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.



"swarthy semites,"

Mr. Holland, do you even pay attention to your choice of wording. Here is the wikipedia definition of the word swarthy:

Swarthy is a term sometimes used to describe the complexion of individuals with dark skin pigmentation. The term is generally used informally and can be racially offensive. It is traditionally used to identify people of East Mediterranean origin.

In the United States, the term is increasingly used as slang for Indian Americans and Middle Easterners, but may be used to identify Southern Europeans and Hispanics

I can't believe you actually used to word "swarthy". Being of East Indian ancestry, I really despise that word and have been called that one too many times.

You said:

" 1. This site is not about achieving an hourglass figure; it is about promoting women with these figures among models and beauty pageant contestants; read the solutions page for how one could go about it."

I agree with your solutions, yes. However, you continue to imply very subtley throughout the site what a "true" female body should look like, such as with a caption above the two nude girls saying "what a feminine body should look like". You say this site is about promoting women with more diverse figures, yet the focus of your site appears to debase women who do not have those figures, and even women who are naturally thin. And then you point out that women should strive to achieve the ideal.

" 2. This site does address body image/self-esteem issues and also exercise. "

Yes it does so credit will be given where it's due. Again, very little of the site is devoted to that and a casual reader of the site would probably get lost in the anti-fashion model aspects instead of coming across the healthier topics.

" 3. I don’t want women to do anything with their facial features; read point #1 again."

Yet you continue to have information regarding facial structure and what a "true feminine" face should look like. In all honesty, put yourself in a woman's shoes and look at this from her perspective-- how do you think that would make her feel, along with the many other women who have gotten that impression?

" 4. There is no argument here that only hourglass figures are feminine; see, for instance, Table 1 on the page addressing body image/self-esteem issues. Do I need to promote awareness of the variety of looks among women? The very suggestion is ridiculous; the typical person has already seen a wide variety of looks among women. "

No actually that suggestion is not ridiculous. You seem to be contradicting yourself! First, you say that you want to see modeling and pageants incorporate "feminine" bodies instead of rail-thin Nicole Richie (which I don't disagree with) but you then insist that the suggestion is ridiculous? Suggesting, or more like assuming, that the average person has already seen a variety of looks is ridiculous. Depending on where you live in the country and how you are exposed to things really determines whether or not you have seen a variety of looks. I met a girl from california recently at school who went to a fashion show where an Indian girl was a model. The girl from california said she was "really surprised" to see that fashion shows would actually consider diversifying their models.

"5. I am part of the problem by propagating beauty myths to dispel beauty myths?"

It's exactly what Dove is doing. Don't get me wrong, I get their message but it's always what the media does with beauty-- uses one myth to take down the other. Such as with their "real women have curves". What if you are naturally and healthily thin, and don't have much of curves? Are you perhaps, not a real woman? It's what you're arguing here-- that "real femininity" is about being an hourglass figure in order to combat the Nicole Richie look. You don't need an hourglass to do that-- all you need is a healthy body.

"What is this? I have no problems accepting “real” women. The Gods have created great diversity, and presumably for good reasons. However, this does not mean that women should be picked at random for modeling purposes or as beauty pageant contestants or that people should not find some specific look more appealing than others. When feminine women are needed, feminine ones should be used, and beauty pageants should be about high aesthetic standards just as the Olympics are about high sporting standards. What is unreasonable about this?"

There is nothing unreasonable about aesthetic standards needing to be used, but a matter of how "high" of standards. Take a look (which you already know) at the "high" standard of thinness is doing to women. In the 80's, a sample size for a model was a 6 or an 8-- which is still a healthy, thin size. Now it's a 0 and a 2-- how much smaller will it get? What I'm trying to say is, if you really believe that the hourglass is *the way* to go, what are women going to end up doing to themselves in order to acheive it? Do you really want to see women disfiguring themselves with corsets again? Why can't ALL body shapes be acceptable to appeal to a greater audience of women? You'd think that would be common sense from a marketing and business standpoint, but once again, many designer clothes are for the elite.

I want to point out that I do agree with many parts of your website-- awareness regarding eating disorders, allowing healthier figures into modeling, etc. But unfortunately, all of that gets lost in your "the hourglass figure is the feminine figure" arguments and insinuations.

How on earth are women supposed to strive for a figure that they weren't born with? I'm 5'5" and I lost 30 pounds and I am not fat, but by no means am I an hourglass figure. I have a "nipped in" waist with broad shoulders, a big ribcage, a big bust and narrow hips. How am I supposed to strive for an hourglass figure? I'm just glad that I still have the self-esteem to be happy for once in my life regarding the way I look, and that I can fit into size 5 pants. I'm not "hot" but I've been told here and there that I'm cute-- I have an oval shaped face, a small chin, but a sorta big nose (I'm east Indian, it happens) and medium-sized eyes. I'm not sure how I'm supposed to possibly strive for a more "feminine" face, or how any woman is supposed to.

Why can't women be allowed to determine what really is "feminine" and beautiful? You'd be surprised how many more women would be happier with themselves and have better self-esteem is for once, a man could just step down and stop trying to mold a cookie-cutter for something that he himself is not a part of.

I'm not saying I don't appreciate the GOOD efforts you have done-- but you are going about it in the wrong way and have NO idea about the amount of discouragement you're putting out there to so many women.

I also wanted to mention one last thing-- perhaps you should redefine your definition of what an hourglass is. If you look at real hourglasses, you'll notice that some have "nipped in" middles, whereas others have sloping lines to the centers. Some women have very sloping lines, and some women have nipped in waists. It's really a matter of how you choose to define it.

Erik...could you please put up a picutre of your self up on this web site? I would like to have a good go at your looks and body shape. Further, I need to determine if you are masculine enough to be able to make the comments you do about women.
If you would be kind enough to do as I have requested then I would be able to marginalize you in equal measure.
I could suggest certain exercises and dietary constraints for you to achieve my own personal ideal of maleness.

Afterall, we all know, there is nothing more to a woman than their looks or their body shape.

I wouldn't go so far as to demand Erik's pictures, but once again, he fails to address the REAL issue: comparing healthy body figures (which includes more than just the hourglass) versus unhealthy (fashion model waifness).

Though cs has a point, I would also like to see if Erik falls into the "true" perspective of manliness and masculinity.

It seems that Mr. Holland is taking his sweet time when outdebated himself to fluff up his responses. I hope he does some serious thinking first and may be forced to do so. Take care girls and Charly. I will just tell you one thing. As much as we can expose a person and his/her intentions due to the fact that he/she is so obvious, most things do speak for themselves.

Stay smart, ladies.

Hi Amelia.

One of the most profound hourglass shapes recognized among women in Hollywood was that of the olive skinned Italian actress Sophia Loren who was approximately my height, 5'8' and also had relatively broad shoulders and robust high cheekbones. She was recognized by the international community as the most beautiful woman in the world and pictures of her can be found on the internet in a variety of attires, even partially nude.

Mr. Holland appears not to be a fan of women who manage to be successful and famous regardless of their looks, because he even ruled out another beautiful Italian actress, Monica Belucci, as having looks impressive enough to be used as an example of feminine beauty. With respect to Sophia Loren, he suggested that her "abnormal cheekbones" ruled her out as an example of feminine beauty when in fact many women have requested to have cheekbones like hers from plastic surgeons.

Either way, regardless of how much you get into it with him about hourglass shapes or anything else for that matter, the simple fact appears to be that he just has an issue with most of the women in today's world and those who have come further than the teenaged nude girls whose pictures he has used as examples of feminine beauty, most of whom appear silly, naive, and not even developed physically. Note I am just hypothesizing again and say "appears to be," and Mr. Holland can prove me wrong.

Amelia, you are right, Mr. Holland does contradict himself at least several times and the more he is under pressure from people who respond to him, the more illogical he sounds.

Yours Truly

What I find funny is that MANY women would like high cheekbones because it adds structure to your face. And also, high cheekbones can be attributed to your ethnic heritage, such as African or Native American. Does that mean it makes a person inherently masculine? No.

What I think Mr. Holland needs to do is restructure his site to really put the focus on the real issue on hand: unhealthy body depictions. Instead of slamming fashion models for being less than women, he should be providing an analysis on why it's unhealthy and what the average woman looks like.

He says that the majority of the population prefers feminine features-- of course they do, when you compare it to Kate Moss or Twiggy! The average person would rather see healthy body figures represented than unhealthy below normal BMI range figures. He also fails to address some rather obvious things regarding facial features and bone structure:

1. Perhaps the reason why so many fashion models have high, pronounced cheekbones is because their lack of body fat? If you have less than the normal range, your facial bone structure will become more obvious, rather if you were within a healthy range and had "padding" on your face.

2. Perhaps the reason why so many fashion models look like adolescent boys-- which IS frighteningly true-- is because their lack of fat consumption caused their secondary sex characteristic development to become stunted? I know that one theory behind why so many female gymnasts are shorter than average is because while they are mostly muscle, their lack of fat consumption and body fat content caused them to have lower estrogen levels, and biology shows us that estrogen plays a vital role in bone growth. And if a model restricts herself to a diet ill-fitted for her natural body figure (whether it may be a heavier figure, hourglass, or nonhourglass), her body will not grow properly. There are various theories regarding female puberty development, but one strong indicator is body fat content. It isn't so much the hourglass figure that makes a woman look feminine, but body fat, which adds softness and curves to a woman's figure in contrast to the sharp angles of a man. Don't eat much fat or have fat on you? Well you'll have angles instead. Now whether or not those angles are NATURAL is where the real problem lies-- many fashion models cannot be that thin naturally.

3. Only a professional doctor, after running various tests and a medical examination, can determine whether or not a person has "more or less" of estrogen/feminine hormones or testosterone/masculine hormones. To assume that a person has significantly more of one than the other based on their looks is ignorant and a poor use of science. Each individual is different in their biological makeup and only a doctor can determine that.

Kristin: I am surprised by your accusation that my definition of femininity centers around Northern European women. You left a bunch of comments in this entry and could not have missed my repeated criticism of “d’Artagnan” for employing the supposedly “classical concept of femininity” where, say, shorter height or smaller nose equals more feminine regardless of ancestry. I repeatedly emphasized the necessity of controlling for ancestry. For instance, concerning the elements you pointed out, controlling for ancestry, masculinization makes the nose more prominent and also broader, the hips narrower and the buttocks flatter. Therefore, when white women have more prominent but also narrower noses as well as flatter buttocks but also wider hips than sub-Saharan African women, then how could these elements be used to assign greater femininity to one or the other group, and how would it be possible to say that Northern European women are lacking point blank from the perspective of sub-Saharan Africans? Here is another entry where you left a comment, and undoubtedly read my explanation as to why a broad-faced Central European woman, Nikky Case, is feminine notwithstanding her sharp jawline and squared face; I asked the reader to consider ancestry when judging. I would not use Northern European norms to judge other European populations, let alone non-Europeans, yet you come up with your comment! Unlike you, whites have no problems telling apart their boys from girls; the problem lies with your deficient perception.

