they should be compared to other biological females. And compared to the average female, runway models do indeed have the tendency to look like adolescent boys.

Richard: The need for creativity, talent and business sense in order to succeed in the fashion business is obvious. However, these elements do not require physical masculinization of fashion models. You have focused on the runway. Fashion industry reps repeatedly tell us that the models are skinny because they function as “clothes hangars.” If so, then why should their facial features matter on the runway? Why do they need to have “striking”-as-in-masculinized faces? They are selling clothes. You also need to note that most people and buyers are exposed to fashion imagery in the print media (e.g., magazines), and people can take their time to evaluate a model’s looks and the clothing on her, i.e., there is no need for masculinization in the models with respect to the print media.

Estrogens are actively involved in shaping the facial skeleton and do not merely stunt bone growth. Even androgens have a growth-stunting effect in addition to molding shape in particular ways, though estradiol has a more powerful effect on bone growth than testosterone.

Am I ignoring feminine features in high-fashion models? Whereas a woman can have a combination of masculine-looking and feminine-looking features, a woman cannot simultaneously be overall masculine and overall feminine. Masculinity-femininity is inferred from overall looks since sex hormones are not the only factors shaping looks. High-fashion models are clearly overall masculinized compared to the general female population, and hence cannot be said to have feminine features unless they are feminine, though a masculinized high-fashion model can have a few feminine-looking features. There are plenty of feminine women with full lips, large eyes, thin skin, tiny noses, slender bones, etc., and where is your evidence that high-fashion models, on average, have tinier noses and larger eyes compared to women in general? You have not cited any evidence that, controlling for ancestry, intercanthal distance is greater among high-fashion models or that their cheekbones are more forward projecting compared to the general female population. Submalar fullness? Hollowed-out cheeks are not unusual among runway models. Women’s buttocks are flatter compared to men, on average? This is ridiculous. Whereas men do have larger buttock muscles, the bone structure is more protruding in women and women have more fat in the buttocks, which make female buttocks protrude more than men’s, on average.

As Brenda has said, female high-fashion models will obviously look more feminine than their male counterparts; the femininity of female fashion models should be compared with women in general and especially feminine women. As far as make-up goes, female models in general use make-up, and typically to hide blemishes, make their skin look young and enhance overall looks, which is not achieved by making the face look more masculine among non-fashion models.


I thought I was clear in my comments but I guess I was wrong. I think fashion runway models are intentionaly used because they are strikingly beautiful women, not striking women who look like men. The latter is your assertion. Your assertion, however, relies on faulty observations and biased, inadequate comparisons.

I. Why are the aformentioned women striking, but not masculine? Let me break it down feature by feature.

Forehead/brow area- You assert that a protruding forehead is a definitively masculine trait. This is false. A masculine forehead is characterized by a combination of being protruding, high, square(around the head), sloping backwards (in profile), and having a coarse orbital rim. A man's eyebrows are thick, straight and sit at or below the orbital rim. In contrast, a woman's
forehead is characterized by a combination of being less protruding, low, bulbous (rounded around the head) and straight (in profile). A woman's eyebrows are thin, sit atop the orbital rim and curve upwards and outwards lateraly (towards the sides of the head).

In your examples of fashion runway models, there is not a single example of a woman with either a high, sloping, square, or coarse forehead: all the foreheads are low, straight, round and delicate. Neither is there a single example of a
woman with a flat, thick eyebrow that sits at or below the orbital rim: they are all thin, curve upward and sit above the orbital rim.

All you have is left is your observation of forehead protrusion, and you don't even have that. Look at your "jaw structure" section. 90% of the fashion models pictured there have almost no protrusion. Your choice of comparisons shows bias. More importantly, protrusion by itself is attributable to a normal dolichocephalic headform, which is sex independant. In other words, it is normal to see a protruding forehead in a human being, whether it be a man or woman.

Jaw - You assert that a angular jawline with a squared chin and a sharp gonial angle is definitively masculine. This is also false. A masculine jawline is characterized by a combination of width (as wide as the temples and/or the cheekbones), height (compared to the width of the face), and volume and coarseness at the posterior jaw (from enlarged masseter muscles). A masculine chin is characterized by a combination of width (compared to the height of the face), height (compared to the width of the face), projection and squareness. In contrast, a woman's jawline is characterized by it relative narrowness (considerably narrower than the cheekbones or temples), relative shortness (this
is partly why a woman's face looks short and round), and decreased volume/more refinement at the posterior jaw (from smaller masseter muscles). A woman's chin is characterized by a combination of relative narrowness, roundness and
shortness. Two qualities, roundness of the gonial angle (back corner) and an inverted triangle shape of the jaw (with the chin at the bottom corner and the bottom of the ears at the side corners) are sex independant but associated with

In your examples of runway models, there is not a single example of a woman with a jaw of male width (as wide as her temples or cheekbones), a jaw of male height (compare to the jaws of the adjacent glamor models), a jaw of male crudeness, a chin of male width, a chin of male height, or a chin of male protrusion (usually well beyond the lower lip).

All you have left is your observation of squared chins and angular jawlines. But your photo examples do not even proove your point. Look at your "faces" section. 95% of the fashion runway models pictured have rounded, pointy chins.

Of the 15% of squared chin girls I see in your "jaw structure" section, the chin
width is barely enough to get most of them out of the "round" category. And as I said before, sharp gonial angles and angular jawlines are sex independent.

(See the transgender surgery sight at Also, see fifty years of playboy centerfolds at or type "playboy centerfolds" in google image search. (That is if your concede that Hugh Heffner is not homosexual.)

