You are here


This is a new site. Read about its purpose here. This section will be listing news items related to beauty in women, but is barely functional at the time of this posting. You may leave comments about the main site below.



I noticed that this website has a page called "Attractive Women" and the page has a picture of Charlize Theron. That's only her face. Yes, she has some "feminine" features on her face. She also looks like this -
She has broad shoulders, neck muscles (which are typically hidden with her hair, but not in this picture), strong upper body, etc.

Too bad this little message window does not let me insert pictures, or I could have shown you masculine features of the women you claim to be feminine.

I think you have got too caught up on features of women. People are the way they are. What could Charlize Theron have done if she wanted to have a more feminine shoulder, neck muscles, etc? Don't you think you are creating a bigger issue than it really is? Do you think you have no feminine features? (I am assuming you are male, and not some fat woman who can't get any dates).

Erik Holland: Why don't you post some pictures of yourself?

We need the following -
- a close-up mug shot,
- side shots from both sides,
- head to torso shot without clothes on, and
- and a full picture
(please cover your little thing if you don't want us to laugh)

Let us analyze your masculinity and find out how feminine you are. Seriously, we are getting sick of your analysis of females without seeing anything to establish your own credibility to do any analysis at all.

I'm sure you will delete my post if you are a not a real "man" with courage to face up to scrutiny.

Erik, De wanderer : let's look at the picture of Pamela Anderson, your adorable feminine women? I really curious what's part of your brain u use to decide she is feminine? and Kristin Kreuk is not feminine? just only pamela anderson got blong hair? so u say she is feminine?

Here Pamela Anderson, with her dispoportion breasts.

Compare to Kristin Kreuk.

To ask me, kristin kreuk is beautifull or not? I'd say she is not beautifull. but she is feminine than pamela anderson.
such as this chinese actress, I do not find she is pretty also because I don't like small eyes, short plump body and chubby face. but I also can not denie that this chinese woman is very feminine.


Zonneschijn, you need to stop. You are unfit to be debating here because your English is very poor and you have insufficient background in science. I have clearly argued that Pamela Anderson is a masculinized woman (also this), and you accuse me and Der Wanderer of regarding her as a feminine woman!

I am thinking about having a comments policy 1) forbidding people from critiquing arguments unless they have English proficiency equivalent to the high school level in English-speaking countries, and 2) forbidding people from critiquing any scientific materials in the website unless they offer empirical evidence to counter my arguments. Violators will have their comments summarily deleted and repeat violators will be banned. I don’t want to waste my time clarifying my arguments and correcting misunderstandings.

Learn some goddamned English and basic science!

I will reply to the rest when I have the time. Wait for me to answer your existing comments before leaving more comments addressing my arguments.

why on the attactive women section u have pamela anderson then?
well, I'm graduated social science, major english from somewhere in scandinavia.

Erik : oh sorry, I haven't read your discription on that page. I did see the picture of your models, one of them looks quite like pamela anderson very much untill I misunderstood. really I do not see the different between pamela anderson and your guildlined model in the section, attactive feminine women. u can take a look at this picture. they both look similar.

Erik : the pictures of your attractive women section? when take a look at her face without reading the profile carefully, I think of pamela anderson.

Erik : Violators will have their comments summarily deleted and repeat violators will be banned.

so your websit is only biases then. I wanted to tell u, the woman of yoru feminine women section looked really like an old hag. I think the person who are belower than kinderkaten is YOU! because u always see thing that the other people do not see. the beautifull women that all people agree they are beautifull you find them masculine. I think you are what u said to the other people, lifetime exclusive homosexual. insult and say bad to women. I REALLY HAVE NEVER SEEN SUCH MALES LIKE U!

Erik : here Máiréad Nesbitt, the beautifull blonde woman for u, I like her very much. she is celtic singer, dollish looking, full plump body. try to find her concert's cd to watch, u will find she has very classical character like an angel.

All of these plumped women, when they were young they looked not much different than your glamour models.

Take a look !how it is when u have no jawline at all.

Do u like?

And when your glamour model grown old.

What if a girl is naturally slender? I’ve basically recovered from anorexia but I am still slender. Naturally that is. So is my mother, it’s in my genes, it has nothing to do with my disorder in the PAST just to make it clear so that I don‘t have people saying “you‘re unnaturally skinny! It‘s cuz you don‘t eat! Blah blah blah“. So is a slender woman masculine? Even if she exercises and eats healthy? I mean it kinda sucks if people are like “you have to be curvy to be feminine” there are different types of feminine body shapes. Obviously if you starve yourself to be skinny that is unnatural and I believe masculine because of the fact they end up being flat chested and majorly skinny BUT to the extreme.
Example Vlada Roslyakova who in these pictures looks UNNATURALLY skinny and therefore masculinised in a pre adolescent boy sort of way.

But here are I presume are naturally slender woman
Sasha Pivovarova (She is quoted to say “I can be naturally thin” I believe she is. I have seen anorexia she is not it)

Yulia Volkova (Black spikey hair, I love her! She is totally stunning and sexy :P)

So what I’m trying to get at is a naturally slender woman who is not particularly curvy (Volkova is curvy now since her two pregnancies, the pictures I put up were before) are they masculine? I don’t think so. I think Sasha and Yulia are both very sexy and beautiful woman, Sasha in a very classy way which I love! On the other hand Vlada looks like you could snap her in two. Sooooo what do you think? CAN A GIRL BE SLENDER BUT FEMININE?

I used to have beautifull ex-girlfriend like the girls from the pictures below. but what I did find in her. she used to say she is ugly and too fat,too short, she dosen't like her pink cheeks, white skin, blond hair and small nose. she would like to look like adriana lima, kiera knightley or angelina joli, more than the white angel.

Indeed, do not see the different of pamela anderson and your glamour models. without the botox thick lips, fake breasts, fitness shape. she can be one of your glamour models.

Zonneschijn: I have asked you to stop leaving more comments until I respond to all your previous comments. Do not test my patience. If I adopt the comments policy mentioned previously, you will not be able to leave more comments here. The choice is yours: either wait for me to respond and be able to leave comments therefater or completely lose the ability to leave comments.

I have also repeatedly asked you to stick to a single alias. And, if you are going to post a large number of pictures on the same page, then you should post them as clickable thumbnails.

Zonneschijn is an obvious troll

Sandy :

While I believe in freedom of speech; squabbles, insults and on-going battles between contributors (having nothing to do with you or this site) DO annoy your readers and add nothing to what you are trying to promote. I don’t know what you can do about it, but to ME, it lessens the impact of this site and is tedious at best.

You mean... my little quarrel with Danielle.
I protest, Your Honour, she abused me first.

That annoying Ms. Cathar Perfect was accusing me of holding heretical racist deviant views.
Then she went Medieval on me and ended up hitting me in both my fists with her eyesocket - repeatedly.

So I did the right thing and sent her to Hell :

Wheat and tares, sheep and wolves. Particularly since Pope Innocent III's Vergentis in senium (1199), which defined heresy as treason against God, the parable of the wheat and the tares was often repeated in inquisitorial literature, interpreted and presented as divine approbation—and even as active charge—to eradicate from the church unwholesome elements that refused correction. 81 The image of wolves clothed as sheep (Matthew 7) was also a topos in inquisitorial discourse, admonishing faithful Christians that heretics similarly masked their evil habits with a disguise of piety and, more seriously, served Satan in leading the good astray and sabotaging their salvation. Both texts, and their supposed mandate for expulsion and violence, also reached the laity. In the Dominican Humbert of Romans's instructions for inquisitorial sermons, he recommended that inquisitors cite the parable of the wheat and the tares in order to justify this work, and compare heretics to wolves disguised as sheep, in order to invert any conceptions that heretics were pious and Catholics unchristian. Bernard's exemplum of the rams seized by butchers even recalled Humbert's advice that preaching inquisitors inform listeners that heretics resembled the foxes who craftily stole their chickens at night, itself a homier version of the common ecclesiastical comparison of heretics to the little foxes who spoiled the vines (Song of Solomon 2:15). 82 Bernard Délicieux's sermons, then, adopted exactly the themes and strategies that inquisition had long used publicly to justify itself and to cultivate the agreement that its tasks were holy works, the reconciliation of sinners, the establishment on earth of God's own justice. While Bernard may have known Humbert's preaching manual, it is more likely that this imagery had long borne such public, inquisitorial currency that it had entered the cultural vocabulary of heresy and orthodoxy, good and evil. 83 Jean de Picquigny's deployment of such imagery in a letter to fellow laymen underscores this.

Here, as in other incidents of anti-inquisitorial violence, significant lay antipathy was the engine. Although the cleric Bernard presented this imagery, the congregation did its own work of glossing, determining that the "wolves" guised as sheep were not heretics, but instead inquisitors and their supporters. These events thus gesture toward the common inquisitorial problem of discernment: the constant, troubling need to discriminate true piety from false, alliances with God from those with the devil, orthodoxy from heresy. But discernment was not just the work of clerics. We see here the force, and some repercussions, of the laity's ability to disagree with ecclesiastical and inquisitorial identifications of the truly wicked, the rightfully punished, and the "legitimate authority" holding power from God. Some citizens saw a world inverted in justice and authority. And the alchemy by which Catholics were transformed into heretics and divine justice into injustice constituted its own devilish crime. When inquisitors committed malfeasance, were so palpably unjust, and tormented Catholics, they not only abrogated their charge, but thence became "sinners," "heretics," and "devils." 84 The grave sin of deviation, of departures from God's right order, was then justifiably met with an earthly violence that both prepared for, and also mirrored, God's own violent punishment of transgressors. As we have seen, this rhetoric and reasoning underlay the inquisitorial office itself and more specifically execution, which glanced backward to biblical precedents and forward to eternal damnation. Violence against inquisition could thus constitute a thoughtful, righteous usurpation by laypeople of the inquisitorial office and of its putatively divine mandate to correct the errant and to punish the incorrigible. Just as inquisition should not be reduced to medieval "cruelty," impious hypocrisy, or political strategy, popular violence against inquisition was neither bound to an inescapable, monolithic mentality, nor was a mob's irrational frenzy. In these acts, careful choices were made and rationales formed: violence responded not to the very fact of inquisition in all places and times, but to exactly those events by which the office appeared to violate, rather than to implement, God's justice. They were the opposite of irrationality. 85


81 Innocent III, Vergentis in senium, in E. Friedberg, ed., Corpus iuris canonici, 2 vols. (Leipzig, 1879–1881), 2: 782–83.

82 Humbert of Romans, De eruditione predicatorum, 554–55. Inquisitorial sources indicate that some preachers indeed followed Humbert's advice and used this biblical imagery in practice; see, for example, Doat 28, fol. 193v.

83 Friedlander refers to these references to evil grasses as "new, strange themes" in Bernard's preaching; they were neither new nor strange to inquisitors and those who heard their sermons. Friedlander, Hammer of the Inquisitors, 127. Bernard Délicieux appears to have been quite aware of their inquisitorial use; during his trial he argued unpersuasively that "by 'evil grasses' he meant heretics, whom he encouraged to be exterminated if they were discovered." Friedlander, Processus Bernardi Delitiosi, 195.

84 Lansing interprets another example of such naming, during the anti-inquisitorial resistance in Bologna in 1299, as rhetorical; it resulted from laypeople's recognition of "the political uses of heresy charges." Lansing, Power and Purity, 15.

85 Nirenberg, Communities of Violence, 46–48. This dynamic is, then, analogous to Natalie Zemon Davis's argument that the putative chaos and unthinking frenzy of Protestant and Catholic rioters in early modern France was, in fact, orderly violence that sought to defend doctrine and to supply, or correct, absent or failed mechanisms of justice. Faced with the perceived indolence or impotence of God's appointed deputies (magistrates, clergy) in the wake of profound religious deviation, men and women assumed for themselves the duty of exercising here below God's punishment through pain and death, rendering their violence not "pathological" and "mindless" but rather structured and perceived as legitimate. Natalie Zemon Davis, "The Rites of Violence," in Zemon Davis, Society and Culture in Early Modern France: Eight Essays (Stanford, Calif., 1975), 152–87.

My conscience is clean.