Your comment appears to have stemmed from my telling Aileen that she looks more masculine than the norm for European women, but I don’t think you know how she looks or else you would not doubt it.

Looks like Mr. Holland is making a record for himself here, "swarthy semites" and "Unlike you, whites have no problems telling apart their boys from girls; the problem lies with your deficient perception." Mr. Holland says "whites" as if he can see through the eyes of every white on planet earth.

Mr. Holland, what do you know about norms among European women or Iranian women, who are also recognized as Caucasian, or Semitic people or Sub Saharan Africans????

Can you use people's testimonies here to make your point instead of your own statements and prove that there are others out there who appreciate your site? No, you can't and simply make a mindless statement about how people who disagree are more likely to comment than those who agree, thinking that we are all naive enough to believe that. As a visitor to many many websites, political, religious, fashion, you name it, every time I observed people's comments those who appreciate the contents of a website always thank the person who created it and express their gratitude and those who did not appreciate or disagreed left their input as well. This is the only website I have ever visited that has had so many opponents posting comments, and almost entirely no supporters. Where are your supporters, Mr. Holland? Who are they? Have you deluded yourself into thinking you have any? Where are you heterosexual male supporters who appreciate your attempt to promote "feminine beauty" and to "create public awareness about the trends of unhealthy looking, masculine high fashion models" and how gays are repsonsible for the spread of anorexia and a poor body image?

You are right, Amelia. The reason cheekbones are hardly ever showing in the face of children is because of the adequate amount of facial fat that they have. If you look at picture fo children who are starved, you will see their cheekbones and jawlines showing in the same way that fashion models are. Cheekbones become more pronounced with age because of the loss of facial fat, which makes the face look thinner and at even older ages, skin becomes wrinkled.

The thing that makes pronounced cheekbones attractive to some people is the sophistication that is associated with it, it gives even a younger woman a more mature and experienced look than if her face was more roundish or oval. Mr. Holland says my cheekbones are low, but I don't think he took a good look at them. Everyone else says I have the cheekbones of a model, by the way I am not bragging.

Although, high fashion models go through great pains, sometimes unhealthy, oftentimes, to stay as thin as they are, I do find their facial structures to be appealing in some ways. I am taken by the serious looks on their faces and their aloofness. Then again, this is a matter of personal tastte and there are even men out there, heterosexual exclusively, who find women who look this way attractive and they are entitled to do so and no one has any right to label them as having homosexual or bisexual tendencies. Actually, I am happy to know that there are men out there with a variety of tastes and interests as well as women with a variety of tastes.

Actually, in my personal opinion, the modeling world should move towards diversification, which will sell even more to the public because women will begin to look more for the types of clothings and cosmetics that will flatter and bring out the uniqueness of their own look instead of feeling unappreciated because of the prevalence of only one type of look. This is the healthiest approach towards this issue and men will appreciate it as well because their unique tastes will be catered to as well.


Yes you are definately right about the fashion industry providing a more diverse range of looks. I sometimes wonder why thin is in right now--- for the most part, fashion recycles itself-- in the 60's and 70's thin was in, then in the 80's and a good portion of the 90's the "Amazon" models were popular, like Linda Evangelista and Cindy Crawford. So one would expect this to start recycling itself...but it hasn't.

I think one of the problems contributing to this is the amount of attention people with very thing bodies are being given. Not that they should be ignored by any means; but taking a look at eating disorders and the psychology behind them, when you give an undue amount of attention (whatever it may be) to thinness especially anorexia, it actually reinforces the individual to want to become more thin, and thus validating their motivations for being thin, and believing that they actually look healthy.

So instead of slamming the thinness of fashion models, examples providing a greater range of beauty in various heights, body shapes, and musculatures would be helpful in gravitating away from Twiggy's look to a healthier Cindy Crawford-- regardless of the fact that her uppper body is toned.

Aileen: I have a bunch of things to do other than working on this site. This is the reason why this site is updated slowly and why it may take me a while to respond. I don’t need days to think over a response. Don’t delude yourself into believing that you are outdebating me. All I see from critics like you is ad hominem, misrepresentations and misunderstanding.

I have IP logs to prove that Aileen, Raymond and Maria are the same person whereas Sandy and I are not. Sandy has also left a bunch of comments around, even before her latest comment within this thread, and reading them should make it obvious that she and I are not the same person. I do not need to be posting comments here using multiple aliases to show that people agree with me; the scientific information and pictures cited are enough to prove my arguments, and your comments, especially as Raymond and Maria, show just what people who disagree with this site have to offer as counter arguments.

Using the expression “Your comment is the kind I get from pathetic homosexuals...” is not to imply that the person is one, but to simply state what kind of men are expected to leave the comment that “Raymond” did. Raymond could be a woman and hence I did not say “A pathetic homosexual like you...” I did not check the IP logs before posting it or else would have realized that it was you.

As far as the self-esteem stuff goes, I discussed it over a month ago, and have never presented arguments along the lines of not caring about women’s self-esteem at all. None of this should be news to those that have bothered to thoroughly go through the site before judging it. I have now started working around people’s arguments? I have not presented myself as a person with no liking for what feminists stand for. Just because I criticize a feminist, i.e., Heather above, it does mean that I have something against feminist demands per se. Neither have I presented myself as someone against the practice of psychology as a science. Psychology is a mixed bag; some of it is science but the rest isn’t. Psychoanalysis, which I critiqued, is not science, and as long as this discipline remains part of psychology, psychology simply cannot be regarded as a science. I don’t believe that I am being careless about my choice of words, but changing the wording used is not going to help improve the respect people have for this site because my arguments are based on data and pictures, not wording. I know you have no respect for this site and so do a number of other people out there, and this cannot be changed by carefully chosen words because people who have no interest in feminine beauty will at best remain indifferent to this site and some others will remain hostile toward the promotion of feminine beauty.

I don’t believe that I have used any belittling terms for...


...gays and bisexuals (when I talked about pathetic homosexuals, I obviously meant homosexuals who happen to be pathetic rather than that homosexuals are pathetic)...

...feminists (calling Heather a useless feminist is not to imply that all feminists are such)...

...psychologists (psychoanalysts are not the only psychologists; psychoanalysis is a contemptible discipline and needs to go where Freud went; there are many brilliant psychologists around, none practicing psychoanalysis).

Do I need to interview a bunch of white and Iranian men to figure out who would prefer you more? Anyone familiar with the looks of your co-ethnics and white women would know the answer right away after looking at you. My friendly advice to you, again, is to beware of the white men interested in you given your more manly appearance compared to white female norms. Better be safe than sorry; no point in catching venereal diseases or HIV from men on the down-low when plenty of your co-ethnics would be pleased to date you.

I cannot understand why you and Amelia have problems being called swarthy. There is nothing wrong with being swarthy. Poor you got offended by it even though the word is an accurate description of you! On the other hand, you had no qualms coming up with ad hominem to supposedly “out-debate” me and keep coming up with annoying comments such as hypothesizing that I have “an issue against most of the women in today’s world” when I have made it clear that this site is about the looks of models and beauty pageant contestants, not women in general.

As far as the ethnic composition of Iranians goes, I have never implied anything along the lines of Iranians being a mono-ethnic group. Iran has been occupied by diverse groups throughout history, including European tribes, and it shows in the variety of looks found there. However, it has a Semitic element, and people looking at you would think Semite right away. If you believe that Iranians are Indo-Europeans, then a reality check is in order. The Indo-Europeans were a European people than spread from the Russian Caucasus region to a broad region of Europe and as far southeast as India. If you want to see examples of how they looked, search for pictures of the Tarim Basin mummies and note their hair colors, among other features. Also see the hair of this Scythian warrior; the Scythians occupied a broad region ranging from Iran to Mongolia. The original Indo-European looks in Iran are gone and some people close to them driven out by Muslims. If Amelia knew how you looked she would be able to tell that you would not fit among a group of Persians that fled Moslem persecution in Iran and sought refuge in India. They are a light-skinned people with facial features ranging from European to close to European, unlike your dark and Semitic looks. Dark-haired Iranian women with fair skin and European facial features are admired the world over, but not your kind.

Your assertion that I do not appear to be a fan of women who manage to be successful and famous regardless of their looks is nonsense; this site is not about success/fame, but about the looks of models and beauty pageant contestants. So what if Sophia Loren was widely admired? Manly Gisele Bundchen has been described as the most beautiful woman in the world by some authorities, too. Am I to lend credence to what “authorities” have said or consider how these women look? So what if some women aspired to acquire the abnormal-looking cheekbones of Sophia Loren? Some women aspire to acquire the super-skinny looks of high-fashion models even though there is no aesthetic merit in skinniness as far as most people are concerned. Some people will try to acquire some features of famous women, but this does not mean that the desired features are of merit by themselves. Monica Belluci is not added to the attractive women section because she is insufficiently feminine rather than because she is famous.

I am getting tired of having to point out materials within this site that you should have read prior to commenting. What do I know of norms among European women? Read this page for just one example, which describes the outline of the average North American white female and also some other ethnicities; it also presents some data on Iranians. It should be obvious that your face is more masculine looking than the average North American white female's.

Some people have left appreciative comments here, and I have received a number of appreciative emails, too. People who appreciate this site will typically at best be able to come up with a one-liner expressing their appreciation, but most wouldn’t bother whereas the ones disturbed by it would be prompted to leave lengthy comments. This should be intuitive. Anyway, I don’t care if you believe that most people do not appreciate this site. I have some things to do and will do my job regardless of what others think. Who appreciates this site and who doesn’t will become obvious to most in due time.

You must make an effort to understand this site before leaving more comments or else you are not welcome to do so.

Amelia: You wrote:

“You say this site is about promoting women with more diverse figures, yet the focus of your site appears to debase women who do not have those figures, and even women who are naturally thin. And then you point out that women should strive to achieve the ideal.”

Talk about remarkable distortion! I am not trying to promote diverse figures, but specifically those that are examples of feminine beauty. There is no argument here along the lines of what a “true” female body should look like; “true” female bodies naturally come in wide varieties. The illustrative examples are supposed to help convey what feminine beauty is supposed to look like. Promotion of feminine beauty does not require debasement of other looks, which this site is not doing; a contrast with other looks suffices to show what is feminine. I have not argued that women should strive to achieve feminine beauty.

Regarding the discussion of self-esteem issues, a website with more than a few pages will not be able to highlight links to all of its pages just about everywhere. It is the responsibility of the reader to go through the site and understand it before critiquing it.