Cheekbones - In your opinion a robust, high cheekbone is definitively masculine. Again, this is not the case. A male cheekbone is defined by a combination of appearing high, robust, narrow (no wider than the temples and jaw), flat (as a
result of less fat under the cheekbone), and retracted (because the male nose
is more protrusive). A female cheekbone is defined by a combination of appearing wide (wider than the temples and jaw), full (as a result of more fat under the cheekbone), protruding (as a result of the nose being less protruding) and somewhat lower. As a result, the female cheekbone appears more prominent and defined, and appears to take up more surface area on the face. (See the transgender surgery sight at

In your photos of runway models, there is not a single example of a woman with narrow, flat, or retracted cheekbones. (By the way, I never said runway models' cheeks project more than the average woman's, but that they project in a characteristically feminine way). Nor is there a woman whose cheekbones do not appear prominent, defined or to take up a large portion of her face - in fact, the very opposite is true: all of the runway models depicted have cheekbones which appear to take up greater than normal portions of their faces.

All that remains are your observations of high and robust cheekbones. But high, defined cheekbones are considered universally beautiful in women (look at famous actresses or playboy models or for a study see With respect to robustness, it is not by
itself definitive of a masculine cheekbone, varies by ethnicity and is sex independent.

Your comparison choices again show your tendency towards bias. Most of the glamor models in your "cheekbones" section have abnormally high foreheads and abnormally narrow cheeks, making their cheeks look egregiously deficient.

Going by the mistaken belief that a woman's cheeks should be "regressed," you intentionally go to extremes to prove your point and shoot yourself in the foot.

Also note that, when you compare the fashion runway models in your "cheekbones" section to the glamor models in your "jaw structure" section, you will notice that the differences in
cheekbone height and volume are smaller by several orders of magnitude, with the
fashion models looking more striking, not more masculine.

A facial feature cannot be called masculine if it only contains 1 out of 5 or 6 characterisitics which, when combined, constitute
masculine. In the same way, a facial feature must be called feminine if it contains all or all but one of the characteristics which, when combined, constitute feminine. This is why the fashion runway models you have pictured here are not masculinized, but striking, beautiful women.

Some additional notes -

1) You argue that runway fashion models are overall masculine by giving examples of models who possess certain specific features you observe (though wrongly) as masculine. You cannot build an argument like this. "Overall" means "overall,"
not one specific feature which one specific model has, so that when I leave the "forehead section," everyone in the "cheekbone section" has a small forehead, etc. Giselle's face, for example: high, robust cheekbones, but a tiny narrow jaw, retracted forehead and a round chin.

2) When you make your "feature comparisons," instead of juxtaposing photographs of runway models and average women, you
juxtapose photographs of runway models and abnormal women. This is an egregious

Along the same lines, you argue that juxtaposing female fashion models with male fashion
models to assess femininity is pointless because the women would look more feminine in comparison. You are wrong. They would not just look more feminine, they would look inarguably like women. Why? Because by not picturing men, you don't get a good sense of what they look like. (C'mon, your whole website is based on photographic evidence) ( to see the top 50 male models).

If you really want to be objective, take every fashion/glamor comparison photo, and add to it a photo of a man. Then ask yourself, "does this fashion model look more like the man or the woman?" If she looks more like the woman, then she is "overall female."

3) Models and actressess get multiple nosejobs (a smaller nose is a genetic female trait - see Minimally wide set eyes (intracanthal distance equals intercanthal distance) are a requirement for runway modeling - ask a model or a plastic surgeon.

4. Why do fashion designers need striking women to model their clothes in a fashion show? Because beautiful people sell product. This is a fundamental marketing principal and I am frankly surprised that I would need to call something so obvious to your attention. If, as you say, all that is needed of a fashion runway model is to serve as a "hanger," then fashion shows would consist of headless mannequins on a conveyor belt or models with paper bags over their heads, so as not to draw attention away from the clothes. Obviously, fashion designers are shelling out tens of thousands of dollars in model fees because they know they will see a return.

This idea that the model choices of homosexual fashion designers is being dictated by their homosexuality is like something stuck in your craw. They don't work their fingers to the bone and stay up nights thinking about how to sell to their demographic, and then, suddenly, when it comes to choosing a model, get gay tunnel vision. Give them a little credit.

Most importantly, your argument completely fails to account for female and straight fashion designers who use the same models as the homosexual fashion designers. Ralph Lauren, Tommy Hilfiger, Donna Karan, J.Lo, Russell Simmons (FUBU), etc. They are powerful and influential, but are not looking for men.

P.S. Why do fashion models need to be "striking at a distance" when most buyers and people are exposed to fashion throught the media or runway shows? The major buyers either attend the runway show or send photographs to take pictures/video of the show. The photographers stand in the back of the "theater" and must use long lenses to photograph the models. Long lenses create compression distortion (compress facial features, making them smaller and blander). Striking facial features will remain interesting in photographs. When buyers and normal people
access fashion through the media, that media is created with cameras which use long lenses.

People in the performing arts, and also in politics, usually have a robust, protruding facial skeleton: it just attracts more attention.

Also, a note about Marquart: the Marquart mask was devised in the abstract by drawing a centered vertical line between the middle of the pupil and the point where the lips meet (on an imaginary face), and then by projecting decahedrons
of certain geometric relationships around that line. The mask fails both because it fails to account for ethnic differences and that many beautiful people fit the mask poorly while many ugly people fit the mask perfectly.

Richard obviously doesn't get it.

1.) You don't really need to examine fashion models body part by body part. One look and you'll see that they look masculine, regardless of whether all their traits are masculine or not. They are mostly masculine looking compared to the average woman.