I don't know, Der Wanderer. Celebrities have bad angles, too, but that does not mean they're ugly overall. I do agree that Kristin Kreuk does not look good in the photos you posted, but I think it's mainly because you posted bad pictures and not because Kristin Kreuk is ugly.

brenda :

I don’t know, Der Wanderer. Celebrities have bad angles, too, but that does not mean they’re ugly overall. I do agree that Kristin Kreuk does not look good in the photos you posted, but I think it’s mainly because you posted bad pictures and not because Kristin Kreuk is ugly.

And what's a "bad picture" anyway ?
That's the key.

If the base is good, she should look REASONABLY good most of the times, no matter the angle, the lighting conditions, etc.
Sometimes better, sometimes worse, but that's besides the point because that applies to everyone.

I didn't have to browse my way through thousands of pics to cherry-pick those I posted, there are many, many, more :

It might be argued that the lighting wasn't right (flash) or that she was performing some face-distorting activities (smiling).
Well, then let's look at another subject under the same handicaps :

No comments.

Oh, by the way ...
Megan Fox is another over-hyped non-entity :

Sorry, girls ;p

Why can't all women just be accepted for who they are? You critisize the selection of masculine models in the fashion industry, yet you're also being selective of the so-called "glamour" models.
It's all a matter of opinion.


You critisize the selection of masculine models in the fashion industry, yet you’re also being selective of the so-called “glamour” models.

Erik can speak for himself, but since your point has been raised on numerous occasions, I think I can answer it for him.

Erik doesn't have a a qualm with the fashion industry being "selective." His views is that other features should be selected for ("promoted," as he puts it).

Why can’t all women just be accepted for who they are?

I haven't found anything on this site that counsels against accepting women for who they are. The site's purpose is to advocate a different set of standards than those promoted by the industry today.

If your problem is the promotion of beauty in principle, your concerns are noted, but (I imagine) Erik, I, most visitors to this site, and the general public would disagree with them.

I haven’t found anything on this site that counsels against accepting women for who THEY ARE.

Observer : how about this site called the guys who like supermodels as lifetime exclusive homosexual? do those homosexual have to change their mind to like fat legs women instead of skinny little women? and how about the original skinny little women whom cann't gain their weight even when they tried? so their option is going to fashion industry and make themselve be pretty on their way? the way this site can alert people to think the same way that supermodels are super ugly? isn't it called counsels againt accepting skinny women for the way they are?

personally, I find all fashion models are cute and I like slim women u know they are lovely and gracil. I do not like women with big breasts or the women with her thigns are almost bigger than my waist. those type of shape reminds me of mama's shape. all women are be able to look like that after they have a baby. but the fresh firm body like innocent young women like adriana lima is not all women could effort to be you need to go to fitness, diet etc. to get such a shape.

Indeed I don't againt in all of erik's articles. on the contrary I feel glad that he is kind enough to invest a lot of mony for us to study this site. a lot of his glamour models have feminine face but they are unattactive I did let a lot of my european males friend ( especially scandinavian) look at this site all of them find that women with high cheeksbone, large jaw, deepset big round eyes, dark hair and dark eyes, thick eyebrow and have skin tone darker than ivory shade. such as latina, southern european, middle region- far east asian and north east region-south east asian and Indian look prominent and attacted people to look at them more than the blonde women with narrow small eyes, small nose and smooth oval face without any angles on it. this quite different for southern europe males and south east asian males. those guys tend to like pale skin women, narrow small eyes, rozasea cheeks, weak jaw, the example looking : scandinavian, ainu japanese, west chinese and central asian.

As a tall, in shape, broad shouldered girl, I don't appreciate this website. This is what I have to say about the subject... completley my opinion of course.

On the topic of feminine beauty, have you ever considered that the high fashion models were chosen for their atypical looks which is pleasing to to the aesthetics of art?

I am an artist myself and I find 'some' of the high fashion models very beautiful; yet the others still retain my interest through their intriguing faces. These women, to me, look much more refined and elegant and have much more of a presence than your glamor models whom resembles somewhat typical females in society.

Your information is quite bempty as it focuses only on one aspect of the industry. I honestly believe fashion originated from art itself; the clothes, although odd and displaced if worn in public, reflect the wide boundaries of art. Thus why the fashion designers will never choose a more typical women to represent their clothes. They want their designs to look different and controversial and engages the audience.

Lastly your very homophobic remarks is very much evident throughout this website. You are referring a homosexual to a pedophile by provocatively suggesting that the homosexual fashion designers enjoy the aesthetics of underage teenage boys, which i can ensure you is not true as I have seen some gay couples in the city area and almost all look quite muscular and masculine and are NOT dating underage boys. If you look at the male models in the industry right now, you will see the same resemblance (muscular) and most of them now have very distinct face, some not exactly handsome, which is uncommon in a typical male which further reinforces my concept of art aesthetics being a factor in choosing models to represent designer clothes.

In conclusion I believe that you Erik, want the models to fit YOUR desires and why a heterosexual man like yourself would even be bothered in the women's fashion industry, as their clothes do not appeal to you. I stand by the concept of the fashion industry being a branch of art as shown by the clothes and the models.

Erik, you are quite clever in your use of words, pictures, and research evidence. You want us all to perceive you as this scientist who knows how to talk the talk and is simply just "portraying a view" but the truth is you are simply a racist using this website as a facade. How do I know? Let's see.

I typed in the search "high cheekbones" in google and came across a VERY interesting montage of pictures which are remarkably-- REMARKABLY similar to the pictures you use yourself on this website. So I went to the website called and was able to procure who the author was.

The author calls himself J.Richards. As I continued reading, I noticed that while someone was critiquing him, they said "Erik". Not just "Eric" but "EriK". Yes, you are a racist using the facade of wanting to promote feminine beauty as a platform for your own racist views. Be honest here. You cannot deny that unless you go to and erase every single article you have written. And for the record, I am one of your so-called "ugly" Indian women married to a white guy. So much for wanting to prevent miscegenation?

Not racist: I am not interested in people perceiving me in a particular manner. I believe in making arguments by citing evidence, which is what the reader should consider. I am often accused of racism, but too many people use the racist label to counter argument they don’t like rather than proving that one is a racist by virtue of believing people of other ethnic groups to be inferior and showing that this belief is not backed by evidence.

Your proof of my racism is difficult to make sense of. When I search google for high cheekbones, the first link is to this site, and there are no image or search links to majority rights. Only a search for cheekbones reveals images from majority rights, but the web page where these images appear has no reference to Erik. If you are saying that I have couched views similar to those of Richards’ in less incendiary language, then this is not true. If you are saying that I have authored Richards’ offending article, then again this is not true. If you are saying that I have incorporated elements from the offending article, then this is true, but only the scientific citations, which I wasn’t aware of beforehand. If you think I am a racist, how many racists have you come across who spend a lot of their time posting pictures of partially-nude women to promote their racist goals as opposed to primarily discussing immigration, affirmative action, restriction of speech, deracination, dispossession, crime, illegal wars fought at the behest of aliens, and the like? Said alternatively, what would be a better choice for advancing racist goals?

If you have evidence against my arguments, state it. Accusations of racism will not make me change my arguments. Evidence to the contrary or evidence I am not aware of will make me change.

I just heard that one of the most recent contenders for America's Top Model show was a woman named Isis, who was actually born male. This seems to support your thesis about the preference for masculine-looking women in high fashion. Can anyone deny it anymore?

Dear Erik,

I happened to cross paths with your site the other day, and I haven’t quite been able to get it out of my mind since. You bring up many fascinating points, and yet I find that I can’t necessarily agree with you in your take on the fashion world. I apologize if I’ve missed a few things, as I only perused a few pages, but I thought the point of view of a female artist might interest you.
You say that fashion models are relatively masculine in accordance with homosexual aesthetic, and that they create body image issues with everyday women who aspire to forgo the classic hourglass shape. I am not going to dispute this. You also say that their facial structure tends to be more masculine. I can see this as well. However, you are speaking in a strictly biological sense. Fashion shows and fashion photography is not supposed to be about feminine beauty, as you clearly have discovered. It is about art. And art (or many kinds of art) is about exaggeration, not necessarily a desired reality. The beauty of the fashion model is in her unearthliness—unique and eye-catching features together with basic symmetry. These women are ethereal. And I suppose, to fully appreciate their looks, one may require a certain predilection for the arts—a thing which many women and homosexual men tend to have by nature of being less mathematical and more abstract in mind (not that heterosexual men always lack this, but you get what I mean I hope).
The blame in the body image issue, in my mind, should not solely be attributed to the fashion world, but rather in Anglo-Saxon western society (and the United States in particular..) for bringing up such neurotic women. My mother is from Brazil, so I’ve grown up with a much different perspective than many of my fellow American females. It seems that women in this country lack a basic identity—they feel the need to conform to everything that is thrown at them. They think they need to look like a fashionista , be a hardworking career women, and have a whole brood of brats at home. I really believe that those who exclusively put the blame on the fashion industry are ignoring some core problems.
There is also the theory that as societies become more industrialized, and childbearing becomes secondary, the ultra thin frame naturally is more idealized. This is one reason why even in Brazil, the “guitar-shaped” woman is not quite the desired physique it once was. One could put the blame on Giselle, of course. But in reality it is probably a combination of many things.
The main thing I wanted to stress to you is just that as modern people we oftentimes forget that this is a very artificial world. It’s been a long time in the making, but now we’re stuck here and must make the best of it. Human consciousness is much different than it was even in Roman times. The mind is constantly evolving, and with it society and its departure from nature. In a strictly biological sense, your evaluation of beauty is no doubt very correct. But biology is no longer the only factor, is it? We aren’t living in a rain forest. We’re living in a shiny plastic corporate society. Aesthetic taste is no longer determined merely by biology, but imagination, too.
I’m sorry if I was a bit blunt, or if I offended you in any way, but I hope my letter at least caught your attention somewhat.


I just re-read my letter and I feel the need to clarify the reason why I referred to American women as neurotic…it came off much more offensive than I intended.

I (and many other people besides myself) see fault in the so-called Protestant work ethic/ Calvinistic values which are at the heart of the American psyche. You have to be this and this and that and achieve A, B, C, and D in order to prove to the world that you are a worthwhile human being before you can believe it yourself. This is backwards.
I also didn’t mean to imply that only women are affected by this. However, psychologists have noted time and again that women tend to turn anger inward and become more SELF-destructive, while men oftentimes project anger outward.

Hi Erik. I just stumbled across your site and read through most of it. It's interesting, your comparisons between models. I work in the fashion industry doing photo retouching and work with many high fashion models. Just wanted to give you some more info.

A lot of the differences in these models isn't that they are 'more masculine' but in many cases, their low body fat percentage shows their facial bones more.

You are right in that most high-fashion models have long, lean, athletic bodies. I think the reason for this would be that this is the body type that would have the longest legs. A thin model at 5'10" has legs that appear much longer than a prettier, curvier model at 5'5". In recent times, high fashion models are desired to have a strong, imposing, yet blank-slate look, to give an air of purpose and 'too busy for you' which is directly influenced from the paparazzi and celebrity wealth. With this height/thinness/long-legged look comes broader shoulders and ribcages (due to obvious proportions in the human body.)

I do not disagree with your assertion that most high-fashion models are thinner, more shapeless than the modern day woman, but I must argue against your reasoning behind it. For one, like I mentioned above, this is a 'look' in fashion, but high-fashion models do not necessarily represent the ideal aesthetic for the modern woman. They represent a 'style' much like clothing, cars, your hair, and for now, that style says "confidence, power, and fearlessness." It's easy to see that there are many more beautiful women out there.

Most importantly, though, having worked with many creative and art directors, you may be surprised to learn that women are by FAR the most judgmental when it comes to other women. I have retouched several models for different companies and harsh critiques come from other women, not men or gay fashion designers. For some reason, women scrutinize and nitpick at other women to such a degree, and with such 'colorful dialogue' it's almost an obsessive phobia of body fat, curves, and blemishes. Men are much more accepting and lax about the models, whether they are straight or gay men.

I'm not sure what this says about our culture, but it's something that happens quite frequently.

As for Victoria's Secret, you might be surprised to learn that the vast majority of creatives who work there are women, with the occasional straight and gay man thrown in. The designers do not have a say in what models/marketing/advertising strategies are used.

Hope this sheds some light on the whys and whats a little more. Have a good day.