The reason that there is information on facial structure here is because it is needed to show how masculinization and feminization change face shape; without this information, my arguments will be dismissed as subjective. Nobody should infer that this information is provided because I want women to do anything about their facial features.

As far as promoting awareness of variety among women goes, I am not contradicting myself. I want to see more feminine looking women among models and beauty pageant contestants as part of feminine beauty promotion rather than in order to promote awareness of diversity. In this age of global television and the internet, not to mention multiethnic big cities, many people have seen tremendous ethnic diversity in looks; if there is any need to promote awareness of diversity in looks, this site will not concern itself with it.

I am not dispelling beauty myths by promoting the myth that ‘“real femininity” is about being an hourglass figure.’ The argument here is about feminine beauty, not femininity per se. There are feminine women around who are not examples of feminine beauty. An hourglass figure should be considered as a reference standard for feminine beauty; it is not an absolute requirement.

You are mistaken that the use of women with healthy physiques rather than an hourglass look is sufficient to combat the negative influence of skinny fashion models. Without convincing women at risk for developing anorexia that a competing healthy aesthetic standard is of merit and desired by most people, there will be no significant impact. Feminine beauty is naturally appreciated by most people, and women who are great examples of it are needed to combat the negative effects of skinny fashion models. Regarding high standards of feminine beauty, you can rest assured that promoting it will not be corresponding to unhealthy behaviors, as I have already explained under the heading Cosmetic surgery in relation to the promotion of feminine beauty within the page that addresses body-esteem issues. Masculinized women will end up with a distorted or cartoonish figure if they use a corset.

You have again asked “How on earth are women supposed to strive for a figure that they weren’t born with?” Once again, this site is not about what women are supposed to strive for. As far as women being allowed to determine what is feminine and beautiful goes, femininity of physical appearance is not a matter of opinion, as a tremendous amount of data cited within this site shows, and most people share their sense of what constitutes beauty; there is an intrinsic element to aesthetic appreciation that cannot be changed, though there is room for manipulating what some people find beautiful by associating some looks with high status and thereby desirability. As far as women having better self-esteem goes if there were not men around specifying what constitutes feminine beauty, my arguments would not bother you if you did not recognize that the nature of feminine beauty portrayed here represents reality. If I were promoting obese women here, I don’t think that you would be disturbed by this site because the typical person in Western society does not aesthetically appreciate obesity. You are more than welcome to find like-minded individuals (think Aileen) and try to set up a site to define what you feel is feminine and beautiful; I will let my readers know of it when it is done.

Some of the minutiae of aesthetics discussed here are applicable to European women but not other ethnicities. For instance, East Indian women have naturally higher waist-to-hip ratios than European women, on average, and are thereby not required to present the appearance of the hourglass extremes shown within this site to constitute examples of attractive women among their co-ethnics. So why are you bothered? Do not compare yourself to European women.

I need to redefine an hourglass figure? An hourglass approximation is a rough one and in front view only. The pictures/looks speak for themselves; there is no need to attempt mathematical precision.

As far as my neglecting the “real” issue, i.e., comparing healthy physiques to unhealthy ones, or the necessity of focusing on unhealthy body depictions goes, why do I have to keep repeating that the purpose of this site is to promote feminine beauty? Feminine beauty corresponds to health although health does not necessarily correspond to feminine beauty. The primary purpose of this site is not to promote health.

You wrote:


Instead of slamming fashion models for being less than women, he should be providing an analysis on why it’s unhealthy and what the average woman looks like.

Manly fashion models are not being slammed here; the people/circumstances that have put them in a position of high status are being critiqued. The negative health consequences of fashion imagery featuring skinny women have been extensively addressed on the eating disorders page. The looks of average women have also been addressed, often in the form of numerical data; go through the entire section that addresses aesthetics in international beauty pageants.

When you say that many women would like high cheekbones because it adds structure to the face, you are confusing the height of the cheekbones with their horizontal prominence (which figures into the structure issue). The argument here is not that high cheekbones equals masculine per se. The argument is that masculinization causes a higher placement of the cheekbones on the face.

As to my failure “to address some rather obvious things regarding facial features and bone structure,” here is my reply to your three points:


1. It is an easy matter to find women with little fat in their faces that nevertheless have much less prominent cheekbones than fashion models; see numerous comparisons here.

2. Female gymnasts do not typically look like adolescent boys notwithstanding your assertion that their dietary practices lead to development under reduced estradiol levels. Besides, success in gymnastics requires a short height, among other things, i.e., short women are selected for among well-ranked gymnasts rather than regular participation in gymnastics being responsible for stunting height. There are plenty of skinny women with feminine skeletal proportions, which prevent them from looking like adolescent boys (example), and it is incorrect to blame the skinniness of high-fashion models alone for their adolescent-boy look. Remember that high-fashion models typically look like adolescent boys when they are recruited for fashion modeling to start with, i.e., it is not that years of fashion modeling is making them look like adolescent boys; just look at newly signed-up fashion model Abbie Gortsema for instance. So body fat makes a woman look feminine and adds curves? Explain why the following women with not much body fat and small breasts come close to satisfying the requirements of an hourglass figure except for the breasts part: 1, 2, 3. Don’t you see the importance of skeletal structure in presenting a feminine appearance and that high-fashion models typically lack a feminine body skeletal structure to start with, which combined with their skinniness and facial masculinization altogether helps them approximate the looks of adolescent boys?

3. There are numerous studies cited here (e.g., see this and this) that relate sex hormone profiles to physical shape variation, easily allowing one to assess who, controlling for ancestry, has more masculine or feminine sex hormone profiles if the overall masculinity-femininity of physical appearance is sufficiently discordant.

It is surprising that you “sometimes wonder why thin is in” when the clear answer is provided here. Contrary to your impression about not-so-skinny fashion models in the 1980s and 1990s as opposed to skinny ones in the 1960s and 1970s, there has been a trend toward increasing skinniness among fashion models from the 1960s onward. You appear to have been mislead by the supermodel phenomenon that characterized part of the 1980s and 1990s. Whereas the supermodels, i.e., the most famous ones, were not super skinny, the norm among high-fashion models was skinny. Please go through and understand this site before critiquing it.


a sorry idiot is a sorry idiot, just ban him. The rest of society has spit on his face and left him with all of these complexes.

These comments that we are posting here, Mr. Holland, no longer even address you, they just expose how narrow minded, lame, and demeaning your comments are when you respond to them. Yet, I still ask, where are your supporters???? You have none. You are a lone wolf, Mr. Holland, that has lost the entire pack. While everyone else out there is enjoying life, and moving forward, you are in your sedentary backward place, boiling with anger because you are a societal reject. Enjoy your life.

You should have enough sense to realize that the word swarthy is not an appropriate term to describe relatively darker shades of skin. I would like you to use that word face to face when speaking to someone in describing them and see the reaction you get. It is clearly not appropriate. By the way, not all semitics are swarthy and neither am I. In fact, anyone who has taken a good look at Arabs and Jews, can tell that my features are not in the least semitic, they are a blend of Slavic and East Indian in appearance. In fact, semetic peoples themselves describe me as such. You have no way of categorizing people. The rest of the world has admired Sophia Loren, Monica Bellucci and some other models whose looks you do not favor, and they do not need your favor either. Obviously, they had something to offer, in terms of looks, class, and reason that you do not and are still used as examples of female beauty.

The fact remains, you have no supporters and have interviewed and spoken to no one about anything to prove your point.

Where are your supporters now to defend you?????

I just went over the site, every page:

"I am getting tired of having to point out materials within this site that you should have read prior to commenting. What do I know of norms among European women? Read this page for just one example, which describes the outline of the average North American white female and also some other ethnicities; it also presents some data on Iranians. It should be obvious that your face is more masculine looking than the average North American white female’s."

Mr. Holland there is nothing on Iranians or the vast majority of ethnic groups here, you simply have the audacity to place a black woman's picture next to a white woman's picture and make comparisons as to which is more feminine than which and have the audacity also to say that Halle Berry got a nose job to appeal to the tastes of African Americans. Again, you do not represent the opinions of African Americans either because you interview none of them. Furthermore, there is only one random photo shot of Aishwarya Rai and of one other East Indian actress wearing colored lenses where you compare here to a very grotesque looking woman and compare their levels of femininity.

Furthermore, with respect to your rudeness and presumptuousness that I be wary of white, European men who take an interest in me given the higher probability that they have AIDS and other venereal diseases, I would like to let you know that unlike the women you have an apparent liking for (if you can make a judgemnt like that about me then I am most definitely in position to make judgements about you who is nothing more than what others have described as a PE major), I am not the cheap promiscuous type that engages in sexual relations, let alone unprotected sexual relations, with anyone random person who has attraction towards me. Most men earn their way into my life and I am in the business of rejecting 95% of the men who show attraction.

The simple fact that oftentimes I attract the attention of almost every man in the room regardless of what the other females in the room look like is enough indication that I am above average in looks. Can every man in the room have a tendency towards bisexuality and have AIDS and veneral diseases, the probability is very very low. Plus, your comment is useless, it has no meaning and is purely baseless. Its just losers like you that no they do not stand a chance with desirable respectable women and so they make the comments that they do. Your kind is a sad, sorry story. I am not bragging about myself, but have to set you straight in the eyes of others who are offended by you. Even if Amelia or Kirsten or anyone were to see how I looked, they wouldnt think the way you do. I get enough compliments from people at work, in my life, those who come across me on a day to day basis to know that I am special and beautiful. It is clear you do not like women who are happy with themselves and the comments you make towards me are a clear indication. Now, I leave them here for everyone who reads these to see who you are.

I just finished observing some photographs of supermodel Gisele Bundchen and must say that on a personal level, I think that she is stunning, though not perfect. Only her nose and chin may need surgical alteration in order to achieve a closer degree of femininity and perfection. Her tall, slender physique, though too slim and emaciated for healthy norms is overall very aesthetically pleasing as well as her facial bone structure. Great skin, hair, and ability to manueaver oneself in a variety of attires...she has these. Of course, she hits it off with superstar Leonardo DiCaprio, then there is something obviously right about her. The titanic hottie that all the girls wanted found himself i the arms of 5'11 supermodel. For her height, her waist to hip ratio of approximately, 0.71 is very good as well as her long sleek legs and not to mention that she actually appears to have naturally voluptuous breast and even they have been surgically altered, I will say that the surgeon should be sought after by all women who are seeking breast enhancement and want to look natural at the same time.

Hey Amelia,

Although I admire the looks of Gisele Bundchen, I will go back to my orignal assertion that diversity is much needed by the modeling world. I will explain my personal definition of diversity as I speak of it here.