2.) Again, you can NOT compare a woman to a man to see who looks more like a woman. Of course, a woman IS a woman so she will look feminine compared to a man. Erik is not saying that the fashion models look exactly like men. He says that they resemble adolescent boys, or that compared to the average woman, these fashion models look more masculine. Erik here is comparing female models to more feminine women. Putting a picture of a man beside the pictures of a fashion model and a very feminine woman would mean disater for the fashion model in terms of determining how feminine that fashion model really looks. You know why. It is that simple. Don't tell me you don't get it still.

3.) Those women the fashion models were compared to are not abnormal. They are normal women with beautiful, feminine physiques. Do you see them as abnormal? If so, you just gave me reason to think you are homosexual. Normal, heterosexual men all will be salivating the moment they see the pictures of those luscious, voluptuous, "abnormal" women.

4.) Erik has mentioned in at least one page of this website that heterosexual designers use the same kind of models as the homosexual designers because they will risk being ostracized and not recognized if they go against the flow.

5.) Most fashion models do not look aesthetically pleasing to the general population. They only become beautiful because they are famous and high status - the halo effect.

Now, I think we should wait for Erik to say something because he's the one with more knowledge about this.

Richard: Your latest comment reflects muddled thinking. Nowhere have I asserted that fashion runway models look like men. I don’t know how you have inferred this. If you plan on leaving comments such as the following…


They [runway models] would not just look more feminine [compared to men], they would look inarguably like women.

If she looks more like the woman, then she is “overall female.”

...then please don’t comment since I am getting tired of having to defend myself against ridiculous caricatures of my arguments. Of course, female high-fashion models generally look female, but they generally do not look feminine. My assertion is that high-fashion models, on average, are masculinized women. Masculinized women obviously look more feminine than men but they are not as feminine as feminine women. The comparisons here are among women, not between men and women.

You have described high-fashion models as strikingly beautiful, which explains why they are used for modeling, but I have already asserted that indeed gay fashion designers who dominate the fashion business find the models they use very good looking. Please don’t tell me that the general public finds these women strikingly beautiful, too, because I have cited plenty of evidence within this site showing that this is far from the case. And, I have not argued that the typical looks of high-fashion models are entirely explicable in terms of the homosexuality of the dominant gay fashion designers. The homosexuality of gay fashion designers explains the typical masculinization of high-fashion models, but not their typical skinniness and the penchant for female models in their mid-teens on the part of the fashion industry. The latter two items are explained by the appeal of adolescent boys to many of the dominant gays in the fashion business; skinny and masculinized teenage girls come closest to approximating boys in their early adolescence. I have already explained that non-gay fashion designers have to comply with the status quo set up by the dominant gays in the fashion business.

Your comment has extensively focused on the face, oblivious to the fact that people are supposed to be looking at the clothes these women are wearing rather than their facial features. Reproducing a 3-dimensional object in a 2-dimensional photograph will introduce slight distortion, but is this the reason why runway models with “striking” faces are used? Are people supposed to look at their faces? Once again, people can take their time to look at photographs, and do not operate under the principle that “I will take a good look at the clothing if the face of the woman catches my attention.” My response to your absurd portrayal of my arguments regarding facial features follows:


You have accused me of asserting that a protruding forehead is a definitively masculine trait. I have made no such assertion. I have pointed out that foreheads project more with masculinization. Your comment mentioning differences between men and women, which should be portrayed in terms of differences “on average” rather than either-or differences, is irrelevant since the comparisons are among women, not between men and women. High-fashion models do not need to have foreheads similar to those of men in order to be described as masculinized compared to women in general and especially feminine women. Besides, you will find examples of projecting foreheads among brachycephalic European crania.

You have accused me of asserting that an “angular jawline with a squared chin and a sharp gonial angle is definitively masculine,” but I haven’t said this. I have said that increasing masculinization makes the jawline more angular and the gonial angles sharper, and have cited data published in peer-reviewed journals to back up this assertion and refute yours that the sharpness of the gonial angle and the angularization of the jawline are sex-independent; see the “feminine vs. masculine” page. Why don’t you make an effort to read the site before commenting? Once gain, your comment about male-female differences in terms of jaw structure [and also cheekbones] portrays the differences in terms of either-or, whereas the differences are of a continuous nature, which is what makes it possible to talk about masculine and feminine women. A masculine woman does not have to look like a man in order to be designated as such.

I have not made the assertion that a “robust, high cheekbone is definitively masculine,” but that increasing masculinization makes the cheekbones more robust (not a sex-independent trait) and higher. Regarding your assertion, “I never said runway models’ cheeks project more than the average woman’s, but that they project in a characteristically feminine way,” you have clearly mentioned, without evidence, the “great anterior projection of the cheekbones (a major marker of feminity (sic))” of runway models. You have said that high and defined cheekbones in women are universally regarded as beautiful, but whereas the “defined” part is obvious, where is the evidence for the “high” part? Your link doesn’t appear to mention this. Regarding the “bias” in the comparisons on the cheekbones page, I have already pointed out that the selections are biased to exaggerate the magnitude of the differences between the groups, fashion models vs. normal women (basically Northern European norms), but not the directionality of differences between the groups. It is not my argument that women should have regressed cheekbones. The right column on the “cheekbones” comparison page does not focus on feminine women; it features a mix of women ranging from slightly masculine to slightly feminine; the point is to show normal Northern European tendency; you should check out the regressed cheekbones of the average North American white female in Fig. 1c on this page. If you believe that the differences with respect to cheekbone volume and height between the fashion models featured on the cheekbones page and the glamour models featured on the jaw structure page are several orders of magnitude less than the differences involving the glamour models on the cheekbones page, then you apparently do not know what is meant by an order of magnitude, and have failed to note that the glamour models shown on the jaw structure page do not have high cheekbones and are typically feminine and hence will have wider faces, which is not primarily due to larger cheekbones, whereas the glamour models shown on the cheekbones page are, as mentioned earlier, not selected for femininity. I suppose I should more clearly imply this on the cheekbones page.