By the way, to clear things up:

Adriana Lima definitely has breast implants. Tyra Banks does not.

Kelli: Fashion shows and fashion photos are definitely about art, no doubt about it. But what is the reason why the skinny, masculine look in girls is a central element of this art? If you bring in your own preferences then your argument doesn’t counter mine since I am saying that the preferences of a minority are responsible for this central element, and this minority predominantly comprises of male homosexual fashion designers. If you avoid personal preferences regarding body weight and femininity, and bring in an artistic predilection that I and most people lack, then you must attempt to explain what exactly do you see, independent of your preferences, that I don’t. Since we are dealing with art, of course words wouldn’t describe well what I am failing to see, but pictures will. So come up with pictures/art where there is no need for thin women (e.g., advertising a weight-gain product) or masculine women (e.g., advertising an athletic product) and explain how substituting the models with feminine women having a healthy body weight will diminish the artistic value. You can email these pictures to me, upload them to and post the links here or I might set up forums at this site and then you can post pictures there. I will come up with my own pictures/art to counter yours.

I am not pinning the blame for body image issues entirely on the fashion industry. After all, what this website is promoting isn’t helping the body image of many women either. And what I am promoting is something that most people have a preference for. So you are looking at many instances of body image dissatisfaction that stem from people failing to meet their own intrinsic beauty standards.

I have heard of the notion that “as societies become more industrialized, and childbearing becomes secondary, the ultra thin frame naturally is more idealized” but haven’t come across convincing evidence that supports this notion. Contemporary studies in Western societies show a strong preference for a subset of physiques with a healthy body weight on the part of the great majority, not a preference for ultra thin women. You will still need to explain the typical masculinization of high-fashion models.

Marr: The feminine women that I have been showing mostly have similar facial fat as high-fashion models. The major face difference you are looking at is not more of bones showing but a difference in bone shape.

I have posted numerous pictures of tall women that look feminine overall or look more feminine on multiple counts. There is no shortage of tall, feminine and attractive women, especially for people with the resources of the big modeling agencies. The fashion model look is not explained by the necessity of selecting tall women such that other characteristic elements of their looks are artifacts of their tallness.

So fashion models “do not necessarily represent the ideal aesthetic for the modern woman”? Fashion bigwigs do not see it this way –

“Women have to understand that the models on the catwalk or in the magazines are aspirational models of beauty and youth, who give us an incentive to take care of ourselves, to better ourselves - but not examples to copy.” – Stefano Gabbana –

“Since we are in the business of fashion, we create aspirational images and it’s important that we project health as a part of beauty,” Von Furstenberg said at a discussion on the issue held during New York’s fashion week. – Diane von Furstenberg –

I don’t doubt that women are often judgmental about other women’s looks; I have plenty of experience with this. But how does this translate to the preferred use of very thin, masculine teenage girls as fashion models?

I would be surprised if the majority of people working for Victoria’s Secret weren’t women. But the person who has been selecting Victoria’s Secret models for 15-plus years is Ed Razek, a man carrying much weight, and one who appears to be a homosexual (you can make this inference by contrasting a choice of his with a feminine woman: )

Tyra Banks seems to have had breast implants at some point. The pictures I posted earlier in this comments thread (first page) make a good arguments. I will post some more pictures in another thread where this issue has also come up.

"But what is the reason why the skinny, masculine look in girls is a central element of this art?"

Because some forms of art (modern, usually) involve exaggerations and extremes. A "masculinized" woman is a striking woman, whether or not you find her to your taste. This is what Picasso attempted to do in many of his more renowned works. He reduced subjects to simpler, more striking forms and shapes. Do I need to find pictures to demonstrate this to you? I think words in this case are actually pretty sufficient.

"So come up with pictures/art where there is no need for thin women (e.g., advertising a weight-gain product) or masculine women (e.g., advertising an athletic product) and explain how substituting the models with feminine women having a healthy body weight will diminish the artistic value."

Advertising is not something I spend my time thinking about...I don't don't have any justifications for the point you brought up regarding that. I merely wanted to tell you why your biological evaluation of feminine beauty does not invalidate the beauty of the models you have criticized on your site. There is beauty in MANY things, and there are so many forms of it, that to limit the valid female beauty to biological formulas and proportions is to diminish and cheapen the value of human imagination. I do not think you are wrong for preferring the women you do, the pictures you posted of "attractive women" were lovely. But why are you so volatile in your opinions about high fashion models? They are lovely in a different way, for different people. What do you benefit by belittling one woman and promoting another?

About industrialized societies and beauty standards-- I acknowledged it was a theory, whether or not I believe it or not, I am not sure of that yet. Once again it is not something I've thought a great deal about. Just wanted to mention it as a possibility.

Ugh, this site is majorly creepy. Do you just wank off to amateur porn sites all day? Freak.

Kelli: If masculinized female models are being selected because they look more striking, here is an example of body masculinization in a woman that is much more striking than what you observe in high-fashion models. My question is why don’t you observe this striking form in fashion imagery? Why is the striking female form generally an adolescent-boy look?

You wrote that fashion models are lovely in a different way, to different people. What have I been saying since this site was set up? Of course, they are appealing to some powerful people in the fashion industry, and the question is who are these people and why do they prefer the adolescent-boy look in female models? It is necessary to answer these questions to fulfill some of the goals of this site. Belittling the looks of high-fashion models does nothing toward realizing these goals, and I am not indulging in it; I recommend reading about this topic on a page discussing self-esteem issues.

I came back to the site while doing research on unhealthy body types and modeling (big surprise there) and read on what a lot of people have said here. I don't necessarily agree that Erik is a racist...and while I don't agree that certain ways of portraying the information isn't exactly what I'd refer to as "nice" but unfortunately when it comes down to the dirty facts about the modelling industry, there is truth. Once again I saw it.

on Janice D.'s show, there is a model by the name of Tracy. Here she is:

Notice that her hips happen to be wider than most models you see. Although there is posing going on, if you watch the show you notice that her face is round and her jawline is smoother. So how the hell is she borderline plus-size, according to Janice Plasticson? How the hell does having wider hips mean you need to lose weight? WTF? SHE DOES NOT NEED TO LOSE WEIGHT.

The modelling industry is wack.

First and foremost, we women do not care what you find desirable about the beauty of women. Women, I think, want to be beautiful for themselves. There is an aspect of femininity that men have always been correct about, and perhaps an aspect they are afraid to mention. Deep down, women aren't really becoming beautiful for you, we are beautiful for ourselves. Women are vain. I'll admit, we are vain. But, unlike the mistaken notion that men are the cause of this, I think we women are vain for each other -- women don't dress nicely for men, wear make-up for men, or want to feel beautiful for men. We simply are utterly aesthetic creatures.

We like beauty because beauty is second nature for women -- vanity is a form of aesthetics, and women are drawn to beautiful things like a moth to a flame. It is our nature. We are all different in our own little ways, but I'll admit again that most women love beauty. I do not know why, but we are drawn to beauty because our nature prescribes harmony and balance rather than war and destruction. And thank God for that!

And so, as for the author of this website, as well as many other misogynists on the web, women have a different opinion about beauty than you do. We don't want your ideal of beauty, because we like what we see, and we will promote what we like. Your ideal of beauty doesn't mean anything, because we just don't care what you like or what you don't like.

Women don't need to be told how to think or what to think by a man. We are intelligent, creative individuals who know this already.

So, let me tell you this, men who think they know everything: just leave us alone. Yes, leave us alone. We do not need you to tell us what is beautiful or what you think is beautiful. We don't need you to tell us what is feminine and what is unfeminine. If a woman wants to dress like a cowboy and wear her hair cropped short, by all means, this does not make her any less than a woman.

If we all want to be Odalisques, it is because we are slaves to beauty and because we love beauty, but not for you, and not for any man.

You have spoken for yourself, not for women in general. Many women do care about what others, including men, think of their looks. Many people in general care about what others, especially opposite sex members, think of their looks. I have long said that people tend to have a basic intrinsic aesthetic sense, and many efforts to improve one’s looks are an attempt to bring one’s appearance closer to one’s own standards rather than an attempt to mold one’s looks to please other people. So you got nothing on me.

You have accused me of misogyny. What misogynist spends much time exalting some women but no time trying to argue that women suck? What kind of misogynist has a very high regard for some women, the feminine and attractive ones as far as this site is concerned? Not having a high regard for all women is not misogyny or else every NOW feminist would be a misogynist (ref: read about their opinion of Sarah Palin). And do you not see your statement, “...we are drawn to beauty because our nature prescribes harmony and balance rather than war and destruction,” as misandrist?

Women overwhelmingly have a near-identical opinion of women’s attractiveness as men.

This website is not about how to think and what to think. It is about food for thought. The reader gets to deal with the information. If this site were about what I think is feminine or beautiful why would you give a damn and why should anyone care about it? Just because you may not have an interest in what most people find optimally aesthetically appealing doesn’t mean that others are not interested either.

I fully agree that a woman who dresses as a cowboy and wears her hair short is not any less of a woman. You should have noted that this website has nothing to do with dresses and hair style. And I have written that physically masculinized women are not less of women compared to physically feminine ones.

erik sounds like a real freak.

Seriously read how much detail erik goes into when talking about boys and pedophilia, especially the part where he attempts to explain the models' height. This dude is fucking sick.

I've always liked slim chicks with boobs (at least a b cup), long flowing hair, and pretty faces (usually with eye make up). I dont know of any prepubescent boys that match that description. I would never go for a chick with a manly or boyish physique, but I dont like the extreme thick types you see in rap videos either. Now that is just way too excessive for my taste. You dont have to have super fat asses to be considered feminine. Anyone that says otherwise is an idiot. -_-

and zonneschijn, you are such an idiot. shut up.

Please refer to the images on this link:

Your choices of images for non-whites is most unfortunate. You used images of aboriginal female and Ibo female from a century ago, and juxtaposed that with a modern caucasian with the benefit of modern diet, exercise techniques, and make up. I assure you,that having met and known many modern Ibo women, none of them looks anything (with/without clothes) like the one presented on your page.

In any case as a black male, the I would not consider the black supermodel you showed as an icon of black female beauty. I don't know how she got the job (supermodel), she was probably selected by white guys, not black guys. I have cousins and sisters who look far more beautiful than she. For staters she should grow some hair.

Finally I'm not trying to bash you, hope you see that, but I do find your choice of images/models for the non whites extremely, weak to put it politely.

The heavy reliance of this site upon images from 'adult' sources is unnecessary and introduces obvious skew in visual examples.

For simply illustrating conceptual data, using arbitrary photos is less effective than a simple illustration of variance. There exists consumer software which allows such to be produced (Poser, for one), making the argument of adult sites being the only source of this data invalid.

As for real-world examples, there are many stock photography sites that contain a plethora of imagery at least as equally well-suited to your purposes, if not better.

Finally, I feel that the data illustrating anthropometric properties is inadequate, insofar as information regarding data sets used is concerned; a few hundred samples is insignificant compared to what is freely available on this site:

Augmenting your existing analysis and finding a higher quality set of reference images (in particular, the disparity between racial type examples and strong emotive language throughout the site serves only to demonstrate a bias which, ideally, should be left entirely as an obvious conclusion to the reader) would greatly increase your credibility.

This is the most ridiculous tripe I've read in years. Not only is it offensive to try and classify women as attractive based on your porn-star standards; but it's ignorant as well. Calling fashion models masculine? the rest of the world so black and white as yours? I can't believe you waste your time with this. Why not try doing real "research" rather than polluting the web with this foolish nonsense? I can understand that most fashion models aren't your type...fine. But don't try and present your "tastes" as fact and then try and back it up as valid and objective using shoddy statistics or "research." Absolutely infantile.

what does the forum think of Kim Kardashian?

You're a nut job mate. Sorry, but who spends hours and hours slagging off famous women? That's is very strange. Who do you think you are, the Professor of Masculinity and Femininity? I think you should get a girlfreind or boyfriend maybe to fill your life a little.


First, kudos for all of the work that has gone into the site and your detailed and analytical treatment of an emotionally charged topic. While I don't agree with you on all points I think this site raises the level of the debate.

I have a few questions that would help me better understand the conclusions that you draw

1) Do you feel the masculinization of fashion models is a recent phenomenon? If not has it increased or is there some period in the farther past when it was less prominent.