By diversification, I mean that not only should different racial and ethnic groups be represented in more equal numbers given the fact that the western world in general, European countries, the United States, Canada, some Latin American countries, and Australia are becoming more of a melting pot with a larger and more diverse selection of fans of fashion, clothing, and cosmetics, but also that different body types, which entails different bone structures, heights, proportions, facial configurations be represented. I think in past times and even so today, the modeling world did, in fact, cater to a more specific group of people and the reason many were underrepresented was because of their lack of presence in the realm of show business, fashion, and other forms of media or simply because of their lack of willingness to speak or to express their concern about being underrepresented. At the turn of this century, with the presence of Jennifer Lopez in the music world and some other pear shaped stars, luckily many women can take pride in being pear shaped whereas there was a previously a big stigma attached to it.

In my opinion, the most aesthetically pleasing standard for any woman is what would make any particular woman appear most aesthetically pleasing in her own right, while maintaining her health, both physically and mentally. There is nothing wrong with a woman being unusually thin either in the fashion world as long as the woman is proven to beh healthy and is proven to have a look that is achievable for her particular body type, which can be proven by submitting to a regular physical, which should be used as a standard and if so many supermodels stopped denying to the public that they are, in fact, starving themselves to look the way they do. Also, if a woman simply has a tendency towards having less body fat than some other women she can be used as model for women who are on the thin side.

The problem with the modeling world, I believe, is that women are forced to aspire towards something that is not achievable by all of them and this induces feelings of inadequacy inside of them, which is unhealthy, and can retard personal growth and an appreciation of one's own unique traits and abilities. Actually, I explained this phenomenon to a male friend of mine who is trying to understand women, that in order to have a successful relationship with a woman, every man needs to realize that it is every woman's right to feel beautiful. The modeling world, at this time, is much more limited in its selection of aesthetically pleasing looks. What we need to move towards is a situation in which every woman has a model that she can not only aspire to, but identify with, and who can model clothes, hair styles, and cosmetics for her that flatter her own particular look and not necessarily the look of another.

Also, modelling and fashion need to be treated as works of art, in my opinion. The most credible artist is one who can work with a variety of mediums to produce a eye catching work. There is no reason why male homosexuals would not be able to do this if the status quo shifted a bit.

I forgot to mention that we need models with various skin tones, eye colors, and hair colors in a variety of combinations in order to explore the art of make up and hair color and how it plays into accentuating one's beauty. Women with predominantly European features are not necessarily more aesthetically pleasing on an international level than women with more East Asian, Southeast Asian, East Indian, Middle Eastern (semetic or Indo European), or North African or Sub Saharan African features.

I remember a Vietnamese man in my Communications class saying that he would not ever choose a blonde girl over an Asian because he had a personal affinity for the eye structure of Asian women. Clearly, this indicates that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Some men in recent years admit to liking women who are more plumpish whereas when waif like physiques were our only point of reference in the 90s for beauty before the presense of Jennifer Lopez and some other stunningly voluptous celebrities and women, men always used Cindy Crawford as reference point for the emblem of beauty. Though stunningly beautiful and a brilliant artist, most level headed people can say that Cindy Crawford is just one of many versions of what beauty can be.

I always appreciate people's inputs with respect to my ideas. Please feel free to share, but please be respectful.

You said:

"You are mistaken that the use of women with healthy physiques rather than an hourglass look is sufficient to combat the negative influence of skinny fashion models. Without convincing women at risk for developing anorexia that a competing healthy aesthetic standard is of merit and desired by most people, there will be no significant impact. Feminine beauty is naturally appreciated by most people, and women who are great examples of it are needed to combat the negative effects of skinny fashion models. "

You seem to fail to notice that women fall under a variety of physiques, so by using YOUR standard of what an attractive body looks like, you are continuing the problem. The minute a stenciled standard is set and women are apparently supposed to try to aim for it is the minute problems arise. You constantly try to claim otherwise but continue to contradict yourself.

You know what, you are a man. Simple as that. You don't have a woman's body and you are by no means someone to think that you can determine the standard for women and beauty. This site is just a prime example of men trying to exert patriarchy over women's bodies, in a place they have no business to control. I think I've said enough here and I can't wait to use this site as part of an anti-healthy body image discussion for my abnormal psych class.

Mr. Holland, if you are referring to the Zoroasterian Persians who fled Iran to India, known as the Parsees and are making such presumptuous suggestions that Amelia knows what they look like just because she claims to have East Indian ancestry, is really a reflection of your ignorance and lack of attention to what people are actually saying to you.

The Parsees living in India today are heavily heavily mixed with the Indian population, most of whom have some of the darkest features found anywhere in the world and actually, they are darker than the mainstream population of Iranians found in Iran today. Actually, Indian people are Indo European as well, most tend to be rather dark skinned with a select few having lighter skin, hair, and eyes, and rather taller and more developed in stature. Being caucasian, first and foremost, has nothing to do with skin tone either. Iranians are predominantly Caucasion irrespective of hair types, stature, skin tone, eye color and so are East Indians.

I don't think you have taken a good look at semetic peoples, Arabs and Jews in order to make judgements as to which people have more semetic ancestry. The original Arabs that originated in present day Yemen and moved into present day Saudi Arabia have absolutely no resemblence to 95% of Iran's population as diverse as they are in skin tone, hair color, eye color, and body configurations. We actually have a small arab minority leaving in the desert areas in the south western portion of Iran, but that is where they are and their culture and language are their own. They have no mixing with the rest of us.

Mr. Holland, you and I both know that if I didnt even bring up the subject of Iranians, you wouldnt have even did your last minute homework on the subject that I presented and its clear that you still are lacking sufficient knowledge on subjects that you are not in a position to talk about. Research a subject thoroughly before discussing it. Ask any anthropologist as to whether or not Iranians are Indo European or not and then come up with these off the wall assertions.

Furthermore, by assuming that my ancestry is largely semetic and in falsely doing so, and by saying that "my kind is not admired the world around" you must accept that you are implying that Arab and Jewish women, here I am implying the Sephardic Jews, not the Ashkenazi Jews, are less attractive than women with more European ancestry. This itself is racially offensive and would like to see an Arab woman's response one day to what you are saying about her looks, though I myself, as an Iranian, consider myself an Arab in any way or identify with the ethnic category of Arabs.

My native language is Farsi and in my family there are people with a variety of looks and appearances. Some of family members actually are on the fair skinned side with hazel, green, and blue eyes. My mother is by no means semetic looking and neither is my father and there is very little probability that I would be considered semetic. Skin tones in Iran range mainly range from medium to darker tones of olive to rather fair or lightly tanned skin tones and I fall under the category of light olive with strong tanning potential. A select few are pinkish white mainly Iranians that originate from the North or are still living in the North and another select few are very dark, somewhat brownish, which predominate in the south of Iran of course mainly due to climatic conditions. Again, the word "swarthy" is an inappropriate term because it is clear that it has often been used to demean people.

If semetic women are not attractive, Mr. Holland, then why is there so much literature dedicated to white men's attraction to Jewish women during Medeival Europe, a time during which people were even more conservative about what feminine and masculine are, and why is it now that Jewish people consist of more than just the original Jews; the Ashkenazi jews are actually hardly semetic in ancestry in today's world. The Ashkenazi Jews have a large number of white, blue eyed and blonde people among them some of them who would meet your definition of feminity and some who would not. Obviously there were a large number of European men out there who found the looks of a Middle Eastern more appealing and exotic than that of the native European woman and therefore there was interbreeding among them and they were even willing to change their religion to be among these people who were living as minorities in exile.

Of course, some of what I say gets into politics, now we have a controversial state called Israel as a result of so many Ashkenazi Jews. Quite interesting........

There is a question I would like to pose with respect to the so-called "masculinized women" being more likely to attract men who are more likely to have bisexual tendencies or whatever it is that Mr. Holland has chosen to describe their tendencies as and has thereby made the faulty generalization.

Are "masculinized" supermodels, movie actresses, and other famous women whose looks Mr. Holland would describe as masculine at a greater risk of catching AIDS and other STDS because of the types of men that are attracted to them, some of whom consist of men in high professions such as medicine, show business, engineering, law, or the so-called "feminine" women whose pictures Mr. Holland has placed here, some of whom are just vulgar and heinous and no one would give them a second look even in day-to-day life and of course. I recall reading some of what Mr. Holland had to say about these so-called feminine women as to why they could only be found in amateur porn and nude model sites and he said that because of the lack of attention paid to them by the elites, they have to sleep their way to the top?????? I ask everyone here who is more likely to catch an STD????

Even with respect to men, Mr. Holland has boldly made the assertion that heterosexual men have low standards for casual sex and so can one conclude that so-called "exclusively heterosexual" men, like Mr. Holland himself, are more likely to harbor a wide range of STDs because of their preferences for the types of women that are ignored by the elites and are therefore forced into prostitution to make their way to the top????? Having low standards for casual sex extends to having low standards for looks as well as for health....

Look at a picture of one Mr. Holland's examples of feminine women, a slimy looking girl standing half naked next to a Christmas tree with a cheap hair cut, and of course what do u see on the Christmas tree, her thong as an ornament. Looks like the opening of a porno movie and of course there is often no protection used. The girls are at any man's immediate disposal and are used like toilet paper.

Good choice all you so-called "masculinized" women,even if your looks are by Mr. Holland's standards on the manly side. You associate yourself with the cream of the crop and like other famous women you value your life and health too much to die of aweful diseases by reducing yourselves to nothing with the likes of slimy, chauvenistic men. I love all of you. Stay great the way you are.

Amelia: I have not failed to notice that “women fall under a variety of physiques.” Even children have noted the latter. You use the term “YOUR standard of what an attractive body looks like,” oblivious to numerous studies cited here explaining femininity and showing that the general public strongly and overwhelmingly prefers above average femininity in the looks of women. This site would have no convincing power and the “standard” talked about here would not bother you and others like you if deep down you all did not realize that the core arguments here are true. Once again, this site is not about what “women are apparently supposed to try to aim for.”

This site is an example of patriarchal oppression? Can women be manipulated into accepting just about any looks standards? What is so special about this site that it will convince women that female beauty lies in what is argued here? Don’t waste your time using this site as part of “an anti-healthy body image discussion” in abnormal psychology. Feminine beauty represents health though it is not the only healthy configuration.

Aileen: Where are my supporters? My supporters don’t need to defend me because you have already done an astounding job of defending my arguments, as the following eight points show:


1. You left a comment, “I always appreciate people’s inputs with respect to my ideas. Please feel free to share, but please be respectful.” On the other hand, you have described me as a sorry idiot spit on his face by society and left with numerous complexes, a “sad, sorry story,” narrow-minded, lame, demeaning, slimy, chauvinistic and a societal reject. As Raymond, you described me as a sad loser, reject, someone boiling with anger, sedentary, someone with a small penis, probably a big social moron, masturbator, sex-starved and someone with no luck with women. You spammed me with three additional comments as Raymond, which I am not displaying since I don’t allow spam, but you included the following additional insults in these comments: calling me probably short, someone who was bullied all my life, in denial of my homosexuality, a pathetic f*g and someone crapping in my pants as I read your comments. As Maria you also suggested that I am a homosexual.