Regarding your comment, “A facial feature cannot be called masculine if...,” I am not calling individual facial features masculine or feminine, just describing how various features are altered with varying levels of masculinization and feminization. Designating a face masculine or feminine requires an overall evaluation, and it is obvious that high-fashion models are typically masculinized. Am I supposed to infer from Giselle’s features like you have described, namely “high, robust cheekbones, but a tiny narrow jaw, retracted forehead and a round chin” that she is not masculine looking? What do her photos reveal? Gisele has had a nose job but her nose still doesn’t look feminine. Look carefully at the lateral bony part of her nose, where the nasal bones meet the maxillary bones; the region is not flattened and is robust. If you ignore size and focus on shape, then masculinization makes the jaw narrower, i.e.., Giselle’s narrow jaw in terms of shape is not making her look feminine. Additionally, look carefully at Giselle’s face pictures right below Grace’s face pictures above and ask yourself if you see a rounded or a squared chin in Giselle.

When you talk about me juxtaposing “photographs of runway models and abnormal women,” the “abnormal” women are simply feminine ones. Models and actresses get multiple nose jobs? All of them? What is this? And, if “a smaller nose is a genetic female trait,” then why do some females have large noses if they are female?

Earlier you said that “large intercanthal distance” was a characteristic of female high-fashion models, and now you have stated that “minimally wide set eyes” are a requirement for runway modeling. What is this? Masculinization alters face shape by bringing the eyes closer together, i.e., the closer-set eyes of high-fashion models, on average, are consistent with their greater masculinization.

Do not accuse me of basing the whole site on photographic evidence. Just because this site is richly illustrated does not mean that the arguments are based on photographs. There are numerous references to articles in peer-reviewed journals here, and in many cases the pictures are illustrating the arguments/conclusions in the papers cited.

Regarding Playboy centerfolds, they have gotten masculinized over the years; see this comment for possible underlying reasons. I don’t see the point of your comment on is irrelevant to the entry. Besides, this entry is about lingerie modeling, not high-fashion modeling.


In response to your comments -

1)"You don't need to examine models body part by body part" - That's exactly what Erik is doing on this site to prove his point - notice the sections titled "Cheekbones", "Jaw Structure", "Nasoglabellar region", "Physique", "Shoulders", "Backside" and so on.

2)"Putting a picture of a man beside the pictures of a fashion model and a very feminine woman would mean disaster for the fashion model in terms of how feminine she looks" - I think you should try this at home - then you will see the fashion model looks just as feminine - but more striking and beautiful.

3)"Those women the fashion models are compared to are not abnormal" - I never made that generalization. I said most of the glamor models in the "Cheekbones" section have unattractively/abnormally high forheads/narrow cheeks, and that Erik chose them, not randomly (out of a hat with his eyes closed) and not from a sample of glamor models which meet some attractiveness criteria (because anyone can put photos of themselves on a website and call themselves a glamor model), but in a biased way. Compare the unattractively high forehead/narrow cheeked models to any of the glamor models in Erik's other sections and see for yourself.

For a more obvious example of "cheating" look at the "backside" section - where Erik argues that fashion models have flat rears akin to men. Notice how all of the fashion models are either standing up straight or walking, while all of the glamor models are bent over and sticking their butts in your face - making their butts look twice as big as they really are (look how much they are arching their backs). Also, notice how the bent over glamor models are in three-quarters view, which makes their butts look even bigger.

As far as the glamor models being "voluptuous," if you ever see a fashion model or a "glamor model," in real life, they will both look super skinny - of course the fashion model will look skinnier, but you will be surprised. I prefer voluptuos to skinny.

4)Straight fashion designers will be "ostracized and not recognized if they go against the flow." Gay fashion designers can't gang up and ostracize someone because there is no "powerful group" that gay fashion designers belong to. The way fashion designers stay in business is to secure investors (who often don't know anything about the fashion business), make attractive clothes that women want to buy, and market those clothes effectively. They are all in competition with each other.

Anyway, why would you gang up on someone because you don't like the models they are using? - that's just over the top. Secondly, who is going to "not recognize" P.Diddy (Sean Jean) or Jennifer Lopez (J.Lo) or Russell Simmons (FUBU) or Ralph Lauren (Polo) or Tommy Hilfiger? They have more fame and influence than most of these designers ever will.

5) "Most models don't look beautiful ("aesthetically pleasing") to the general population." In 2005, Adriana Lima was voted #1 of's top 99 women, with 250,00 voters participating(, and Heidi Klum was voted #5 ( I think 250,000 people is a fair sampling of the general population.

"They only become beautiful because they are famous and high status." Oprah Winfrey, Hillary Clinton, Condoleezza Rice, Martha Stewart -- all famous and high status, none beautiful.


1.) Yes, that is what Erik is doing, but only because he does have a point to prove. You, on the other hand, can't achieve the opposite of Erik's goal using the same method as Erik's because the fashion models obviously look masculine at the very first glance.

2.) I don't need to do this because I've seen many pictures of men, feminine women, and masculine female fashion models together. Yes, the fashion models look striking in the sense that they'd get your attention and make you ask, "Hey, why does this woman look masculine?"

3.) Quoting you: "When you make your 'feature comparisons,' instead of juxtaposing photographs of runway models and average women, you juxtapose photographs of runway models and ABNORMAL WOMEN (emphasis mine). This is an egregious cheat."