2) Do you have a number of examples of celebrities that have feminine faces? I noted that you have Rose McGowan. Are there any others? Pictures are not necessary, as I am sure it takes more time than simply posting names.

3) You seem to be arguing that holding ethnic background constant feminization proceeds systematically throughout the face and body and are not independently distributed traits. Is this a correct interpretation and would comment on the degree of covariance.

4) Lastly, how rare are women, who in your mind are hyper-feminine? The women in your attractive women gallery by and large contain small defects, the kind that are rare among celebrities and fashion models. Is this because the pool of women from which you are choosing is smaller, because fewer pictures are available or because those defects are minor in comparison to the objective of feminization.

Thank you for your time,

Dude, what are you talking about? Kristin Kreuk looks gorgeous to me, even in the bad lighting she looks cute... much more so than that other girl you posted- too bland. And I've never even heard of either of them before now.

Can you pin-point exactly what you find ugly about Kreuk?

Does anyone know the names of the 6th (short blonde hair) and 9th (very dark hair) models on the left column of this page?? If you could just check, that would be awesome & then post a comment here if you know. Thanks:

I am a middle-aged woman, and stumbled on this site while researching facial feminization surgery. For those who don't know, FFS is a series of cosmetic surgical procedures recommended for male-to-female transsexuals in order to create a convincing feminine face. Some good examples here:

The reason I am researching FFS is that I am a masculine-looking woman. My father had very hypermasculine features; i.e. a large nose and chin, prominent brow line and sharp jaw, and I am a chip off the old block. I am in no way ugly, and have never been accused of being so; I just don't look feminine or "pretty." Having recently entered menopause, the effect is becoming exaggerated. I have been called "sir" twice in the last month when I was out without makeup. Since my current relationship is on the rocks and I anticipate being out there on the market soon, I am wondering if the procedures used for FFS could help improve my odds with the male sex.

In any event, I believe the only objectionable thing I have seen on here is your insistence on a specific body aesthetic. Research has shown that men are attracted to hourglass figures, but I believe the face is actually much more significant, since being with an attractive woman conveys social status and the face is easily visible. And, I have known several male-to-female transsexuals, and as long as they had convincingly feminine faces, men overlooked broad shoulders and narrow hips and found them quite attractive.

Wooah, this website is something else!! I stumbled across it on google because I'm looking up mate selection stuff (I'm studying Evolutionary Psychology as part of my Psychology degree) and I'll say that at points it IS informative (has some scientific basis) but the evidence you use is very one sided- you have to show counter evidence (from scientific research) if you want your argument to be more convincing. Also at points this website is just outright hillarious (because you're so convinced there is only one type of feminine beauty) or disgusting/disturbing (there are definitely racist and pervy undertones to this website). Well unfortunately (for you) your website has failed to convince me that Scandinavian (Aryan) women with "fine" features e.g. long thin faces, long thin noses, thin lips, small eyes, sunken cheekbones are the definition of feminine beauty. There are some very beautiful Scandinavian/Northern European women out there but primarily not the ones you've picked for display on this website. Some of the women you've chosen are pretty to be sure (I even thought one of them was hot) but many of the women you've chosen as "attractive" are very plain or just plain weird looking (they look like neurotic, deformed children- sorry). If you haven't convinced me or many of the other people who have left comments here I don't think you'll manage to change public opinion on what's beautiful in women. Although there are scientific findings suggesting what is and is not beautiful in a face or figure not all research has found exactly the same things (believe me I've done plenty of reading around this topic). Ultimately beauty is subjective and although there are rough guidelines we don't all fancy the same people and women you would deem masculinised are still perfectly capable of conceiving beautiful, healthy children- as have some of the fashion models you so loathe. This implies they are actually healthy, fertile and have good genes and a heterosexual man in their life who likes to have sex with them! I think this website is more about YOUR tastes than science and I think you're tastes say alot about YOU. Either, you're intimidated by strong/sexy/sensual/sophisticated women (hence the love of submissive, naive and neurotic looking females) because you have mother/woman issues (weak women make you feel like a strong man) or you're desperately trying to convince the world (and yourself) that the only attractive women you could ever have a chance of pulling (who are really only attractive in the realms of average looking people) are actually THE most beautiful women in the world. Therefore rendering YOU a beautiful or high status male. Chances are you are neither high status or attractive. Whatever, this is a self-serving website in my opinion.

Oh yeah and by the way, pear shaped women who have small waists and flat stomachs compared to their curvy hips and bottoms also have high oestrogen levels despite their proportunately smaller breasts - so they are feminine. Also top heavy women who have small waists compared to their big breasts have high oestrogen levels (even if they don't have the hips and bum to match) and straight/ruler shaped women who are slender and petite don't have high androgen levels/masculinisation because they are small boned (men are not small boned thanks to high testosterone - so androgens).




This comment is for Erik. Sooner or later, this site needs a do-over, and here are my most imperative suggestions.

(1) things to stay
(a) If you don't like how high-fashion models look and would like to share examples of whom you find attractive, then by all means do so. Even point out anatomical features if you want to.
(b) If you'd like to communicate your ideal of femininity and physical beauty (in women), then it would be best to make a separate site and link the two. Again, point out anatomical features if you want to.

(2) things that should be removed
(a) In general, research papers involving race and/or ethnicity should not be included because too many implicit assumptions and misconceptions are communicated. As an imaginary example, if a research paper were to state that more people prefer the average of all the facial portraits of New Yorkers to the Los Angeles counterpart, then the audience might be reinforced of a large array of assumptions (such as certain features somehow "belong to" and "originated from" New Yorkers and have been "taken" by Angelinos), whereas the only scientific part of the study were how many people liked picture A versus how many people liked picture B given how the research was conducted. It would be necessary yet difficult to clarify all such misconceptions. In fact, the research papers are irrelevant if what you're trying to communicate is simply what I have stated in part (1).
(b) Remove all attempts at definition (eg that of femininity) and generalization (eg how a people look), because definitions (besides the very concrete terms we use to communicate) are irrelevant and generalizations are false by their nature.
(c) Suggestions that the high-fashion industry is run by homosexual men who have affected how the models are selected should be removed because that is not the point of your Web sites. Doing so greatly and unnecessarily distracts from your purposes.
(d) The self-esteem section and the diet section should be removed because they are not what you're trying to do here. If you have something related to say, then you might want to put that in the FAQs.

(3) things that could use some re-organization
(a) The FAQs would be greatly simplified. Depending on the site, put either "This Web site is to present my criticism of how models are selected in the high-fashion industry and to encourage related discussions." or "This Web site is to present my ideal of female physical beauty and to encourage related discussions." You can get rid of your disclaimers and simply put "Even though presenting my ideal of female physical beauty inevitably hurts the self-esteem of some visitors, encourages the cruel behavior of certain individuals, etc., and (if you actually do) I hope it could be done without hurting anyone, I am doing this for the sake of open, healthy discussion and understanding (That's the only reason I could think of)."
(b) The lay-out of the sites should be greatly simplified. Have one consolidated feature article on either the models in the high-fashion industry or your ideal of female physical beauty. There should be a more organized forum feature where the threads are categorized, the categories displayed in table format, and the threads displayed by topic under their respective category once expanded.

IN A NUTSHELL, all posts should be restricted to experiences (eg what you've seen, what you like, what you dislike), images, and arguments based on experiences and images. Get your point across, keep the forum threads and comments organized, and get rid of everything else! You'll have sites whose contents are more tenable, and are more user-friendly to people who want to read or post.

I like more salient features; it kinda reassures some part of you mind that what you're looking at is definitely a face. With East Asians, their more rounded features give the impression of poor development in some individuals.

With Indians, their features come off too strong in some individuals, and any hump of the nose gives the impression of injury.
Keep in mind that the environment affects your looks too, especially in the case of symmetry and alignment of parts. Genes most likely determine the overall softness or robustness, how independent your growth is to environmental factors, as opposed to the exact details of your body.

I don't think being White makes the face prettier or sexier, but rather more healthy-looking. The only images (among what I've found on this site) that are real "nice" or beautiful are the following; they aren't super duper Nordic or feminine or anything. The rest range from decent-looking to cute to unattractive, not too different from images of non-Whites. Again, they look a bit healthier so a bit more beautiful in that sense.

1. This site has a valid message, but is OVERTLY analytical. Come on.....hip to breast ratio. Are you a scientist?

2. It's no secret that gay men promote women that THEY find attractive, but that most men don't find attractive. I could have told you that 20 years ago.

3. Many otherwise masculine framed women have implants in order to look more feminine to men, who tend to likes breasts. Duh. It's hard to add fat to hips if your body type doesn't allow it.

4. I don't believe Tyra Banks had breast implants for the following reasons:
a. As a high fashion model, she knew that breasts would be the end of her career.
b. As a fellow black woman, I can attest that we typically have large breasts and they get larger after age 20, give or take a few years. Tyra started modeling at 16. She also gained weight overall, which can sometimes affect the size of the breasts.
c. So she admitted to a "moustache". A lot of large breasted, hippy women have it. That's no sign of androgen levels or whatever. I have sized 44DD breasts, a freakishly small waist (the only place I lose weight/inches) and large hips and a moustache. So am I more feminine or masculine?

5. Some men like fashion models because they show more skin than a typical "on the street" woman. Duh. My husband said that he wished women would dress more like models because they're not afraid to show legs, abdomen, etc... He also looked down at his muscular chest and said (referring to himself) "I have bigger breasts than they do. It would be like making out with a dude."

6. If you're not uber skinny, ask your husband/boyfriend what he likes. It's probably someone who looks like yourself, hence a big reason you caught his eye to begin with.

Erik - Feminine and masculine are subjective terms - we learn what is feminine and masculine through our lives and each have subtle definitions. Biological factors such as testosterone and oestrogeon levels have obviously defined correlating characteristics associated with female and male forms and behaviour to the extent that there is an overlap and agreement amongst most people in a particular culture. However this is not the be all and end all of femininity and masculinity, since our sexual preferences are somewhat learnt. Evidence for this comes from studies that show we straight males fancy people who look like our mother etc. Furthermore studies have shown that combining faces of people, from the same or different gender results in a more attractive face, we like average looking people - or more precisely well-balanced. Many of the faces of the models you dislike because they show masculine features are more well-balanced and have less extreme masculinization or feminization. You are clearly less attracted to them, however their existence is not down to male attraction. You forget that it is women who buy clothes not men. Fashion is not solely driven by what men prefer, and it is certainly not driven by the smokey back-room board of malevolent paedophilic homosexuals you insinuate! Take for example the fact that most male fasion models are feminized. Like most things fashion is driven largely by sales of clothes/magazines etc, of which are largely bought by women. Porn however is driven by male consumption, and the fact that many of your models of beauty are porn models - your tastes are nothing out of the ordinary. Beauty is subjective, and although many people agree certain geometric forms and symmetry seem beautiful there is always subtle variation from person to person. There is not 'the most beautiful/feminine women in the world' which would be agreed on by all men, or could be shown objectively - for there are no criteria for this. Whilst your cause against eating disorders is worthy, by defining a different exclusive version of it you would be recommitting the very same sin of the fashion industry: Girls who did not look like your defined shape would be unhappy with themselves. (Besides there are numerous causes aside from social issues that cause eating disorders - is worrying that you are atetmpting to suggest to girls they need to conform and sinister that you provide steps to do so. I feel a balanced view point is to accept that beauty is subjective, each person to their own preferences. To promote physical health, we need stop focusing on superficial discussion of physical characteristics, and more on health - I like to point out how unhealthy some models look. Also be tolerant - people can have surgery if they want to and people should never be persecuted for who they are attracted to, only on how they act. This is the 21st century after all!

have you ever considered that the way to help women boost their self-esteem is to just STOP discussing their appearances? to stop talking about them as objects to be ranked in terms of entirely insignificant criteria regarding their faces and bodies (criteria which is also constantly changing and shifting through the decades that demand women look certain ways)? to stop putting SO MUCH significance into stupid minute details regarding bone structure or jawlines or nose shape? are you completely unaware of the hypocrisy of having a website devoted to "feminine beauty" with links to cellulite reduction!!!??? with endless pictures of soft porn images that exploit women and reduce them to objects of sexual gratification!!???

what worries me is that you clearly have thought so long and hard about how skinny models and media images directly affect womens self-esteem...and yet somehow your conclusion is to lecture women about YOUR entirely arbitrary opinions on how they should look.

i think you have a bit more thinking to do. ESPECIALLY in regards to your outrageously racist opinions.