Respect for me, but not for thee! Besides, someone who comes up with such a fine response to an argument does an excellent job of showing just how able she is of refuting the argument.

Another interesting comment by you in light of your fine response above: “Again, the word “swarthy” is an inappropriate term because it is clear that it has often been used to demean people.” Oh, how much more offensive being called swarthy than your relatively benign description of me!

2. After saying that “I just went over the site, every page,” you wrote, “Mr. Holland there is nothing on Iranians or the vast majority of ethnic groups here...”

You missed the following citations within this site:


Farkas, L. G. et. al., International anthropometric study of facial morphology in various ethnic groups/races, J Craniofac Surg, 16, 615 (2005).

Mafi, P. et. al., Ideal soft tissue facial profile in Iranian females, J Craniofac Surg, 16, 508 (2005).

The first paper cites anthropometric data on numerous populations, including Iranians, and I have provided a pdf of the paper. I haven’t extensively cited the data from the second paper, but you bet that I have read it and cited it in an appropriate manner.

In short, you have shown just how well you have read “every page” within this site.

3. You left the following comments:

Quote: simply have the audacity to place a black woman’s picture next to a white woman’s picture and make comparisons as to which is more feminine...

Furthermore, there is only one random photo shot of Aishwarya Rai and of one other East Indian actress wearing colored lenses where you compare here to a very grotesque looking woman and compare their levels of femininity.

You wrote the above, oblivious to the following note at the very beginning of the section that you are criticizing:


Those who wanted others to believe that it is impossible to come up with objective and sufficiently exacting criteria to compare the attractiveness of individuals across populations would tend to display striking contrasts (Figures 1a-h), whereas those who wanted others to conclude the opposite would pick images that minimize differences across populations (Figures 2a-c). Therefore, it is not sufficient to just rely on pictures to answer the central question of this section of the site. It is necessary to also refer to average differences between populations, as documented in the anthropological literature.

In other words, the arguments rest on average differences documented in the anthropological literature. You seem to have glossed over all the numerical data and papers cited, and failed to realize that the pictures shown are merely illustrative examples of what the anthropological data are showing; the arguments are not based on the pictures!

You have shown just how well you have understood the arguments here.

4. You said:


I am not the cheap promiscuous type that engages in sexual relations, let alone unprotected sexual relations, with anyone random person who has attraction towards me. Most men earn their way into my life and I am in the business of rejecting 95% of the men who show attraction.

Where have you encountered cheap, promiscuous women who have sexual relations with random men expressing an interest in them? Women, regardless of their promiscuity, are selective about who they have sex with. Even prostitutes make men “earn their way into” their pants. Whereas I have not made any assumptions about your degree of promiscuity, your inference that the women I like are cheap prostitute-types speaks volumes about your “fine understanding” of this site. This site is about looks, not behavior. There are also numerous citations here showing that feminine women are less likely to be promiscuous than masculinized women.

5. You said, “Even if Amelia or Kirsten or anyone were to see how I looked, they wouldnt (sic) think the way you do.” And what do I think about the way you look? I said that you are on the masculine side of European norms. If you attract as many admiring glances as you say you do, get numerous compliments on your looks and believe that I am wrong in my assessment of your looks, I don’t think you should have a problem with me posting your pictures next to average and attractive European women and see what the readers have to say. After all, I am wrong in my assessment, isn’t it?

6. You said:


Also, modelling (sic) and fashion need to be treated as works of art, in my opinion. The most credible artist is one who can work with a variety of mediums to produce a eye catching work. There is no reason why male homosexuals would not be able to do this if the status quo shifted a bit.

Wow! The male homosexuals who dominate the fashion business are responsible for the status quo! What is going to “shift” the status quo? Some fine understanding of the fashion industry you have shown!

7. You said:


I remember a Vietnamese man in my Communications class saying that he would not ever choose a blonde girl over an Asian because he had a personal affinity for the eye structure of Asian women. Clearly, this indicates that beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Great! Your example refutes a ton of evidence showing well-replicated objective correlates of beauty, which you have not even acknowledged, in spite of my having pointed them out to you previously, let alone refuted them, doesn’t it?

8. You said:


I recall reading some of what Mr. Holland had to say about these so-called feminine women as to why they could only be found in amateur porn and nude model sites and he said that because of the lack of attention paid to them by the elites, they have to sleep their way to the top?????? I ask everyone here who is more likely to catch an STD????

Talk about egregious distortion! Nowhere have I said that feminine-looking women could only be found in “amateur porn and nude model sites.” Most women found in such sites are in the normal-to-masculinized range. Feminine and attractive women are found aplenty in the general population. However, thanks to the domination of the fashion business by male homosexuals, what would as a first approximation be the most obvious sources of pictures unambiguously depicting feminine beauty -- such as modeling agencies, beauty pageants -- are largely useless. I have already explained why movie actresses are not a convenient alternative at this time. Since adult-oriented sites usually offer pictures of many nude women and show them from multiple angles, one could browse their archives to select the feminine and attractive ones among them, of which there are very few. Besides, images depicting nudity are required to address aesthetics of the physical form. I didn’t say anything about the elite not paying attention to feminine women; I have said that homosexual men in the fashion industry are not interested in using feminine women for modeling purposes. I didn’t say anything along the lines of feminine women having to sleep their way to the top. I said that feminine and attractive women unwilling to deal with the casting couch to make it in mainstream movies or not willing to pose nude remain virtually unknown.

You said:


Even with respect to men, Mr. Holland has boldly made the assertion that heterosexual men have low standards for casual sex and so can one conclude that so-called “exclusively heterosexual” men, like Mr. Holland himself, are more likely to harbor a wide range of STDs because of their preferences for the types of women that are ignored by the elites and are therefore forced into prostitution to make their way to the top????? Having low standards for casual sex extends to having low standards for looks as well as for health....

Where have I said that feminine women are forced into prostitution to make their way to the top? Masculinized women are more inclined toward promiscuity than feminine women, and masculinized women would, on average, be more willing to sleep their way to stardom in the movie industry.

Once again, you have shown your fine comprehension of my arguments!

I believe it should be clear why it is not necessary for my supporters to bother refuting your arguments.

Aileen: This is a response to miscellaneous comments by you.


You said, “It is clear you do not like women who are happy with themselves and the comments you make towards me are a clear indication.”

My replies to you have not assumed what your level of happiness is, which is irrelevant to this discussion.

You tell me that not all Semites are swarthy. Why do you think I used the expression “swarthy Semite”? Answer: to point out that you look like a swarthy Semite as opposed to a non-swarthy Semite.

You tell me that the Persians in India are heavily mixed with Indians. Is this why they have high rates of recessive genetic disorders? The original Persians have mixed with East Indians to some extent, no doubt, but I have personally seen numerous Parsis in India with skin lighter and features more European than yours. Look up the pictures of deceased singer Freddie Mercury, born to Indian Parsis as Farrokh Bulsara, and ask yourself if people would place you and him into the same ethnic group.

So East Indians are Indo-European, too? Learn some history. As I have already explained, the Original Indo-Europeans were a European people that spread through many parts of the world. Part-European ancestry dating to thousands of years ago does not make the Iranians and East Indians Indo-European as in the direct, unmixed descendants of the original Indo-European people. Once gain, look up the hair colors of some well-preserved examples of the ancient Indo-European people that I asked you to observe in a previous comment.

You tell me that the original Arabs that presumably “originated in present day Yemen and moved into present day Saudi Arabia have absolutely no resemblence to 95% of Iran’s population.” If so, then how do you explain the very tight clustering of Algerians, Berbers, Moroccans, Egyptians, and people from Iran-Iraq (represented as Middle East) in the following dendogram based on 24 selection-neutral craniofacial inter-landmark distances?


craniofacial dendogram
Brace, C. L., Seguchi, N., Quintyn, C. B., Fox, S. C., Nelson, A. R., Manolis, S. K., and Qifeng, P., The questionable contribution of the Neolithic and the Bronze Age to European craniofacial form, Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 103, 242 (2006).


You said, “Furthermore, by assuming that my ancestry is largely semetic (sic)...”

I have not assumed this; I said that you have Semitic looks. You would easily blend in among Semites because there are plenty of Semites with looks like yours throughout the Middle East; see the above dendogram again.


You said, “by saying that “my kind is not admired the world around” you must accept that you are implying that Arab and Jewish women, here I am implying the Sephardic Jews, not the Ashkenazi Jews, are less attractive than women with more European ancestry. This itself is racially offensive...”

If I am implying what you say, then it is surprising that on the one hand you insist that all the above groups are Caucasians like European are, but then accuse me of making a racially offensive statement. If some members of a race are described as not as good looking as other members of this race, how is this racially offensive since both groups belong to the same race? On the other hand, you have ignored my argument in the section addressing aesthetics in international beauty pageants that individuals from physically distinct ethnic groups cannot be aesthetically compared in an objective manner. I have not implied anything along the lines of what you have inferred. I simply stated that women with your swarthy Semitic looks are not as admired around the world as women with some other types of looks are, without any explanation why; I simply described people’s preferences.


You asked, “If semetic (sic) women are not attractive, Mr. Holland, then why is there so much literature dedicated to white men’s attraction to Jewish women during Medeival (sic) Europe, a time during which people were even more conservative about what feminine and masculine are...”

Where is all this literature? I have not implied that Semitic women are not attractive; attractive women are found in all groups. However, it is common observation that some ethnic groups are more aesthetically appreciated on a global level than others, and Semites do not rank on top in this regard. Some European men have been attracted to women of just about any ethnicity throughout history, which goes for men in other ethnic groups, too, but most European men prefer European women to non-European women, and this is how it has been in the past, too. People were more conservative about what feminine and masculine are in Medieval Europe? What is this? The nuances of physical variation related to masculinization and feminization are better known today than in the past.

Your description of the feminine women shown here as vulgar, heinous, slimy, etc. is a straightforward illustration of your jealousy. Unable to debate in a rational manner, all you can come up with are distortions and foul adjectives, and I have had enough of it. DO NOT leave comments here anymore as Aileen or under any other alias.


I have not checked this site in a number of days, and so missed your comments earlier linking me with Erik. All I can say is NO...we are most definitively not the same person, as you would easily see if you read all or some of my comments on this blog. I must say I don't feel it was an appropriate comment on your part; because the inference is that if someone supports or agrees with Erik he/she must actually be Erik himself or some other equally misguided person, which of course I resent. I do respect your opinion and I think you should respect the opinions of others; diversity and debate are good things and lively discussion helps us to grow!