4.) As Erik has said, gay fashion designers do not conspire to choose masculine looking women. They don't have to, it's in their taste already. And it's the homosexual fashion designers that dominate the industry. Those designers you mentioned had to imitate and follow the designers who were there before them in order to be recognized themselves.

5.) Posing tricks, make-up, and other possible tricks at work. I myself at first thought Adriana Lima was cute when I first saw her in a Maybelline ad. But when I saw pics of her that showed the truth, I then realized she's not as feminine as she seemed. As, for Heidi Klum, I had an epiphany when I discovered this site for myself. Moreover, even if Ask Men is a website for men, we are not really sure if the voters are all heterosexuals. Plus, people can vote more than once. I know because I myself have participated in the votation.

The last high status women you mentioned may not be pretty but they look better in the eyes of the people because of their status. Besides, they are already old and the high fashion models are young. It's unfair for you to compare their appearances to the young high fashion models' appearances.

Now, let's see you leave a comment in response to Erik's reply since it's he who has the more in-depth explanation and more arguments against your comment.

(Sorry, I forgot abot this one.)

Even though most of the glamour models arch their backs exaggeratedly, there are a few who don't. And even if these glamour models do not arch their backs exaggeratedly, you will be able to see that their buttocks have more meat than those of the high fashion models.

Quoting from you again: "As far as the glamor models being 'voluptuous,' if you ever see a fashion model or a 'glamor model,' in real life, they will both look super skinny - of course the fashion model will look skinnier, but you will be surprised. I prefer voluptuos to skinny."

I do not really get what you mean when you said I will be surprised. Yes, there are glamour models who are skinny, as can be observed from their arms and waistlines. However, even though both the high fashion and the glamour models are skinny, it is the glamour model who has the breasts, the hips, and the more protruding buttocks.

Tastes will vary, and not all VS models are created equally, but I like the way the majority of them look. Maybe that's my ignorance about feminine trickery talking, but I've seen several fashion shows and tv interviews on top of the commercials and catalog photos, so I think I have some idea on the subject.

Yes, a lot of them have implants, but that's getting into how they theoretically would look moreso than how they actually do look. I don't see what it has to do with the modeling industry's tendencies. Clearly, Victoria's Secret wanted models that had relatively large breasts, not flat-cheated girls. Besides, silicone is no stranger to glamour modeling or the porn industry; in fact, the implants there tend to be more extreme and sometimes even ridiculous.

I love Alessandra Ambrosio's face, and I think she's possibly the hottest model working today. I like her body, perfect or not, but it's her gorgeous face that works wonders on the runway, in the commercials, and in the catalogs. Even in lingerie modeling, that makes a huge difference to me.

This may be where Erik accuses me of being homosexual or "nearly escaping homosexuality", but I'd wager that most other heterosexual men would at least find her attractive. When I look at her, I don't see anything remotely masculine, and the physiology debate between Richard and Erik (some of which I didn't even understand) isn't going to change that.

Keeley Hazell is one of my favorite models, too, and I'll readily admit that she's more attractive than Ana. However, I can appreciate both women in their own way.

For me, it's no different than hair color. I'd have a hard enough time trying to choose an ideal between blondes, redheads, and brunettes, and I certainly wouldn't want everyone to have the same hair color. Rather than looking at models at Gisele or Ana and criticizing them for not serving some ideal, I enjoy what they bring to the table. I don't see there being anything gay about that.

I meant anatomy, not physiology (although the talk on estrogen did take that route).

Richard: A response to your references to this site in your reply to Brenda...

Regarding examining the models part by part, yes this is being done to some extent to explain the subtlety of masculinity-femininity, but it is also clear that they need to be seen as a whole. A body part by itself is not necessarily informative about how feminine or masculine a woman is.

Regarding the cheating, I have already mentioned the bias on the cheekbones page and explained that it is necessary to clarify the directionality of the differences between high-fashion models and normal women (not necessarily feminine), and did address this issue in my previous reply to you. As far as the backside comparisons go, whereas it is true that there are posing differences, it is not an easy task to readily obtain pictures of glamour models from behind while they are walking. Anyway, any reasonable person can see that if the fashion models shown were posing with their lower backs arched, their backsides will still not look feminine, let alone as feminine as that of the glamour models shown. For instance, you ignored this picture of Heidi Klum showing her both walking and posing, yet in no case does her backside look feminine. Elsewhere I showed this picture of Heidi Klum with her back arched and added two comparisons with a feminine glamour model (on the right) (1, 2) but her backside still doesn’t look feminine for the simple reason that it isn’t and cannot be made to look feminine by posing alone unless the picture is a butt-sticking-in-your-face type. It is an exaggeration on your part that the glamour models are “sticking their butts in your face” because these kinds of photos will be useless for evaluating femininity. You have also ignored that many high-fashion models are shown in three-quarters view whereas many glamour models are not shown in this view.

Glamour models will look super skinny in real life? Certainly not the ones in the attractive women section of this site. However, if you consider normal to be 200 pounds then in comparison the glamour models will look very skinny in real life.

It is ridiculous that you mention the liked of P. Diddy and Jennifer Lopez in reference to fashion designers. These individuals became famous for reasons other than fashion designing, and have used their fame to branch into selling clothes, but proper top-notch fashion designers are those that have become famous through their clothes designing. Also, FUBUs and equivalent do not qualify as high-fashion. If you are going to talk about the dominant fashion designers, you must refer to those that design clothing meant for social settings for the elite, i.e., clothing that cannot be afforded by most people. These individuals convey a sense of exclusivity and have been responsible for specifying the narrow range of looks that high-fashion models need to possess. If there are comparable heterosexual designers that can get away with charging thousands of dollars per dress, there are too few of them in number to do anything about the looks of high-fashion models while being a part of the industry; if these heterosexuals were to start using feminine women, which they will have to find on their own, you bet the homosexuals will make sure that these heterosexuals function on their own rather than be regarded as their peers in the same industry.