Feminist: This site does not exist to help or harm women’s self-esteem, but not discussing women’s bodies will not help boost their self-esteem. I could stop discussing the matter, but the fashion industry won’t. There is also interesting research from Iran about women that had grown up after the Islamic revolution and not been exposed to Western media. These women had a good deal of concern about their looks, on average. In short, women themselves will not stop discussing their bodies regardless of what the media or I have to say. Most humans share the same standards of beauty and many will be disappointed if they fall short of what they consider highly desirable in looks. You have to learn to live with this.

The pictures that I am using neither represent exploitation of women nor reduce women to objects for the purpose of sexual gratification. While looking at the women’s pictures, no one loses sight of them having a personality, life history, interests, goals, etc. In the event that some of these women were forced by poverty to pose nude, your wrath is much more appropriately directed toward the single most important poverty generating factor in Western societies – leeching of the public’s wealth by parasitic bankers – than the photographers who shot these women in the nude. I have yet to see feminist groups do anything about the banking parasites; educate yourself and do something about it; objecting to women posing nude will do nothing.

Some of the correlates of beauty that this site discusses transcend cultures, time and even species. They are not necessarily insignificant. Even if they are, then this is what this site is about, and you should not be bothered by a site that discusses insignificant issues.

There is no hypocrisy in a discussion of feminine beauty with information on cellulite reduction. Some women are interested in improving their looks. What is wrong or hypocritical about providing some such information?

There is nothing in this site about how women should look, but it is about what most people find optimally attractive in women’s looks, information that is overall better for women than their being misguided by the fashion media.

i bet the chick that runs this site is a real whale of a fatass. What a hater. Trying to act like her whale ass is doing something good when really she's just depressed because she is a super fatass and needs a reason to hate on this famous girls. Get a life.

go ahead and bash me left and right because i'm leaving and will never ever visit this site again so it's not like i'll read the comments. i win.

Erik, I found this article quite interesting. I randomly came across it when I was doing a search for "size 8". It's about an Australian designer who used bigger-sized and musculature-skeletal curvier models. Click on the images link and notice something interesting about the models shapes. "Apparently" the reason why there was such an outcry over the models was because their posing was awkward. Isn't that weird, considering the fact that a lot of high fashion models will walk onto the runway with garish makeup, clothing that can't be worn, and clothing that often is ridiculously revealing?

Pay special attention to the last model's figure. It will completely back up everything you've said about the current high-fashion modeling industry.

Amen to that. I can't believe this site exists. I'm slowly losing faith in humanity.

I was wondering what you thought of the girls on If you register for free, you can view a lot of semi-revealing sets, although not the most revealing. I'm still a little confused about the Masculine to Feminine specturum of facial and bodily bone structures, and how much they are linked, and I would love it if you did an article on some of these girls, as they seem to confuse me a lot. Some of them strike me as incredibly feminine in the face, yet masculinised in the body and vice versa, but I would need an expert's opinion.

After looking through most of the images trying to understand exactly what a feminine and attractive face would look like, I still can't fully grasp what it would be. Most of the articles focus on 1 part of femininity on the face but not an overall feminine.

I tried looking at the attractive women section, and then I got confused. Only to realize the section contains mixed of everything attractive, not just femininity. And to tell the truth, most of the women in the that section don't have attractive faces but have attractive body type.

Can someone help me out? I want to know what a feminine yet attractive face would look like, so I can use it as a base when I look at other articles in the site. Thanks.

I was interested at first in your articles citing the science behind perceptions of beauty, but upon closer reading and looking at more articles, I seriously doubt the motives, logic and intelligence if your claims. Firstly, if hormones were the sole influence of female beauty looks could not be inherited and genetic influence would be minor. I also think that the women culled off porn sites that you claim are the true faces of feminine beauty reveal a lot about your motives. They are all what I would deem plain and common looking and do not have particularly feminine features at all; rather, the cold dead expressions of the manipulated drug addicts they no doubt are. The so-called masculine fashion models are generally representations of true beauty. Defining beauty is impossible because it is so subjective and cannot be pinned down, but generally I would day that it is something exceptional about a person, an exaggerated or extreme feature but not too markedly so. Beautiful women don't generally fit the golden triangle. And as for your absurd allegations of false breasts and rhinoplasty, I really think you have terribly poor insight and judgement. You are clearly a sad, lonely, homophobic misogynist who is threatened by beautiful women and spends way too much time masturbating over frankly quite plain women. Get a life and get over your issues.

Jacquetta Wheeler, I think is the 6th. The 9th... not sure, maybe Marija Vusovic?

this entire website is insulting to women everywhere. i cannot believe some dumb bitch actually wrote this bullshit.

if this website was meant to 'celebrate femininity' then it would INCLUDE women of all shapes and sizes, not sit around and criticise 'masculine' features on real women. yes, models are real women. i am one of those skinny girls u probably grew up being jealous of. guess what? i'm a real woman. and evidently more in tune with what it is to be one than you ever could be.

plenty of my guys have found me to be sexy and it is pathetic that someone would sit around and call out other womens' features and call them 'not sexy'...ur opinion is not the opinion of the rest of the world, so you should really stop writing as if it is.

....i cant believe people as ignorant and dumb as u actually exist. god help us all. putting this negativity into the world will come back to you. and karma is a bitch.

Thank you so much for this website, it is extremely informative!

Very well-written and interesting articles! Thanks!

This site represents more exculpatory hogwash from the white, heterosexual male patriarchy. Anorexia Nervosa was first described as a disorder in the Victorian era, and it was precipitated by men--straight men--who promulgated an idealized idea of beauty that equated thinness with godly restraint and virtue. Women began fasting obsessively to fit in with the art of the era, which consistently touted the idea that women should suffer for love. And what, precisely, makes you believe that your standard of beauty is any more accessible or healthy for women? At one point on this site, you advise women to avoid weight-bearing exercises because it causes thicker bones. Do you not realize that increased bone-density is an important aspect of this sort of exercise? Or do you write off all the medical evidence concerning women's bone health as they age as so much detrimental influence from the evil, gay culture? You cannot honestly believe that your own admittedly narrow concept of beauty would result in more healthful practices for women. Unless you believe that women should have ribs removed to fit your ideal rib-cage stipulation, not to mention radical face reconstruction to produce more "feminine" features, or stuff themselves front and back with silicon to achieve your "hourglass" ideal. Don't forget the lipo, to keep the waist oh-so-narrow. Men like you had an opportunity to promote that ideal; it resulted in constrictive and dangerous corseting practices that effectively prevented women from engaging in healthful activities. You are a racist, misogynistic little man with pretensions to scholarship. No man has any right to tell women how they should look, particularly not when he so stringently applies a narrow definition of beauty. You are free to pursue whatever woman you choose, but you do not have any business at all advising women or society at large what constitutes beauty.

Overit: White heterosexual male patriarchy is hardly at fault for the ills you have cited.

White females rate female attractiveness in the same manner as white males. I suppose you would blame internalization of patriarchy here, but how will you explain that feminists pick as the most attractive female physique the same one picked by non-feminist women? Have the feminists internalized patriarchy also?

This brings us to the alleged equation of thinness with godly restraint and virtue in the Victorian era. People were more observant Christians back then and it was very clear to the masses that gluttony, the most obvious sign of which is excess body fat, is a deadly sin. Now, Christianity originated in the Middle East and white men were not responsible. Large parts of Europe, especially the north, came under Christendom via the sword. Furthermore, several of the key figures in Christendom have been homosexual—King James, whose version of the Bible is widely followed, numerous priests/popes, etc.

In addition, one does not have to be very thin to convey that one is not guilty of the sin of gluttony; a body weight in the medically normal range suffices. The patriarchy in the Victorian era was surely not promoting young adult women with a BMI of 16 as socially desirable.

You have also ignored that the victims of patriarchy, homosexual men [fashion designers], are responsible for the very thin standard among high-fashion models.

Regarding accessibility of beauty, I have never claimed that feminine beauty is more accessible. It is, in fact, less accessible than the high-fashion model look because at least one aspect of the latter, extreme thinness, is ordinarily achievable—one has to diet/starve till one achieves the desired thinness level. On the other hand, feminine beauty does correspond to health to the extent that it tends to go with the absence of a wide variety of diseases, healthy body fat levels, good fertility/fecundity, etc.

I do not recall advising women to avoid weight-bearing exercises so that they do not end up with larger bones. Making the bones larger is not the same as making them denser. Density refers to mass within a given amount of volume/space. Weight-bearing exercises that increase bone density are generally good for women though there are cases where they are contraindicated, unnecessary or will not help beautify.

Regarding the healthful or unhealthy practices that feminine beauty may prompt among women , no ordinarily accessible negative health behaviors—such as excessive exercise, smoking or unnecessary dieting—will result. Extraordinary measures are a different matter, but few young adult women will resort to them—e.g., major facial surgery, liposuction, removal of the lower ribs, contouring via silicon implants—because of the cost, inconvenience and pain involved. Few women could afford a major transformation like Heidi Montag/Pratt achieved, and many who could afford it will still avoid the extremes to which Heidi resorted. In addition, the promotion of feminine beauty will only be partially responsible for cases like Heidi’s.

You believe men like me were responsible for extreme corseting, which created breathing and other problems for women? The practice resulted from an unhealthy marriage between a natural tendency to appreciate the attractive female form and a religion uncomfortable with the flesh, thus leading to a clothed caricature of the feminine form in an era when the Church had lost its power compared to the Medieval ages but society was not yet comfortable with more openly revealed flesh, the religion being Christianity, which is of non-European origin.

This is not to say that white heterosexual male patriarchy has not created problems, but this patriarchy does not have much to do with the problems you have harped on.

This site is not about telling women how they should look. It illustrates feminine and less feminine forms of women’s faces and bodies. It addresses how women in some specific modeling and beauty pageant scenarios are expected to look like and how they actually appear.

"Few women could afford a major transformation like Heidi Montag/Pratt achieved, and many who could afford it will still avoid the extremes to which Heidi resorted."

Heidi Montag looked more feminine and pretty before all the plastic surgery-would you agree?
Now shes starting to look a bit a cross between Tori Spelling and a pornography actress whereas she looked more attractive and natural before.
it seems a case of unhappiness or confusion or something and seeing herself/her body through distorted lense.
Sometimes the 'afters' turn out worse then the 'befores' with plastic surgery and surgeons really shouldn't agree to work on patients who have body perception problems or decide to have plastic surgery impulsively due to some problems in life.

As a side note,please reconsider removing the pornography/nude women off your website.Only one photo is necessary to show an example of what you consider feminine body type,anything more then just serves an intention to sexually arouse/objectification/use these womens faces or bodies for the purpose of sexual arousal=pornography.
Regardless of whether someone else exploits these women due to financial poverty or naivety,or whether these women do this work themselves full-knowingly and willingly,
-at the end of the day you have the choice not to be involved in it and not display it on your website and choose to respect women regardless of whether they respect themselves or not.
Also,you seem to wish more feminine type women in the mainstream modelling industry,however your website,by having pornography women in a way is being counterproductive and reinforcing the gap because it is keeping(what you perceive) as masculine women in the 'respectable' modelling industry,and relegating (what you perceive) as more feminine women to pornography(whether nudity,pornography movies etc-it is all in the same sphere).
You raise some interesting issues on this site-some of it is selfserving,true, but some is not without truth.
However,modelling industry types who come across this site will not put much thought into the issues that you raise,once they see the pornography displayed.
They will just laugh and think this is just some porn site with some male writers agenda.