I respect the content of this web site in many ways and disagree with it in others. It is well-thought out in my opinion. It starts out with a premise: "people overwhelmingly prefer above average femininity in the looks of women" and goes on to back up this premise through various forms of objective data - psychological, medical, scientific, anthropological, and through photos and other visual aids.

I don’t think Erik has ever pretended that the depiction of feminine beauty that he presents is inclusive of all female face or body types, and he has readily admitted that this website is strictly about aesthetics, not about making all women feel good about their own personal beauty (which I believe we all have). Again, a website labeled feminine beauty that operated with vague and undefined criteria would merely be about the personal opinion of whomever operated the site; and so while I think it is fine to question Erik’s premise and/or the science he uses to back up his conclusions, I don’t think it makes sense to just say there should be absolutely NO objective criteria because beauty is completely subjective and everyone knows it. In other words, I might be swayed by a good display of DATA that belied the premise of this website but it is harder to completely surrender to mainly emotional arguments without any corroborating evidence.

We probably DO agree on some points: While I don’t doubt that the attractive women featured here are very feminine and fit the definition of feminine beauty broken down into its separate parts (individual facial features, physiques, WHRs, etc WHERE cid= '; “some” still are not attractive to me and so it could be that you can have all the “right” attributes but still lack the proper combination of those attributes to really be a good example of feminine beauty. This is my own personal opinion however. Of course, Erik takes a lot of flack for featuring women who often look too young or too cheap and this is unfortunate as it may take away from the seriousness of this site. (I’m not saying they ARE too young or too cheap Erik…I’m just talking about the perception created.) More respectable models would be better from a purely public relations standpoint if they were available.

I am in fact very pro-woman, and if I saw this site as something against women I would criticize it or ignore it completely. The fact is; I find it informational, entertaining, confrontational and curiously engaging and certainly worth coming back to occasionally.


While I think it is cool that you are willing to critique the looks of women who read this site, I do think that being bluntly honest on a public forum (and not via private email) is a SLIPPERY SLOPE, especially if your comments are anything but unambiguously positive. Men and women are wired very differently in this regard as I’m sure you know! This is merely an observation and possible suggestion on my part; not a criticism.

Sandy: I will normally ignore the looks of a commentator even if I am aware of how this person looks, but Aileen is a different matter. In the beginning, I had to correct her incorrect perception that she leaned toward fashion models in looks, which given the context of this site -- i.e., not taking a favorable view of the looks of high-fashion models -- does not suggest any kind of criticism. Eventually, she grew angry at being outdebated and not fitting into the narrow range of feminine beauty being promoted by this site, which is strange since there is no reason why she should be comparing herself to European women, and in response to her distortion of my arguments, I had to write the following:


I have not made any assertion about men attracted to you or Amelia being less likely to be lifetime-exclusive heterosexual. I do not know how Amelia looks like, and I have not described your looks as manly. Your have broad shoulders but also prominent breasts and non-narrow hips; you have low rather than high cheekbones, and your angular jawline and facial robusticity is more an artifact of ancestry rather than masculinization. Among your co-ethnics, i.e., swarthy semites, you would be within the normal range. As long as you seek men among your co-ethnics, you would be fine, but beware of white men since by European standards your face is on the masculine-looking side.

I don’t think the passage above qualifies as criticism. It should be considered as clarification and advice in her best interests, and if you knew how she looked, you will agree that describing her as on the masculine-looking side of European norms is speaking favorably of her looks. Before Aileen objected to “swarthy,” I was not aware that some people considered it offensive, and I don’t see how calling a swarthy individual swarthy could be seen as objectionable unless the swarthy individual does not like her own skin. Aileen also started talking about the beauty of Iranian women, even though I had not said anything in this regard, and in response, I had to clarify that the ones considered attractive were the more European-looking ones rather than women with her looks, which you may consider as an unflattering description of her looks, but if this is inappropriate, please keep in mind that Aileen’s comments are far worse, comprising of ad hominem, foul insults, misrepresentations, etc. I have reason to suspect that apart from Raymond and Maria above, she also left the foul comment under the alias Jonathan above; Jonathan and Aileen’s comments came from the same narrow geographic region, and like Raymond’s, followed a comment where I outdebated her. Aileen has called a number of feminine women show here as vulgar or heinous looking, and even left comments like the following:


A slimy looking girl standing half naked next to a Christmas tree with a cheap hair cut, and of course what do u see on the Christmas tree, her thong as an ornament. Looks like the opening of a porno movie and of course there is often no protection used.

The above is Aileen speaking of a woman more feminine than what the best plastic surgeons in the world could make her, and she does not realize that the woman shown is a nude model who doesn’t do anything pornographic, like most of the women in the attractive women section. In response to her using foul words to describe the looks of the feminine women that I have shown, I don’t think my properly addressing her looks, which may be regarded as criticism, would be too inappropriate to illustrate an example of what kind of women with an inflated opinion of their looks are offended by this site, but I have not done this.

If you find particular women in the attractive women section too cheap or not attractive, then please let me know who they are; I know there are 2 or 3 women there with faces but not physiques that look in the 16-18 range. I have removed 10 women added to this section at some time or the other, and have more removals in mind. If you flag the same women that I have planned on removing, then I may expedite their removal.


Chloe looks on the young side to me, partially based on her posing with balloons, etc. Several could be 18 but possibly younger, including Klara and Karen. Sometimes it has to do with posing these girls to look younger than they really are; which may be troublesome to some of your female readers.

None of the women in your attractive women section are unattractive and all have nice physiques, but some are just do not measure up to the word "beauty" in my opinion, because of ordinary or even plain faces. Perhaps it would be better to email you my opinions on this at a later date.

Sandy: Chloe is on top of my list for removal; I had also planned on removing Klara at some point. I hadn’t thought about Karen, but I suppose she has to go, too. These women were surely at least 18 at the time of the photography; the websites that I got them from are hosted in the U.S. and would not risk being shut down by the FBI as a result of featuring models less than 18. A combination of facial features and posing with balloons in the case of Chloe makes her look between 16-18. I will relocate these women to the blog next time I post an entry titled “cute women.” There are some other women that I also need to remove from the attractive women section, and will do so after I find suitable replacements.

Would the webmaster explain why the aesthetics page looked like it belong during the time of "Birth of Nation"? Why compare obvious pics from porn sites to old black and white photos of indigenous women. It seemed so...just not right.

Joe: If you are referring to the first page of the section addressing aesthetics in international beauty pageants, then no pictures on this page are taken from porn sites. There are some other pages within this section where a few images are taken from porn sites. The sourcing of the pictures is irrelevant. The first page features some images depicting extreme contrasts and it does not matter whether the pictures are recent or decades old since the type of people depicted are still around in plentiful numbers.

I'm sorry but that page seemed racially biased. You have fit, modern day European women who judging from the pics their goal is to be physical appealing opposed to the indigenous women who besides a poor diet, more than likely don't have access to Neutrogena,a gym membership and a photoshop.

Joe: The images are not supposed to compare the attractiveness of ethnic groups; the pictures of nude European women are taken from low profile sources, i.e., airbrushing is most likely not a factor; none of the non-European women appear to be malnourished and most are in shape; there is one collage where buttocks protrusion is being addressed and some of the African women shown have excess abdominal fat, but overall shape/abdominal fat is not an issue in this collage; physically active indigenous people would not need a gym membership to be in shape; and there are also numerous recent pictures of non-European women shown from glamorous settings. Therefore, there is no bias with respect to the purpose of the section.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. And the Neutrogena,gym membership etc. line, I was being facetious.

----thanks for pointing that out joe---- there are tons of attractive african models/actresses available by loking on those countries' sites---he has chosen to use unflattering pictures. by now erik---it is a choice, since you could easily fix it. i know sooo many african woman who are more appealing than the ones you pictured, that i am having a hard time figuring out what made them stand out to you.

Kristin: You have left a similar comment elsewhere. The attractive African women you pointed out typically had substantial European admixture. None of the images shown are supposed to compare the attractiveness of ethnic groups, i.e., I do not have to base my selections on attractiveness. For instance, most of the European women shown in the section are not found in the attractive women section, and unattractive European women are shown, too. The context of the images is explained in the text, and the context may be pointing out striking differences. Also, the arguments are not based on pictures, but on the papers/numerical data cited; the pictures are merely used for illustrative purposes.

I find this website EXTREMELY insulting. I have broad shoulders, small breasts and a square jaw. In fact, my shoulders are extremely broad for a woman and I hate them. To come to a site like this that is basically pointing out these flaws, comparing photos to other photos, saying we need more femine women in the media and fashion etc - it just plain hurts.

We can not help what we are born with. We don't chose it. I certainly didn't chose my body shape. And we can't change it. I've never come across such crap in all my time of searching the internet. And there's a hell of a lot of crap out there.

Maybe you should be putting forward more healthy arguments that promote HEALTHY body image in women (because nobody else will bloody do it) instead of pointing out why some women are more feminine than others and pointing out "flaws". Women are women - no matter what our bone structure or fat distribution may be, and shouldn't these differences be celebrated rather than attacked?

Sarah: This website is not about how women are supposed to look like or about flaws in the looks of women or about attacking differences. Women come in a wide variety of forms and just because you have small breasts, a squared jaw and very broad shoulders does not make you less of a woman than a woman with more feminine features.

This site is about models and beauty pageant contestants. When feminine women are required, feminine women should be used. I don't think the latter is an inappropriate wish, but what other than coming up with a site like this could be done to realize this wish?

Regarding promoting a healthy body image, not all physical forms are healthy and it cannot be pretended that all shapes are equally healthy. Feminine beauty represents health, though it is not the only configuration that is healthy, i.e., this site's goals are consistent with health promotion.

I randomly stumbled upon this, this is so funny. I guess the funniest thing is nearly all the "attractive" girls are from porn sites, and not very good ones. So I guess everyone is gay that doesn't like lot lizard looking girls. I'm sure the author, obviously a man, knows what that terms refers to, as I'm sure he is a total dumb ass, and probably a closet racist. Yeah, eating disorders are no joke, but more likely it is that, possibly darker in origin for strait males, Lewis Carroll nymph (Lolita) complex. See all western art, and all your barely 18 porn sites. For gay people, if that is a factor at all, it probably has more to do with the hormonal flux of that period, idealism (Greco-Roman), purity if anything.

I don't even know why I'm wasting my time writing this . . .

Craig: I also wonder why you have bothered to leave a comment, given the unjustified insults in it and its senseless nature. Western art is characterized by the Lolita complex? There is an art section within this site, featuring contemporary art, and the women shown are surely no Lolitas. Greco-Roman female figures are primarily those of adult females. Have you seen Aphrodite looking like a pubescent or adolescent girl? “Lolita” was written by Vladimir Nabokov, not Lewis Carroll (who presumably liked underage girls). The Barely-18-girls websites cater to a minority of heterosexual men. Sexual interest in underage children is much more strongly associated with homosexual or bisexual men than heterosexual men. Besides, if it weren’t for the gay domination of the fashion business, there would be no need to heavily rely on nude models for the attractive women section of this site, and many of these models are not taken from porn sites. Look at high-fashion models carefully; the central tendency among them approaches the looks of adolescent boys, not adolescent girls; heterosexual men are not involved in determining the norm among high-fashion models.