You mentioned Adriana Lima and Heidi Klum ending up as top-ranked attractive women by public vote, and the sample size was huge. Well, it is easy to show, and it has been shown within this site, that these women are objectively masculinized, especially Heidi Klum, and it has been repeatedly shown in controlled laboratory settings that people strongly and overwhelmingly aesthetically prefer above average femininity in the looks of women. So how does one explain the discrepancy between what is seen in laboratory settings and what is seen in real life, as in the poll? This is easy. In a laboratory setting, people are exposed to women ranging from feminine to masculine and asked to rate their attractiveness, but in real life, one observes mostly masculinized women as top-ranked models, and these women have a trickle-down effect, i.e., there are few feminine women in the limelight for comparative purposes. Add in airbrushing, make-up, posing tricks and breast implants in a number of cases, and it should not be surprising if some masculinized women end up widely regarded as attractive. The fact remains that in a controlled laboratory setting, these “attractive” women will be seen for what they are because they will be contrasted with feminine women, which is what this site is doing. For instance, Brenda has reevaluated her impression of Adriana Lima after coming across this site and even described encountering Heidi Klum’s description within this site as a moment of epiphany! She is far from the only one of her kind. Many years ago, I would myself have excluded Heidi Klum from a list of masculinized fashion models based on a handful of her pictures that I had encountered. Wait till there is a mainstream outlet for feminine beauty appreciation and then we shall see how many masculinized women end up as top-ranked attractive women by the public.

In your rebuttal to Brenda’s argument that the models are regarded as beautiful because they are famous and possess high status, you mentioned Oprah Winfrey, Hillary Clinton, Condoleezza Rice and Martha Stewart as famous women that are not considered to be attractive. However, apart from the fact that these women are middle aged, none of them became famous as models, and, as Brenda has mentioned, you bet that their status and perceived good nature/pleasing personality makes these women more attractive to many individuals than what would be the case otherwise.

Doug: There are plenty of feminine and attractive women around with prominent breasts that Victoria’s Secret should have no problems finding, especially given its high status and the fact that it does not require its models to pose nude. But why does it use so many masculinized women with breast implants? Obviously because the homosexuals involved wish to avoid anything beyond the minimum femininity that will do the job, and breast implants, posing tricks, etc. help them achieve this minimum femininity without having to actually use feminine women.

Speaking of plenty of nude models and porn starts with breast implants does not help since these women are disproportionately masculinized, too; feminine women are less likely to be involved in these roles. But feminine women with naturally prominent breasts, and there are a lot of them, will typically readily model for Victoria’s Secret if the company asked them to.

I have addressed Alessandra Ambrosio in numerous places within this site, including this and this entry within the blog. If you have gone through these entries and still think that there is nothing masculine about her face or that she looks good, then it is difficult to believe that you are a normal heterosexual man.

Your reference to hair color expresses appreciation for diversity, but there is a good amount of diversity, including all hair colors, that is found among feminine women. There is no apparent need for Victoria’s Secret to be using masculinized women, let alone a large number of them. More importantly, the Victoria’s Secret series addressed here is not about criticizing the models, which would be a useless endeavor, but about pointing out the people responsible for using them, and this cannot be done unless the masculinization of the models is clarified. The people involved are primarily responsible for the relative lack of feminine beauty in the [mainstream] limelight, which is what this site is aiming to change.

"I have addressed Alessandra Ambrosio in numerous places within this site, including this and this entry within the blog. If you have gone through these entries and still think that there is nothing masculine about her face or that she looks good, then it is difficult to believe that you are a normal heterosexual man.

This was about what I expected, and it pretty well demonstrates what's wrong with your logic. You go to the trouble of pointing to evidence that these women are masculinized (although I agree with Richard's contention that you deliberately use photos and comparisons that suit your agenda). Then, once you've "established" that these women are less feminine than others, you make a series of statements about what heterosexual men like with no evidence to back them up.

If someone expresses deviance from your claims, you assume them to be female or homosexual. If they say otherwise, you assume them to be misinformed or somehow less straight than you are. All of these are ways of dismissing any possible disagreement with your unverified assertion. Any polls that dispute your claims are assumed to be flawed, while you've never bothered conducting any sort of poll (scientific or otherwise) at all. Why bother, when you already know the answer?

Basically, you exhibit tunnel vision. Anyone who disagrees with you is either confused or different from you in such a way that it only supports your theory.

I'm not going to say that Alessandra's waist-to-hip ratio is her best feature, but perfection is not something I expect to find in any woman. That's not the same as saying she isn't attractive or that she looks like a man. There's a difference between femininity and female designation. Being flat-chested doesn't make a woman clearly feminine, but it doesn't make her unfeminine or less of a woman. Conventional wisdom may say that larger breasts are more attractive, but that doesn't mean a man can't prefer smaller breasts and still be heterosexual, since small breasts are still a trait possessed by women. So is a large rib cage, going by the fact that these are naturally female models you point to and not the transsexuals you describe.

Long hair is another example that can be found on both men and women. If you see someone from behind with long hair, it could be a man or a woman, or a transsexual. By your reasoning, that makes long hair unfeminine. Women should be shaved bald, so you can distinctly make out the feminine curvature of their heads. Which just goes to show that being clearly designated female and appearing feminine (or attractive) are not one and the same.