You-and some of your commentators-seem to prescribe to this evolutionary type theory regarding relationships and believe that women go for the most wealthiest men that can provide and that men go for the most feminine/fertile looking and prettiest that can be best child raiser and/or arm candy.
However,it may interest you to know that not all people view relationships this way and while attraction to each other plays some role,there are many other things like common hobbies and personalities,morals and values,background etc that people are looking for when looking for their ideal love.
I can't speak for tribal people in countries like Africa,though in these countries it wouldn't surprise me if they did still have 'tribal' 'survival' types views/images regarding relationships-eg:look for the wealthiest or fertilest-
but in modern developed countries,most people no longer hold onto these 'survival' or 'selfserving' type mindset regarding relationships,
perhaps 1.because its no longer needed to survive
and 2.because mindsets of love and friendship has because more commonplace.
True,there are still some people in developed countries who prescribe to the tribal/evolutionary/fearbased mindset regarding relationships-you only need to go to some nightclubs or watch some American show like "Who wants to marry a millionaire" to see that,but its not everyone.

Some of your commentators see your website as causing selfesteem issues and putting pressure on women to mold to a perceived ideal.
But in my opinion,anywhere that is talking about women's looks is going to cause those feelings in someone.
The modelling industry causes those feelings in certain women who don't look like their ideal.Your website causes those feelings in certain women who don't feel that they are feminine looking enough,slight women get those feelings when large women say that only 'big girls are real women',large women get those feelings when they go in a shop and it has nothing over size 14 for them..... etc.
So,the way i see it,the only way really to solve it and have balance is to have a range of women's models sizes in the modelling industry-as long as they are healthy and naturally that size,whether slight or curvy,and don't suffer from obesity or anorexia.Also nothing too extreme-eg:no extreme skinniness or extreme 'fatness'.
The current modelling industry,seems to have a leaning towards, of androgynous looking or the bizarre and quirky or even 'ugly',and i don't really see this as healthy.And it also seems to be alot of in today and out tomorrow.
There are some feminine models,but the more wellknown higher payed models seem to be more the unusual looking.They look for something different-unusual.The 'angsty' look,the drugaddict look,the 'stereotypical gay male' look,the vampire look,the extraterrestial look,the 'tribal sexuality' style of VS models etc.
The industry seems to look more towards 'artsyfartsy' rather then classical beauty and true aesthetics.
In my opinion,top modelling should have female models that fall in between average feminine-masculine to feminine,and male models should fall in between average masculine-feminine to masculine.
Its not necessary to have extreme version of feminine models or extreme masculine models,however the modelling industry is producing its own extremes in a way too with so much focus on androgynous or opposite gender looking models.
A few androgynous looking models would perhaps be ok,but it should be few and not the norm.
The model industry should change to more focus on aesthetics and i prefer the look of some actresses, tennis players,beauty contestants or commercial models over high fashion models even though high fashion is meant to be viewed more as 'elite' in the industry.

It is possible to have a website which shows your vision regarding femininity without using nude models,although it will take some hard work.
Here are a few examples although i'm not sure how comfortable i feel posting them without permission so i'll just provide links.
There are also some feminine black women that don't fit the stereotype of what we have been taught that most dark women look like.

Mary: Heidi Montag ended up looking more feminine after her surgeries. Some of it went bad, but it was not the surgery itself but the choice of shape change. I find her better looking than Tori Spelling and most porn stars.

Whether posting pictures of nude women—where the women have posed nude voluntarily, with the understanding that the pictures will be accessible to the public—is disrespectful toward women is a debatable issue. I do not believe that this activity is disrespectful toward women.

The nudity within this site does create a problem when it comes to persuasion or even getting some people to read the arguments. Whereas I have cleaned up this site a little and will continue in this manner, a process that is time consuming and slow, I think this site is beyond salvaging with respect to getting a variety of people who would not presently read the arguments here to read it. This is because nudity is not the only issue. This site is filled with “homophobic” and “racist” content” that would scare or repel many people. I have been meaning to come up with a new site that is without the negatives of this site, which is a better idea than attempting to clean up this site for most people, and may do it someday.

I have not argued anything so simple as “women go for the most wealthiest men that can provide and that men go for the most feminine/fertile looking and prettiest that can be best child raiser and/or arm candy.” If one discusses how important a man’s financial status is to his dating or mate value then this does not mean that this is the only factor that counts. The same argument applies to a discussion of women’s attractiveness.


Glad to see you are posting again. I thought you had left for good!

- Apollyon

This is an EXCELLENT and INFORMATIVE site...anyone with an intellect can see that. Thank you for spending the time and effort to put it together. It really makes so much sense and I know you are actually helping women raise their self esteem, not lower it. Kudos to you whereever you are!!



Take a look at this link. It compares the facial structure of a child to the facial structure of an adult. Now, tell me whats wrong with

this site? Does this site compare women who possess masculine features with women who possess feminine features OR does it

compare women who have mature faces with women who look like their features have not fully matured since the age of twelve?

There is a name for people who like this. Its called PEDO! This site should be abolished for so many reasons. You accuse people in

the fashion industry of being homosexuals who push the masculinization of women. I accuse you of secretly preferring the features

of children. Men have 20 percent more testosterone than women, but women do have testosterone. Just like men have some

estrogen. Yes, women can have higher levels of testosterone that would make them appear masculine, but no woman posted on this

site fits that category. Women can also have unusually low levels of testosterone.

High cheek bones and a strong jaw line are not masculine features. They are features that make an individual attractive whether they are

male or female. I found many of the women in the right column or the glamour column to be unattractive. These columns do not

compare which women have more femininity, but maturity. High cheekbones and a defined jawline have features that suggest facial

maturity. This is why most people are drawn to these features. A round face and sunken or low cheekbones are childlike features as

are smaller lips, a low forehead, and smaller chins. Evolution usually stops people from being attracted to childlike features as

children are not fit for procreation. If you are attracted to childlike features, you might want to seek therapy. However, I will agree

with some of the features on this site. Larger breasts make a female more appealing. They are a sign that the female is at an

appropriate age to reproduce. Models do tend to have little to no breast. This is not because they have been masculinized, but

because breasts are made mostly of fat tissues. Models do not have enough fat on their bodies for large breasts. If they gained

twenty pounds, they would have breasts. Wider hips are also a more female trait. For ideal procreation a woman's hips should be at

least eleven inches from one hip bone to the other. This is to allow space for fetal development. The attractiveness of any human is

related directly to procreation. As far as facial features go, this site does not promote femininity. It promotes childlike features. If

you do not agree, please do some research.

I just have a question: if it is true that models are supposed to look like adolescent boys ( I admit that there faces are very manly looking.) why is the ideal model size 34-24-34? I realize that these measurements do not make a overly curvy woman, but they do make a woman nonetheless, it seems like if there purpose was to look like boys then the ideal measurments would be closer together, like 30-24-30, come to think of it, I don't even know if that measurment is possible, but if it is it seems like it would make a more "adolescent-boy-looking Woman" Thanks -Beth

Beth Bear: The curvaceousness of a 34-24-34 woman depends on her height and other dimensions. A 5-5 woman with these measurements may look curvy, whereas a 5-10 woman, the average height of a fashion model, may not. The torso of a woman with a 34-inch bust circumference will look very different when the woman has a C or D cup as opposed to an A cup (clearly larger rib cage). A 5-10 slender man can easily have a waist in the neighborhood of 28 inches and hence a very slender fashion model can have a 24-inch waist without looking particularly feminine because her broader rib cage in front view will tend to stretch the abdominal region horizontally in the front view, which will also be due to her abdominal region being less vertically elongated due to masculinization (see additional details on feminization and body shape variation).

A few years ago I obtained the reported measurements of the top 50 high-fashion models; they averaged 32.5-23.7-34.1. I posted their pictures, and you can see that they are not very womanly looking, on average. While looking at this list you also need to consider that many of these fashion models were in the neighborhood of age 20 or more at the time, which is normally too old for a woman to start out as a fashion model, and the reason these women were modeling in their “old age” is because of the stardom they had achieved. If you extrapolate to how these women looked when they were in their mid teens (feel free to search for their younger pictures), which is when the majority of them were recruited as fashion models—early to mid-teens is what the top designers prefer, but due to public relations issues, they more often start with girls in their mid teens—then I think you can appreciate that an adolescent-boy look appears to be the central tendency of what the dominant fashion designers prefer in their models. This conclusion will be clearer if you account for the fact that occasionally there will be some exceptions to the rule. For instance, some models may have masculine features with curves, a mature look that does not approach that of adolescent boys but is more along the lines of the physical appearance of male-to-female transsexuals, but this is again within the preferences observed in the GLBT community to which the majority of the dominant fashion designers belong. In other cases, fashion designers may make an exception for, say, a slender girl or woman who does not look sufficiently masculine if she has fine facial features.

Dear Erik:

Thanks for your work. I enjoy the site. A few questions:

By definition, are not feminine women more attractive than not-so-feminine women? Why do we see less feminine women occasionally described as attractive on your website, then?

How do you control for ethnicity/race when assessing specific physical characteristics associated with more or less feminine appearance?

You mention that women develop more masculine characteristics as they age. Can you elaborate?

Can we argue that some of the masculinized women who are successful fashion models (selected by homosexual men) are in fact not women at all, but hermaphrodites with a masculinized appearance to which no feminine women could or would want to aspire?


I find your site very interesting and informative, as well as unusually well-written and thoughtful. I don't agree with everything you write, but that's the nature of public discourse. I did have a question: Although hormones may influence the appearance of masculinity/femininity both before and after birth, what role does that leave for hereditary bone structure? If one inherits traits of being tall, broad-shouldered, high-cheekboned, etc, even if the hormonal balance is perfectly ordinary for a woman, the woman will still appear more "masculine" at all ages according to your standards. I do understand, of course, that hormonal balance can be inherited as well as bone structure, but let's just say this hypothetical woman has the hormonal balance for excellent fertility and normal superficial features (developed breasts and hips, level of body fat, etc). Would this woman truly be less desirable from an evolutionary standpoint? Nordic people, for example, tend to follow this taller "supermodel" body type, but they seem to have been reproducing just fine for quite a long time.

Trish: Here are the answers.

Femininity and attractiveness

Femininity is not synonymous with attractiveness in women though, in the absence of physical defects, it is the most important correlate of beauty in women. This is one reason why some less feminine women, including those that could hardly be described as feminine compared to women in general, can exceed the attractiveness of more feminine women. However, most of the time more feminine women will be more attractive.

Aside from this, sometimes I have posted pictures of women whose looks I like but their pictures hardly serve any purpose as far as this site goes, which I usually identify as such, and if these women are not so feminine, then just take it as editorial discretion that may or may not have any bearing on what other men prefer.

Sexual dimorphism vs. ethnicity

How does one control for ethnicity when assessing whether a feature is more or less feminine? This is achieved by accounting for the correlation structures underlying ethnic background and masculinity-femininity. As an example, women tend to have thinner noses than men on average. But within any sex, nose thickness varies greatly. Hence if I were to give you a value of nose thickness and ask you to guess the sex of the person, you will be wrong often. On the other hand, when one observes faces, most of the time it is easy to tell the sex, which is because women have thinner noses, shorter chins, less prominent brows, etc.… there is a correlation structure of shapes associated with a sex [or ethnic group].

Using statistical tools, it is possible to describe complex shapes (i.e., account for correlation structures) with precision and separate shape variation resulting from ethnic variation from that resulting from masculinization-feminization. See here for a discussion of the statistical methodology:

See here for a discussion of how this methodology allows one to clearly show that some changes in shape variables that are associated with greater attractiveness and involve facial features that are known to be influenced by sex hormones are nevertheless not caused by masculinization or feminization:

On the other hand, in practice, going to this length may not be necessary; if you know a few things about shape variation related to sexual dimorphism and ethnic variation, then you can separate some shape variables in your head. For instance, East Asian noses tend to be less prominent than European noses in side view, which is consistent with greater feminization or lesser masculinization. East Asian noses tend to be wider in the fleshy part, which is consistent with greater masculinization or lesser feminization. Since sex hormones have global effects, how can they cause greater masculinization of one part and greater feminization of another? The answer could be one of several possibilities. One is that sex hormone receptors (sex hormones need to bind to certain receptors in order to effect change) in different regions have different sensitivities. Another possibility is that the population difference in the correlation structure (nose prominence vs. nose thickness of the fleshy part) does not result from masculinization-feminization.