Hi All,
for all the gals wanting a smaller WHR please check this:
; it is about the relationship between diet & abdominal obesity.

it also talks alittle about the relatonship between being physically active & WHR.

we need more info about this, not only for beauty but for health too!

we also need such a site for men ;)
...though women -in genera- are more sophisticated in their choices.

I agree Fashion models are manly... But what is wrong with it. They need jobs too... seriously.. if manly women weren't worshiped for their exotic sexiness, they would be ridiculed and called men. Leave the tall skinny girls alone. it's good that they have a place in this world.

I am 5'8 with broad shoulders and a manly jutting chin and deep eyebrows. I have an athletic body and am quite skinny. If it were not for these women, i would have low self confidence, just like most overweight girls.

And in my opinion, people who aren't lazy (excluing people with excusable health problems, deserve to be praised for their "manly (really just healthier than average population) body"

All this nonsense and Dove Commercials and blah blah angers me! there are different types of beauty. and the most beautiful are the most physically fit. No most fashion models arent skinny, theyre athletic and have low body fat. Keep being jealous and thats more worry stacking up to make your body look even worse. They will outlive you by 20 years!

They are the superior beings. all people should look like them. But they dont. because we are lazy couch potatos. and don't get into old fashioned women having hips and big boodbs and fat... thats because they were confined to a kitchen and having babies all day. that is not what a woman should look like. the modern view of exercise is a good one. and if you excercise and can still have nice curves thats great! but the majority wont, so ... yea.. STOP HATING ME CUZ I'M BEAUTIFUL... wow i must sound so vain... reallly i'm not... thats all i have to say! toodles!

Hana: Nothing is wrong with manly fashion models, but they encroach on the turf of feminine beauty, which is not the fault of the models, but that of gay fashion designers. Manly high-fashion models can have their fashion modeling jobs; I do not wish to take them away. However, when their skinniness is creating some problems for many girls and even the models themselves, then it is time to do something about the skinniness requirement.

If the homosexuals want to use skinny and masculine models, they have a right to use women that naturally possess these looks, but no model should have to starve to please the homosexuals.

You are confounding the masculinization in high-fashion models with athletic looks. Does the typical high-fashion model look athletic or someone with diarrhea? Besides, manly women usually look like women, not like men.

The looks promoted by this site are not those acquired by eating aplenty and having lots of babies (note the emphasis on a tiny waist). More importantly, you need to understand that this site is not about how a woman is supposed to look like; it focuses on models and beauty pageant contestants. Please read the FAQ to understand the site's purpose. I have nothing against your looks. May you be happy and live a healthy life!

I'd like to hear what you think of Jennifer Morrison (Dr. Cameron from House MD). She's super-skinny, has no breasts or buttocks to speak of, and has long, lanky limbs. On the other hand, she has delicate facial features. I'm a hetero male and I think she looks great. I probably favour skinny women because I had a fat mum.

A photoshoot in Stuff magazine photoshopped her natural A-cups up to D-cup cantaloupes, fattened up her bum, and browned her skin, but I thought those changes made her look more ridiculous than sexy.

Steve: I am positive that I looked at the same Jennifer Morrison that you have mentioned, and although she has small breasts, she isn’t super skinny or even skinny and does not have delicate facial features. Although I didn’t get to see her backside, it is probably not feminine. Anyway, to me, she doesn’t look bad and is more appealing than the typical high-fashion model.

gemma ward has like no boobs at all.

My sister actually told me about this site and I didn't believe her, so I decided to take a look at it myself.

Yeah boy do the models have masculine features, I always noticed that myself! In fact, now whenever I get Victoria's Secret in the mail--- they ALL LOOK LIKE MEN AAAAHHH! haha see this is what happens?

But I do have some complaints about this site, which from what I can see you are used to.

I don't think that you realize the impact of your words on women overall. You say that this site is not intended to hurt anyone's feelings, but it happens anyway. You say that this site is purely informational/appreciative, but I see a lot of areas where you are bashing people for looking a certain way that they can't help. You say that women shouldn't try to be something they aren't but you subtley imply throughout various areas of the site how feminine women should look.

And I also think you are ignoring the fact that there are at least half of the female population in the US who are NOT your typical Caucasion-hourglass look (sorry if I can't spell). Yes I know you said that this site is intended to be towards a Western audience but there are MANY women in the Western hemisphere who are black, Oriental, Hispanic, Indian (I am), mixed, etc who are going to look at this site and think "huh??"

Not to sound sappy and start complaining, but it's really hard for a girl who is NOT Caucasion to see a website like this and then get the message that an hourglass figure is what is really beautiful when in reality she's never going to be able to achieve that. I'm not an hourglass figure, I'm actually a small pear and I would also like to point out that many of your examples are not even really hourglass-- they are pears. Very very VERY few women are actually "true hourglass" figures (where their tops are equal or within an inch of measurement to their bottoms, and their waist is the smallest area). But I'm sure you probably already know that.

I understand you wish to see more women in the fashion industry who aren't shaped like rulers on the verge of malnutrition-- trust me WE ALL wish to see less of that! But I don't think that bashing what is already there is going to help anything-- it's encouraging and supporting more healthy figures and viewpoints. So far, I only see a couple of areas of your site which address that issue, but for every part that addresses it, there are 10 areas that promote bashing.

I don't think any side of this issue has it right so far. And I think Hanna is more nuts than you'll ever be. :S We SHOULD NOT all look like nasty ass skinny crack-addict fashion models-- yuck! We might as all become anorexic. BUT on that note, if you NATURALLY possess (sorry I suck at spelling) a figure that is waif-thin, what can you do about it? If you naturally possess a figure with wide hip bones what can you do about it? I don't think Dove or you Erik have it right either. It's all about balance.

Though I do agree that more fashion models should have diversified looks instead of the typical nasty Gisele look...she needs to eat a cookie.

Speaking of models, take a look at the model here:,com_gallery2/Itemid,30/?g2_itemId=1595

Would you say that she's feminine or masculine? she's actually a friend at school who has done some modeling. She's super skinny (natural) but has big boobs (also natural).

Wow I know this is a LONG ass post so I will say my last bit and be done.

I work with a master's student at school who is doing research on eating disorders and the influence of body ideals. So far, her research group has found that whenever a bodily ideal is encouraged instead of basic physical health and fitness for your OWN body, is when adolescent girls resort to eating disorders, with the hope that they will achieve that look. Just something to think about.

I do not think this site tells us women how we should look. Sure, it is about the ideal feminine apperance, but that doesn't necessarily mean we should try to copy it especially if we are not naturally endowed with those feminine characteristics.

Of course, only very few women possess an hourglass figure. So what? The webmaster isn't trying to offend anybody - he's just stating facts. The problem is not with this site, it is with women who are offended when somebody points out the truth that people perceive an hourglass figure as the most beautiful female figure and that those women don't possess hourglass figures. What we should do is not to copy the ideals of beauty that we can't acheive but to learn to accept ourselves the way we are and focus on inner beauty instead. Let's face it - not everybody can be considered physically beautiful. But that doesn't have to be a problem at all since inner beauty has just as much or probably even more weight than physical beauty.

Brenda, true he isn't trying to offend anyone. But neither is the fashion industry, and neither is the apparel industry, and neither is the cosmetics industry. "Accepting what you already have" is simply not the message that these industries are about-- it's about achieving what you don't have. Now THAT is the truth. The author is this site has already mentioned that this site is not about inner beauty-- it's about physical beauty.

I can see why women who are not pear shaped or hourglass shaped are offended by this site-- this site is unfortunately saying to those women that hmmmm perhaps they really aren't that feminine at all? I mean my sister was really offended-- she has struggled to lose weight and did lose a lot of weight, only to have people tell her that she looks "manly" because of her broad shoulders and narrow hips, whereas I have wide hips and small shoulders. We are both compared all the time and it sucks for her.

It DOES sting for someone else to say "the hourglass figure is more beautiful than any other figure." I think that the true focus should be on good physical health, which encompasses all body figures. I think the author makes good points that there happens to be almost no women with pear or hourglass shapes on the runway-- but unfortunately that point is being missed amidst all the rubble.

Riann: I realize that this site is hurting the feelings of some women even though it is not my intent to cause hurt, but I do not see how it is possible to completely avoid hurt feelings if one is trying to promote feminine beauty. I cannot argue that beauty is entirely subjective or that only inner beauty matters when I am trying to promote feminine (physical) beauty in the limelight.

I am not bashing people for certain kinds of looks they may possess; what purpose would this serve? It is not an easy task to point out the masculinization of many famous models in a manner that flatters them. The latter is merely educational and is not sufficient by itself to promote feminine beauty. As I have said elsewhere, one can forget about seeing many feminine women among high-fashion models employed by the gay-dominated fashion industry. One will have to come up with an alternative fashion industry. I have explained a number of steps that will be needed to promote feminine beauty on the “solutions” page, and most of these recommendations have not yet been put into practice.

This site isn’t about how feminine women should look, but about what constitutes feminine looks or how feminine women look, and how to bring more of these women to the limelight.

Women of European ancestry do not assess their attractiveness by comparing themselves to non-European women. Similarly, non-European women should be comparing themselves, if needed, to their co-ethnics rather than other ethnic groups. Even if this site addressed non-European women in detail, say, Indian women, most Indian women will still not meet the standards of a high level of attractiveness.

You are correct that many attractive women shown here do not possess an hourglass figure, but this should please you since it underscores the fact that an hourglass figure is not an absolute requirement for attractiveness. The pictures of your friend suggest that she is in the normal to feminine range, which means that she will not be making it big as a fashion model.

I am interested in looking at your graduate student friend’s research showing that encouragement of a body ideal as opposed to an emphasis on physical health and fitness prompts an increase in disordered eating among girls. As far as I know, feminine beauty has not been promoted by the media for a long time, and if your friend had data that implicates even feminine standards, then it would be something that I would love to look at.

If you insist on taking the message of this site or of that of the fashion industry or of the cosmetics industry in terms of “this is how you should look like,” then given that you have raised the point of health, I hope you do realize that unhealthy behaviors will not be leading to feminine beauty whereas healthy behaviors will not be leading to the skinny looks of high-fashion models, i.e., it should be clear who is worse. As far as your sister is concerned, all people will be hurt by something or the other in this world, and it is up to each individual to try to get the most out of life notwithstanding the unpleasantries and setbacks. I believe that this site will be leading to more good than harm.

hi again,

I use the term "bashing" because some of your descriptions regarding a few of the supermodels just seems to cheapen or demean them. I agree that while Giselle has awful posture and well...extremely skinny hips, I don't think it's necessary to say that she would look mannish, or that any model looks like a drag queen, or a man with fake breasts, etc-- even IF they truly have those features!!