The Victoria's Secret models in question are not masculine. In some cases, they may be androgynous, but that's where things like hair, makeup, clothing, behavior, lack of an adam's apple, and most importantly a vagina come into play. What, are you afraid of being attracted to women that could conceivably be transsexuals? I'm a little too comfortable in my sexuality to worry about things like that.

You claim to understand that sex is more complicated than simply heterosexuality vs. homosexuality, but then you're all too quick to make assumptions about orientation whenever you can't explain something by your own tastes. Are men who like baby-faced women narrowly escaping pedophilia? Are women who like men with lots of chest hair narrowly escaping bestiality?

There are people in this world who get off on being tied up and whipped, among countless other atypical and sometimes repulsive predilections, and yet you can't imagine a straight man being attracted to a woman like Alessandra just because she differs from certain classical standards of female beauty. It's really no different from claiming that women with short hair can't be more attractive to straight men, just because so many men prefer it long. Or saying that it's unfeminine to wear pants instead of dresses.

Oh, and the statement about hair color was an analogy to the very traits we're discussing. I like women of different shapes and sizes (such as buxom Keeley and athletic Alessandra), with different sorts of faces. I don't want models to be boxed into your standard of what makes them attractive and feminine.

Doug: I have already refuted Richard’s contention that I am “cheating,” as he calls it. I have extensively cited evidence from peer-reviewed journals to explain the subtlety of masculinity-femininity and expect the reader to use it as a reference while going through the two cited entries on Alessandra Ambrosio, where side-by-side comparisons are provided, to understand that Alessandra is objectively masculinized. It is ridiculous that you say, “you make a series of statements about what heterosexual men like with no evidence to back them up” when I have extensively provided evidence; see points #1-5 here.

The evidence cited is sufficient to state that individuals purporting to be heterosexual men and finding Alessandra Ambrosio attractive are outliers and possibly individuals having narrowly escaped nonheterosexuality if not liars as in being a woman or a man who is not a lifetime-exclusive heterosexual. It is an incorrect portrayal for you to accuse me of not being able to imagine a straight man being attracted to Alessandra; I used the term normal heterosexual as in typical heterosexual in my reply to you; an abnormal/atypical/outlier heterosexual man could be attracted to Alessandra and would still be straight, just as a man that has narrowly escaped nonheterosexuality remains a straight man, though an atypical one.

Your assertion that “Being flat-chested doesn’t make a woman clearly feminine, but it doesn’t make her unfeminine or less of a woman” has been stated by me on multiple occasions, and this should be very clear on the feminine vs. masculine page where I provide illustrative examples of how some large-breasted women are more overall masculine-looking than some small-breasted women and also an example of a small-breasted woman being overall more feminine-looking than a larger-breasted woman next to her. The point is that masculinity-femininity is judged by overall looks, and Alessandra and numerous other Victoria’s Secret models are overall masculinized with respect to women in general in an objective manner, and are also too masculine for the job from a general public perspective.

You don’t have to tell me that a heterosexual man could be attracted to women with small breasts. As I have stated elsewhere, I am not particular about breast size and have been attracted to small-breasted women, but these women have been overall feminine.

Your example of long hair and subsequent claim that by my reasoning long hair would be unfeminine is nonsense. I don’t get what you are trying to convey by saying that I “claim to understand that sex is more complicated than simply heterosexuality vs. homosexuality.” What is this? To assess whether a man who likes baby-faced women has narrowly escaped pedophilia, one will have to assess what kind of physique he likes. Women into bestiality would like a beast’s physical form, and excessive hair does not make a man acquire the body shape of a beast, i.e., your question is absurd. Quit bringing into the picture easily alterable traits such as hair length and what kind of dress one wears.

All right, I misunderstood what you meant by "normal heterosexual", thinking you were suggesting that I was bisexual, bicurious, or "narrowly escaping homosexuality". You have to understand that that last phrase, whether or not it intends to, suggests that the recipient is somehow less of a heterosexual.

That said, you have a roundabout way of approaching the subject. Instead of looking for statistical or even anecdotal evidence that these specific women are unpopular among heterosexual men, you correlate research on sexual preferences with an anatomical analysis of the women.

The problem with this is that it allows for no extenuating circumstances. If heterosexual men generally prefer more feminine features, and Victoria's Secret models have less feminine features than some other sample group, then men will prefer the sample group all things being equal. That doesn't mean that there won't be exceptions.

I think you even acknowledged that somewhere, pointing to some masculinized models you thought men might prefer keeping around. However, you can't really know which models those would be without appealing directly to the source. It's one thing to say that VS needs more hourglass-figured, soft-featured women, if they want to appeal more to men. It's another thing to say who deserves to go and who's best suited to take their place. If Victoria's Secret actually took this seriously, they'd probably use focus groups.

Doug: In my reply to Richard, I have explained why I am basing my arguments on controlled laboratory studies rather than looking up data on how popular some specific fashion models are. Controlled laboratory studies present the judges with women ranging from masculine to feminine, and the judges pick their choices, whereas in real life, masculinized fashion models occupy the top rankings among models but there are hardly enough feminine and attractive women in the limelight for sufficient contrast purposes. Richard mentioned rankings, where some masculinized women are highly rated, and whereas the number of votes are in the millions, people have to pick their favorite among pre-selected candidates, who are rarely feminine and attractive, and many of the voters have likely not bothered to take a good look at the women they are rating, as in the comparisons above. Giselle herself has ended up in many most attractive women lists, and if I recall correctly, Rolling Stone magazine has even described her as the most beautiful woman in the world! I would rather stick to the “roundabout” way presented here until we finally end up with feminine beauty in the limelight, whereupon popularity ratings could be lent credence.