How do we decide between the two possibilities? Look at additional features: the lowering of the region where the nose meets the forehead in East Asians, wider-spaced eyes in East Asians but narrower noses in the region where the nose meets the forehead, etc. The odds that many of these population differences are accounted for by differing sensitivity to sex hormones and either greater masculinization/lesser feminization or greater feminization/lesser masculinization in one population are lower than the differences resulting from genetic differences not involving masculinization-feminization. In addition, some differences could not possibly result from a change in masculinization or feminization (e.g., many shorter East Asian women have larger jaws than some taller European men and there is no way this is caused by these European men being less feminine than the East Asian women). So you can safely figure that a number of population differences you are looking at result from factors other than masculinization-feminization, which can be confirmed in other ways (hormonal profiles, etc.).

Women and masculinization with aging

Why do women tend to look more masculine with aging? Past maturity (around age 25), facial growth does not stop and some bony facial growth and thickening of the nose contributes to a more robust look, which tends to make the woman look more masculine.

Post menopause, estrogen levels decline significantly, but testosterone levels do not decline to the same extent, which contributes to reduced feminization.

Then there is childbirth, after which women tend not to return to waists that were as thin as before.

Hermaphrodites among fashion models?

Humans without a sex are less than 0.02% of the population and hermaphrodites a minority among them. I doubt modeling agencies could find a sufficient number of hermaphrodites that also happen to look like fashion models. Nearly all female fashion models should be biological females. In rare cases a man (e.g., Andrej Pejic) or a male-to-female transsexual may be used to models women’s clothes.

Flora: If the tallness, broad shoulders and higher cheekbones are not caused by masculinization, then the woman will not look masculine. A woman’s height does not offer useful clues about how feminine she is and tends to be ignored or deemphasized by men:

Similarly, it takes more than broad shoulders to make a woman look masculine. Keeley Hazell is a good example. She has broad shoulders and a backside that is not so prominent, yet is admired by a large number of straight men. You can contrast her with a broad-shouldered woman who is admired by a lot of gay fashion designers to note why broad shoulders and one or two additional features that by themselves looks less feminine than average are not sufficient to make a woman look masculine:

Hi Erik,

Please excuse me if I am not replying to the correct thread; I am a bit confused by the reply process on the site.

Below is a link to some interesting commentary on hermaphroditism in the fashion world. Sadly, I suspect that the presence of hermaphroditic fashion models may be more prevalent than one might suspect. In the case of Gisele Bundchen, the uninformed observer might easily mistake her for a transsexual, if not merely an androgynous female. Many of the 'beauties' on the high fashion runways appear even more masculinized than she does. We can only guess at the likelihood of androgyny in these individuals. I agree with your statement that some women with masculine characteristics have a certain attractiveness; however, many androgynous models are generally ghastly to behold, and I shudder to think that they are forming any kind of gold standard of attractiveness for our young women.


Trish: You are posting in a place where apparently anything goes; the comments threads have been trashed in some other places… so what do I say to whether this is an appropriate place to leave your questions? You find a place where it seems appropriate.

I read the article you linked, but it does not cite evidence of many female fashion models not being biological females. The author uses their looks, which in the given context means secondary sexual characteristics, but biological sex is not inferred from secondary sexual characteristics. A biological female has female genitalia and lacks a Y chromosome, i.e., a female is defined in terms of concordance between these two variables; it does not matter whether her looks apart from the genitals are not those of a typical biological female.

The author mentions a rumor about Gisele Bundchen not being a woman and that Leonardo DiCaprio broke up with her after he learned that this is the reason why she could not have children. This rumor is understandable because she hardly looks like a woman, but Gisele has recently given birth to a child; the article is from 2008. I do not believe that this childbirth was faked as you can find paparazzi pictures of her swollen belly, in various stages of pregnancy. But consistent with Gisele not being feminine, you will note that even in the later stages of pregnancy, when she added pounds of fat, her breasts remained small, which some people in the media specifically noted.

The author ignores that Leonardo DiCaprio does not strike one as an individual who would break up with a woman after learning that “she” is a man or has no sex. Here you can see pictures of his girlfriend for quite some time, Bar Refaeli, shot by paparazzi (hence devoid of posing):

Bar Refaeli Bar Refaeli - note body frame.

Given DiCaprio’s tastes, if it is not public knowledge that the person he is dating is not a she then it is unlikely that he would break up with “her” if he learns that this individual is not a biological female.

Tom Brady, with whom Gisele ended up after Dicaprio, appears to be in a similar boat. Here is a picture of Bridget Moynahan, with whom Brady had a child (shown) before his child with Gisele; a picture with Gisele is on the right:

Bridget Moynahan with Tom Brady's son. Tom Brady with son and Gisele Bundchen.

In Bridget Moynahan you have another individual who hardly looks like a biological female if you go by secondary sexual characteristics, but this individual is apparently one.

You can see this more generally in an Australian study that attempted to measure androgen levels in a representative sample [from Victoria, Australia] of disease-free Australian women. The authors had 1,423 women complete the study, and among these women 595 could be designated as a reference group: . The authors noted that several of the women in the reference group had high testosterone/androgen levels consistent with some disease, but these women had no diseases, no history of acne/hirsutism/polycystic-ovarian-syndrome, and all denied taking anabolic androgenic steroids. If you were to randomly draw 1,500 people, most of the time you will not find a single individual without a sex among them, and in this study, any such individual would have been eliminated. This study did not comment on the looks of the women, but just as the hormone levels suggest, there are undoubtedly plenty of biological females out there—to satisfy the interests of fashion designers—who barely or do not look like biological females if we are limited to guessing sex without looking at their genitals. Hence, if you see someone like Gisele in female clothing, or more generally a high-fashion model modeling women’s clothes, the default assumption should be that the person is a biological female.

For example Playboy photographers they use such objectives of camera that distort the models. They use the distortion to emphasize or diminish certain features of models. You can't compare images in e.g. Playboy and a image shot by paparazzi. It could be so that e.g. Pamela Anderson looks non-feminine when looking at a paparazzi picture, and feminine when looking at a picture taken by a Playboy photographer.

I agree 100% with this site that fashion models are ugly. Sexy top fashion models they don't exist, they are sexy because the photographer has depicted them to look sexy.

Marisa Miller - fake breast? really? get a life and get real, her's are real and you are jealous

any one ever looked into Lyndall Jarvis?
her face was used for character model for laughing octopus in metal gear solid 4, and she looks great in real life too.

she seems to have the typical european body type that's why most of the images never focus on her back side.

I am just wondering about her face though, her cheekbone seems to be low in this image,

but in every other picture I found I can't tell if it's the same person because they look so different

the person who is owner of the website is ignorant. he making thin women feel bad about them selfs. women is a women because she has pussy. not because of size of her boobs or body. the butt is to go bathroom , it is just seen as beauty standard now in this era. this person who owns the website is doing the same thing as media, your going against body type.

That you so much for the existance of this site. I have always said to my female friends who said that they needed to losee wait that thier idea that skinny is atractive is learnt from the fashion industry which is run by women and gay men, so why base your idea of atrraction on what they think. Then two weeks ago I was given a selection of essay titals for my art course, one of which was the dipiction of women in art. I decided to pose the questio why is it that the comman standard of beauty in women is based on an industry run by women and gay men, when the computer games industry run by and aimed prodomenutly at men dipicts women with large hips sleder waists and large breasts. Every women I said this too has pritty much ripped my head off, eaither telling me off for saying that i advicatethe over sevualisation of women in the games/comic industry or brating me for all the men in the world who wont go out with overwaight women. When I noted that they should just losse waight as it is an evolutionary indicatore of poor health I started a real S**t storm. Needless to say I've been wondering if I was realy heading in the right direction. This website has given me a wealth of information and clout to back up my essay so thank you o so very much. (excuse the spelling, Dyslexics untide!!")

In general I find the concept of this interesting, but the tone I felt was lacking. There is a difference between facts and the general opinion of people and that was not clarified well. Not even by the author. Being feminine and beautiful are two different things. Feminine is genetic and factual; these are the most female traits. Beauty, while also genetic, is also interpretive; that means that society and pop culture will affect what people think and it is always an opinion. The was not a clear distinction between academic and opinion biased "feminine beauty".

what do you think about this girl? She is stunning!!

This site is first of all sexist and insulting. As if women dont get critisized anougth for having masculine atributes. First of all not all women who have broader shoulders or narrow hips are masculinized, it just is a sign of having a different body type. The bone growth pattern in males is caused by genes on the Y chromosome along with testosterone. A person with Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome has XY chromosomes and a faulty androgen receptor gene. This causes the person to not respond to testosterone, as a result they develop as female but without overies. They grow tall, have narrow pelvices and often make good models. The reason for this is because the bone growth is caused by the gene on the Y chromosome. Girls with XX chromosomes and exposure to androgens from polycystic overies or adrenal tumors dont develop this type of bone structure. Tall fashion models with slim hips and broader shouldrer are like that due to genetic variation, not masculization. Not all men have the typical male shape, some have a shorter more rounded build. If anything the models on the catwalk have a more androgynouse build, as they show less signs of modification of there bones by reproductive hormones. Maybe carrying a broad hip structure was a disadvantage in some ancient tribes as it would slow the group down, women in groups where there was a need to have more children and who did not move around much may have been at an advantage if they had a wider pelvice. I would bet that a narrow pelvice is close to the genetic default, and that a wider pelvice is an adaption to increased environmental stress. The gendering of the human body by sex hormones has to be more radical when there is an environmental threat to survival, men have to be stronger and women have to have more children. Todays variation in body types probably date back to differences in the environment of peoples ancestors.

Lindsey: You illustrated examples of women who have broader shoulders or narrow hips without being masculinized by referring to people with a functional Y chromosome but complete insensitivity to androgens, but the latter are not women or men; these are freaks of nature lacking a sex.

You mentioned that some genes on the Y chromosomes, that women do not have analogs of, make bones larger, which is correct, but all this shows is that masculinization is not limited to the effects of androgens.

You have expressed the opinion that the genetic default is having a narrow pelvis, but the evidence suggests that the default is having a female-like pelvis, which testosterone transforms by restricting growth in some places and enhancing it in others to end up with a masculine pelvis:

Technically, it is possible to have women with broad shoulders and narrow hips that have sex hormone profiles that are normal for women or even feminine because there are a large number of factors aside from sex hormones affecting bone growth, but such women will be uncommon; the greater the number of more male-like features, the rarer it will be that the sex hormone profiles are normal or feminine.

Even if a large number of high-fashion models are outliers by having a masculine appearance without having more masculine or less feminine sex hormone profiles, the appearance is one of masculinization. Focus on the appearance and reflect on why it is being exalted in the fashion industry.

Do I detect a eugenics supporter?


I stumbled across this site accidentally while researching the way various renaissance artists painted women's bodies. At first, I thought perhaps this was some sort of body-positive website, and quickly realized it is anything but.

First, I would like to start off by saying that I have an eating disorder. I am a binge/purge type bulimic and I have been struggling with this problem for 10 years. I have been hospitalized for it, and I am currently in the constant uphill battle that is recovery.

I noticed you had a section about eating disorders. I read through it - and I must say that I find it very hypocritical and almost amusing, when considered in the context of the rest of this website.

You discuss how the rigid standard of beauty - a very thin runway model - is a contributing factor to women having eating disorders. You are absolutely correct. However, I also must point out that YOUR standard of beauty (which, you attempt to argue, is what the majority of the population considers attractive) is EXTREMELY narrow. It is narrow, linear, strict and it is not the way that most women look.

So, I must inform you that as someone who is recovering from an eating disorder, your website is extremely harmful to me - and pretty much any other woman that views it (unless perhaps she fits your extremely rigid definition of "feminine beauty", which isn't likely). I need to point this out because you made some sort of "effort" to address the issue of eating disorders - yet, you seem to be completely unaware that YOU are PART OF THE PROBLEM.

Telling women how they are "supposed" to look, or how they "should" look, is going to contribute to some women developing eating disorders. It doesn't matter of you are telling them they're supposed to look stick-thin or if you tell them they are supposed to look "curvy", the fact that you are arguing for a very specific definition of beauty at all makes you just as guilty as the fashion industry in regards to the overwhelming presence of eating disorders in our society.

Sure, it's nice for me to see that you're arguing against a standard of beauty that promotes a very thin woman - but I am also reading all of this business about hip-to-waist ratios, breast specifications, how my butt should look, etc...and I am sti discovering that I fall short. Alas, not only am I not thin like the media's ideal, I'm also not ACTUALLY femininely beautiful enough, by your standards. My curves aren't to your exact specifications, therefore I am still not feminine nor beautiful enough.

My point is - before writing about how the fashion industry contributes to eating disorders, perhaps peruse your own website for a while and consider how attitudes towards women and their beauty like yours are just as harmful and contribute just as much to women having self-esteem issues and unhealthy body image.

Frankly, it seems like you are a very sick man who invests a LOT of time into this bizarre, disturbing website. Your general perception of women and the time and effort you invest into analyzing their physical beauty paints a very unsettling picture of the inner workings of your mind. You are certainly entitled to your opinions, but the manner in which you're expressing them is very strange and obsessive - and, as I mentioned, harmful to women.

Staci: The spiritual descendents of those who championed eugenics during its heyday, leftists and progressives, are among those more offended by this site today. This should clarify whether an eugenics supporter is behind this site.

L: On the topic of a body-positive argument, even feminists, notwithstanding their learning and wisdom, are unable to equally appreciate different body types. So where does this leave ordinary people like me?

You summed up my argument in terms of a rigid standard of beauty among runway models being a contributory factor to eating disorders among women. It is not the rigidity that is to blame, but the standard. Rigidity simply means that generally there is very limited variation around the standard.

You also mentioned that this site is very harmful to you, but in contrast to fashion imagery, does it give you the impression that you could puke your way to the looks being exalted here?

This site is not in the business of telling women how they are supposed to look. It is about what most people find more attractive in a woman.


You wrote, "The spiritual descendents of those who championed eugenics during its heyday, leftists and progressives, are among those more offended by this site today. This should clarify whether an eugenics supporter is behind this site."

Excuse me if I'm being dense, but your answer does not clarify, for me, whether or not you would support some form of eugenics. Because your answer invites inferences, I'll present you with an inference I've made, and you can comment on its correctness: At the very least, you would not support governments intervening to manipulate the genetic composition of a society.

Even if a person does not support using the government/state to manipulate the genetic composition of a society, he or she may still support the use of other means. So, I'll try to phrase my question more precisely this time: Would you or would you not support non-governmental methods of influencing society that would have the effect of creating what you consider improvements in the gene pool?

By the way, you probably already know this through the use of tracking cookies, but I'm not the same "Staci" who has left other comments on your site.

"Would you or would you not support non-governmental methods of influencing society that would have the effect of creating what you consider improvements in the gene pool?"

The above sentence should have been written as follows: Would you or would you not support non-governmental methods of influencing society that would have the effect of creating what you would consider improvements in the gene pool?

It's a would-y and not-very-good sentence, but hopefully my meaning gets across.

A Few Things about Erik that Readers of this Site Should Note

If you can't see the image, it's of the cover of Erik's book The Nature of Homosexuality: Vindication for Homosexual Activists and the Religious Right

Here's a link to the book at

You can see bios of Erik by using the following two links:

Here's a quote from a comment that Erik left at his site "Whites have been increasingly losing jobs to affirmative action and are slowly being ethnically cleansed."

Here's a link to the web page from which I took the quote:

The quoted sentence should be in the eighth comment below the article on the web page.

Staci: People typically find some more desirable than others, and many would prefer to see more of the desirable and less of the undesirable. The relative numbers of the desirable may be increased by several means: coercion, genetic screening and incentives.

I do not approve of coercion. Since genetic screening by couples may lead to abortion of some fetuses, with its accompanying ethical issues, I reluctantly approve of genetic screening. I am more comfortable with incentives, more comfortable with incentives that encourage certain couples or individuals to reproduce more than incentives that discourage certain couples or individuals from reproducing, and approve of incentives with reservations.

Staci: Your other comment is a digression showing you are more interested in the man than his message, and wish to tarnish a message by referring to another message that is completely or mostly unrelated. The quote you picked is factual and does not suggest any bias or viewpoint. It was a response to someone suggesting that discrimination against and oppression of sub-Saharan Africans in South Africa did not end with the elimination of apartheid. I responded that the discrimination and oppression [along ethnic lines] involves whites after the end of apartheid. It is factual that in post-apartheid South Africa whites have steadily lost jobs to affirmative action and have been undergoing a slow process of ethnic cleansing.

You can verify affirmative action from official sources and evidence for genocide from other sources:

No, Staci's comment about your book and website is very relevant. It shows that you have a history of cherry-picking data to affirm your own beliefs. I've cherry-picked before too. However, it's never satisfying in the long term because I am aware of the act. So perhaps you simply lack the ability to reflect on your actions. It only takes one reproducible experiment to call a theory into action. For something as subtle as physical beauty, you really think that there are not a myriad of papers out there that contradict the opinions you post on this site? You speak as if your sources are the definitive ones, both on this site and the other.

And have you ever considered that maybe the reason that gay men are more promiscuous is because men in general have a higher libido than women? When both partners are horny, sex happens. You also associate homosexuality with pedophilia, bestiality, etc... Well, seeing as large portion of those involved are also bisexual, why not associate these so-called depravities with heterosexual behavior? You don't just cherry-pick, you misrepresent data, which is acceptable if unintentional, though in your case, that is highly unlikely.

I cannot be sure of Staci's intentions in posting that comment. Nonetheless, background checks are very relevant. From what I have seen, you exhibit the same delusional approach on both sites. If you hate (or look down upon) non-whites and gays, just say it. Don't try to feign sincere scientific interest because you are neither a scientist nor scientific-minded. Even Hitler tried to show, "scientifically," that Jews were an inferior race, and look at where that got him; Jews are still dominating the financial and academic world.

Nullpointer: Staci’s comments have no relevance to this site. Nothing in her comments shows that I have knowingly cited evidence to support my case and ignored evidence that does not fit. If there are many publications out there that contradict the major arguments at this site, it is your burden to mention them and prove you point. What comes out of you is merely an accusation.

On your contention that could explain the greater promiscuity of gays and your concern over why an association of bisexual behaviors/interests with higher rates of “depraved” sexual behaviors is not an indictment against heterosexuality, do you think I have not considered these? Your concerns are at the level of middle-school homosexual studies. I went beyond grad school.

Your concerns are answered here:

See if you can find more elegant explanations of the data cited or an elegant explanation that accounts for this data and more.

You said that even Hitler tried to “scientifically” show that Jews are inferior, and then made references to finance and academia. Here is a copy of Mein Kampf:

As you can observe, it contains opinion and observations but no science. This site features my opinion and observations, but also lots of science. In addition, Hitler made no claims about the inferiority of Jews related to finance and academics. Mein Kampf includes:

“His commercial cunning, acquired through thousands of years of negotiation as an intermediary, made him superior in this field to the Aryans, who were still quite ingenuous and indeed clumsy and whose honesty was unlimited; so that after a short while commerce seemed destined to become a Jewish monopoly.”

“At this stage finance and trade had become his complete monopoly... His astuteness, or rather his utter unscrupulousness, in money affairs enabled him to exact new income from the princes, to squeeze the money out of them and then have it spent as quickly as possible.”

“The intellectual faculties of the Jew have been trained through thousands of years. Today the Jew is looked upon as specially ‘cunning’; and in a certain sense he has been so throughout the ages.”

“That is why the Jewish people, despite the intellectual powers with which they are apparently endowed, have not a culture--certainly not a culture of their own.”

Fine, you win on Hitler. I just read up a little more and you are correct; I admit I was wrong. However, I will provide counter-studies regarding your stance on homosexuals. In fact, people who are interested in the issue of homosexuality have dedicated websites (similar to yours) cataloging studies to support their stance. For instance, see the papers referenced in

Regarding physical attractiveness, I have not done much research, but if I find something I will let you know. The only paper I have seen agrees with your point that most people find Caucasians more attractive than East Asians. However, it also mentions that people find Eurasians more attractive than either group. So maybe you might consider adding some mixed-race women in your attractive women section, seeing as how mixed features are what many people find the most attractive.

Also, you called Montagu and Gould charlatans. Their papers are indeed more dated. However, how is it correct to call someone a charlatan for believing something (whether that something is true or not)? Surely, you would not call a devout follower of a religion a charlatan. And from the abstract, I do not see smaller face-size mentioned as an indicator of greater neoteny (I could not access the full paper; I think an account is required). If I interpreted it correctly, neoteny is primarily related to encephalization.

What disturbs me most is that I get the impression that this site has strayed from it's focus of feminine beauty. Everywhere I look, you seem to be hinting at an evolutionary hierarchy, in which whites are at the top, and blacks are at the bottom (with insinuations about intelligence, etc... that have nothing to do with physical attractiveness). This website started off as an opposition to the skewed standards of the fashion industry, but recently it has become all about racial superiority. This is the cause for my hot-headed comments, which I know doesn't make them any more justified. However, I hope this comment comes off as a bit less accusatory.

NullPointer: You do not counter an argument on homosexuals by showing that other people have a bibliography of citations. You have to show how other people’s arguments undermine it. I have actually addressed Jeramy Townsend, to whom you linked, showing the flaws in his arguments on promiscuity:

Similarly, look at what outdated literature he is citing on mental health, and compare it to mine, which includes the essence of his literature.

You say that studies show that Eurasians are found better looking than Europeans. I already pointed you to the following, showing that all these studies are flawed and none have shown anything of the sort: [if I were to explain this in more layman terms, you will find it more offensive than some recent articles that have you agitated]

Ashley Montagu and Stephen J. Gould were charlatans, not for believing in something but for behaving like ones. There is much to their behaviors, but the following should be enough.

Montagu immigrated to the U.S. and managed to get a job teaching dental students anatomy after claiming that he had graduated from Cambridge and Oxford, had 15 anthropological publications and was highly recommended by Arthur Keith. But he was lying. He had no degrees from these institutions and only years later would he get a Ph.D. and that too in cultural anthropology. Montagu was desperate to get credentials as an anthropologist and then use an argument by authority and other foulness to attack physical anthropology. His methods were so vile that Rutgers university could only handle 6 years of him as professor and fired him, and no other university would hire him as professor.

Gould made a career out of slandering deceased scientists and physicians. When he made the mistake of slandering a living one, Arthur Jensen, Jensen exposed Gould’s methods: unprofessional conduct, lies, distortions, ad hominem, etc.:

Gould was especially famous for demonstrating to the satisfaction of the highest echelons of scientists that Samuel Morton had falsified his data on how large a brain different ethnic groups can accommodate in their skulls. Now Gould is infamous for having falsified his own data to show that Morton was lying; Morton had correctly reported his results:

Gould also created much trouble over one of his own concoctions: gradualism vs. punctuated equilibrium. Scientists tried to ignore it, but the charlatan had the media behind him. I was sitting in the midst of paleontologists when news that Gould had died flashed. None lamented. When Ernst Mayr died, many were sad. One was a great scientist, the other a charlatan.

You can barely do worse trying to understand neoteny by reading Montagu or Gould. Neoteny refers to an adult retaining a feature characteristic of a child of an ancestral species.

It is your misreading that this site has gone into “evolutionary hierarchy” or “racial superiority.” Years ago I came up with the argument that it is not possible to objectively compare the attractiveness of different geographic populations, and I have not come across new studies that call for a revision. But this does not mean that trends in perception cannot be examined, and such examination should not be misinterpreted in terms of an implied hierarchy.

"What disturbs me most is that I get the impression that this site has strayed from it's focus of feminine beauty. Everywhere I look, you seem to be hinting at an evolutionary hierarchy, in which whites are at the top, and blacks are at the bottom (with insinuations about intelligence, etc... that have nothing to do with physical attractiveness). This website started off as an opposition to the skewed standards of the fashion industry, but recently it has become all about racial superiority".

Totally agree with this. I ran onto this website about 4 years ago, and first thought it was really interesting. I thought: 'Wow, this man's done a lot of research". Now I think this site really is all about promoting White -Nordic- beauty standards.
Funny thing is that Erik is so selective in which researches he discusses, agrees upon, and dismisses. He makes it look like he's being fully objective and rational, while in fact the opposite is true.
It would not suprise me if Erik was the little brother of Anders Brevik.

"it is easy to obtain pictures of feminine and attractive white women, whereas this is not necessarily true of other populations".

Basically Erik's saying white women are more attractive and feminine than non-white women. That's really why he doesn't include non-white women in his attractive women section.

Pathetic. But expected.


Click here to post a new comment