Your comment, “That doesn’t mean that there won’t be exceptions,” simply reiterates what I have stated. Since there are numerous correlates of beauty, it is certainly possible that in some comparisons less feminine women will be preferred to more feminine women by most, and given the literature cited, one can figure out in a “roundabout” manner which models these would be. Once again, popularity rankings are currently not the way to go given that high-fashion models are the highest status models and the fashion business is dominated by homosexual men. I will shortly address the looks of the top-ranked fashion models to clarify the latter.

Since men and women typically judge female attractiveness similarly, if Victoria’s Secret catered to the preferences of the general female population with respect to selecting its models, it would simultaneously also cater to the general male population. Certainly, taking into account what most people prefer makes good marketing sense, but in the absence of alternatives, gay-dominated lingerie-making companies can get away with their anomalous aesthetic choices, i.e., Victoria’s Secret does not need to bother with focus groups.

Ummm you need to stop making fun of gisele
she is my cousin
i no you wont believe me though
but everybody is beautiful
and you dont need to target gisele

Jessica: Gisele is not being made fun of. Rather, some aspects of her looks are being pointed out to illustrate the aesthetics problems caused by male homosexual fashion designers. By the way, do not forget to show this entry to Giselle and other high-ranking people in the fashion industry.

OMG what a bunch of haters here. i am a model. y do ppl have to make their fat selves feel better by making fun of naturall thin beaiful women? everyone has heir own natural weight, maybe your fat maybe your thin.. why cant you just get over it!

J: Giselle’s skinniness is not being made fun of; she is not skinny in the pictures shown above. Her masculinization is being pointed out, not made fun of.

It's hard to believe a 300 pound woman isn't writing this bullshit.

Kate: Perhaps going through the attractive women section of this site will convince you that the writer isn’t a 300-pound woman or equivalent.

i just wasted 20 minutes reading some people who spent quite a lot of time saying so and so is better looking than so and so. this is really a boat load of nonsense. some of these guys might be in graduate school because the terms that they used are those widely found in those losers departments like social science / cultural studies. people if you are fans / friends / relatives of these VS models, you don't need to feel offended by these people, they are educated losers most likely their thesis was trashed by their advisers. don't bother to comment on my comment. i will not read this blog anymore.

one more thing, this is for Erik, if you are man enough, you should take your idea to the headquarter of Victoria Secret and the model agencies. i think their lawyers would be interested to hear what you like to say to them.

To the person who just wasted 20 minutes: I am not sure what sociological terminology you are talking about. Must be someone else. I have no background in sociology or cultural studies.

Pointing out the masculinization of Victoria's Secret models is not illegal, and the company's lawyers cannot stop it. Besides, if they wanted me to explain in detail how masculine VS models are, I would be pleased to do so in person.

Please stop redacting the "naughty bits" of the photographs. There's nothing obscene about the human body.

Cal: The censored parts do not need to be shown as far as this site is concerned. Censoring these parts also makes this site easier to handle for a wider audience. I agree that there is nothing obscene about the human body.

I defintkey prefer Veronika over Gisele. Most EAstern European women, are generally really hott. But Abby winters may we say EWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!! She is just untoned,flabby nasty saggin everywhere.

I agree with several guys above.. whoever runs this site needs to get the sand out of their vagina and the guys who come here praising the site just can't get laid by the hot women.

It is in the eye of the beholder, all of my friends have different ideas of what they like in women.. it's normal. Some girls on tv and in magazines are hot.. others aren't.. some of us like butts... some of us like skinny girls... some of us like black girls.. some of us like hispanic girls..

you all need to get a flipping life instead of picking out one model with a pronounced facial structure-calling her manly .. then finding some chubby out of shape girl on a porn site and calling her the ideal.

Nic: It is true that people have their own preferences, but most people share the same preferences and people overwhelmingly prefer above average femininity and normal body fat levels in women. Besides, the "chubby" women that Gisele is compared to are not being portrayed as "ideal."

Gisele is more attractive than any of the pornstars the writter posted on this page. To say that someone like Gisele has the transexual look is ludicrous. I know this article is merely the writter's opinion. However I still feel that it is extremely biased and I strongly suspect that the article is written by a bitter woman who failed to make it into high fashion modeling due to her less than modelesque physique.

Mike: Neither of the women that Gisele is compared to happens to be a porn star. This article has also not been written by a woman.

so~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ why cant be all just lie to ourselves and think that everyone is all special in their own way?

except for whites. they're extra special, according to erik.

I admit, sometimes the top fashion models can look a little manly compared to other women but who cares? Just because Gisele doesn't have large breasts and curvier hips doesn't make her any less of a woman. If someone is going to hire her to model underwear, let them. If someone is going to buy the underwear she's wearing and call her beautiful, let them.

Maybe someday, the women who you think are more feminine will be doing all the Victoria Secret shows.

Besides, you can't know what all people prefer. I visited a lot of sites on beauty. While you say these masculine models aren't right for this type of modeling, there's a lot of people who do.

Sheena: Yes, a more masculine woman isn’t less of a woman. But the looks of fashion models matter. Read the answer to the question about why there is a need to promote feminine beauty.

If you wish to learn about what most people prefer, you would want to start here (I will be coming up with a better resource soon).

Gisele is not my favorite model at all. I don't think her body is all that great but her legs are long and lean. I think she is rather trashy and I don't think she is particularly photogenic but she is fabulous on the VS runway. Veronika (lol) is just another one of your typical skanky nude models. Her features are too generic for her to stand out of a crowd. Abby Winters is absolutely horrid! She looks sickly with her sweaty hair, pallid complexion and her yellowing, uneven teeth!!! I am sorry but Grace is Really nasty. She has greasy hair. Her body is very untoned and she is as white as a ghost. The last picture is especially nasty. She has three chins in th