My friend Nad has just started in the industry and so far she has been welcomed quite well-- but even she doubts she'll be walking down the catwalk with Versace on (they would say that her breasts are too big and her hips too big) but at least diversifying the scene is a good start!

As far as the master's student I'm assisting-- the data so far has not been completely collected, and they still need more randomized samples. She's also been doing cross-generational comparative research and from what the data shows, in the past striving for a female ideal was a measure of good health, but that is not the case nowadays. OOps, I may have said too much :P "Technically speaking" I'm not supposed to give out details for fear of tampering with randomization...

I think it is still possible to bring feminine figures into the limelight without regarding masculinized supermodels as inferior beauty. That's what I meant by that your true message is lost in the rubble. EVEN IF IT IS TRUE, there is always a better way to say it.

Riann: So describing a woman who looks mannish or like a drag queen or a man with fake breasts as such is “bashing”? Women with the aforementioned looks will not be pleased with your interpretation since your statement implies that you regard these looks as stigmatizing, negative or undesirable. This site doesn’t argue that the aforementioned looks are undesirable per se, but that most people prefer above average femininity in the looks of women and consider the aforementioned looks in women undesirable, but not obviously a minority such as gay fashion designers. The latter has to be pointed out if one is to understand how masculinized women have ended up as top-ranked models. If you don’t like this, so be it. I can’t please everyone.

Your comment mentions “female ideal,” not “feminine ideal.” The current “female ideal” being skinny and masculine, how can striving for a skinny and masculine “female ideal” correspond to health? If you have data showing that striving for a feminine beauty ideal does not correspond to health, then you are talking, and I will be very interested in it.

To bring feminine beauty into the limelight, feminine and attractive women need to be contrasted with masculinized fashion models, and it is inevitable that most people will see the masculinized models as less aesthetically desirable. There is no way to sugarcoat this or perhaps there is but it is beyond me because writing is not my forte and English is not my native language.

Actually it is bashing. My sister is sometimes termed "drag queen" or mannish because of her broad shoulders and boy does she ever wish she could trade bodies with me. It's one thing to say "she has masculine looking shoulders/face" but terming someone drag queen? It is simply not necessary.

I never once said that feminine health/female health was about being unhealthily thin and masculine and contrary to what you may think, evidence points in a moderate direction from many different leading researchers. If your waist circumference is 70% of your hips, that is considered the ideal healthy waist-to-hip ratio all across the board-- even if you don't have an hourglass figure. If you do not have excess fat and are within the "fit" range of body fat analysis, you are considered healthy regardless of an hourglass figure.

My point here is, I do not think that your site is being necessarily open to the idea that women can still be healthy without having an hourglass figure. You already know that but the way you choose to portray your views on this site will continue to elicit the negative responses from women that is already has, and will continue to do so. There is a better way to make that contrast.

Actually, Erik, I agree with Riann on this. There is a better way to state facts. There is a way in which you can say those statements such that the blow is not as hard. I can imagine that statements such as these will surely hurt those women referred to as masculine:

"Sexy physique, isn't it?"

"Backside, where hast thou gone?"

"Behold the 'sexy' buttocks of Karolina Kurkova..."

"Sexiness personified!"

"Woman or man with breast implants?"

"This entry addresses Alessandra Ambrosio, yet again, but then I am a great fan of Alessandra and hope that she acknowledges my existence. She has twice deleted --at her fan forum -- links to pages within this site that pay a tribute to her beauty. How sad! Here is another tribute. Please Alessandra, don’t delete a link to this entry."

Maybe you can instead state things the way they are and without hints of sarcasm. You know, like instead of "Sexy physique, isn't it?" maybe you can say, "As you all can see, her physique is nowhere near the hourglass figure that lifetime exclusive heterosexual men prefer."

Hi again, Erik. Found this spot after reading a little more and now have more questions...

You've stated that both heterosexual women and men find feminine beauty more appealing than otherwise -- that's not a direct quote because I can't find the page anymore. You've also stated that masculine women are so common in the fashion industry because homosexual fashion designers are attracted to teenage boys and thus recruit female models who look like boys. But if heterosexual women are attracted to men and masculine features, why do they not find highly masculine women more attractive as gay men do?

Also, I'd like to know if I've got some of your points straight. Your information on the beauty pageants pages says features that are further derived from those of our ancestors are perceived as more attractive, in women at least. And it also states that these highly derived features overlap with those of Europeans. So one Aboriginal Australian woman may look more attractive than another because she looks more... evolved? And because her features are more derived than the other's, they will look more European. Is my interpretation correct?

I'd be much obliged if you could help me to better understand your site. Thanks. Found it. "There are individual and cultural differences with respect to what one finds physically attractive, but these differences do not undermine broad agreement about what constitutes beauty. Some cultural/sub-cultural differences are almost certainly a result of genetic differences or mental illnesses, whereas some individual differences in aesthetic preferences are part of normal variation."

Riann: Once again, I am not arguing that masculine looks in women are undesirable per se. Therefore, describing a masculine woman as masculine is not bashing or critiquing her looks as far as what I am writing is concerned, but if you consider very masculine looks in women undesirable to the point of it being a stigma, then you will perceive this woman being described as very masculine to constitute bashing. The problem is with your perception.

On the other hand, it seems that you would regard a more benign description of a woman’s masculinization more acceptable. I mostly use reasonable terminology. I counted the number of times I described a woman as looking like a drag queen within this site and came across two instances: Pamela Anderson 1 and Pamela Anderson 2; Heidi Klum. Take a good look at the pictures referenced. I beg thee; you simply have to let me use “drag queen” in these two instances because of the combination of masculine looks and extensive make-up to make the women look feminine or more attractive. In the absence of extensive make-up, a “drag queen” descriptor would be inappropriate. Therefore, in the two instances where I have used “drag queen,” I am not simply responding to the masculine looks, but also to the presence of make-up. I generally have no interest in describing the looks of ordinary women. I do not recall any instance of describing a woman as a “draq queen” in social company or in any of my other writings, but you simply have to let me use “draq queen” in the two instances above.

I have not described your argument in terms of feminine health/female health corresponding to being unhealthily thin and masculine. I simply pointed out what your reference to the female ideal/standard corresponds to today. What your graduate student friend appears to be studying isn’t adoption of a feminine ideal, but a female ideal that is not feminine. The notion of an ideal WHR of 0.7 has been debunked; some of this I addressed in an entry on various confounds regarding WHR and attractiveness and more can be found in this paper, which I have also addressed in a different context.

Regarding this site not being “necessarily open to the idea that women can still be healthy without having an hourglass figure,” this site has to do with attractiveness/aesthetics, not health. Where have I argued or implied that an hourglass figure represents health but deviation from it corresponds to diminished health? I have clearly mentioned that there are correlates of beauty that do not correspond to health. I also doubt that sanitizing my writing with respect to the uncommon indiscretions you/Brenda have mentioned will make poor-mannered pissed-off feminists/masculinized women behave better.

Brenda: I see your point. Most of your quotes are taken from a single page, and are in response to the irony of some models ending up as top-ranked “sexy” models; it is difficult to avoid sarcasm here given the irony and the big names involved. I mostly use neutral language, but occasionally get tired of it. I will try to keep it mostly neutral in further writings.

Jump: A preference for men among heterosexual women and a preference for men among homosexual men do not develop in a similar manner. In the case of heterosexual women, normal developmental processes are involved, whereas in the case of homosexual men, abnormal developmental processes -- prenatal developmental disturbances to be more precise -- are involved; see this model. Therefore, there is no reason to expect extensive similarities between the male partner preferences of heterosexual women and homosexual men.

Yes, overall placement along the ancestral-to-derived discriminant is a correlate of facial beauty among both men and women, and other things being equal, a somewhat more overall derived than average face shape, within limits, will generally be preferred. I have not used the expression “more evolved.” An aboriginal Australian woman may look better than another such woman if her overall face shape or an individual facial feature is somewhat shifted toward the more derived end of average for aborigines, but a derived feature will not necessarily look more European. For instance, Afro scalp hair is more derived than straight scalp hair, but it does not look more European. On the other hand, with respect to aesthetic judgments, the more attractive non-European face from the perspective of non-Europeans in general is overall (not necessarily on all counts) shifted toward the more derived end of the scale and also thereby closer to European norms given the considerable overlap between the overall facial ancestral-to-derived discriminant and Europeanization.

You've used the example of Afro scalp hair, but... "It should be noted that some features lying toward the derived extreme of the ancestral-to-derived discriminant are specialized features that characterize some populations but not others because of differential natural selection pressures, and thus there cannot be any objectiveness to designating one population average as more aesthetically appealing than another population average with respect to these specialized traits in so far as comparing the attractiveness of individuals across populations goes. Thus, there is nothing objectively better looking about curly Afro hair than the straight hair found in the Chinese or vice versa."
So this example, according to your Beauty Pageants page, can't be used in this context, where you're explaining how derived features (and not European features) are positively related to beauty -- because you've already said that whether specialised traits such as Afro hair are attractive or not is subjective. Is there another example you could provide?
If I've misunderstood... again... then you may need to dumb down you language a little.

Jump: The Afro hair example is correctly used. The context is specifically that a derived feature will not necessarily look more European, and was in response to your statement, “And because her features are more derived than the other’s, they will look more European.” The page where you got the quote from provides an extensive discussion of what derived facial features are and to what extent they overlap with Europeanization. Read this page and the entire section that it is a part of. I cannot explain it in a simpler manner.

Lynne: Since you are the same person using multiple aliases such as Chris/Chris2, g2go and many others, refuse to stop using multiple aliases in spite of my repeated requests, have a preference for masculinized women, keep repeating that you are a straight man, are unable to see a masculine element in numerous women clearly possessing it in spite of going through this site, and keep calling the feminine women shown here homely, plain janes, fat cows, women with hanging cellulite, women who look like dogs, etc., I have no wish to engage you in any dialogue and will not be answering your questions. You will get nothing out of this site...instead of browsing this site do something else.

This is a little off-topic but do you know the name of the model in the image clothing.deformation.jpg?

You said that she is from KarupsPC but I'm having trouble finding her there.


QQ: Sorry, I don't have her name. I do believe that I have the website correct. She should be there unless her pictures have been removed.

does nobody else want to see a picture of "erik holland" and rip apart his lack of "masculine beauty"?

seriously, bring it on!

I don't need to see his photo, and his appearance is irrelevant to validity and objectiveness of his arguments.He, as far as I know doesn't take outrageous honorars for flaunting his ugliness or "beauty", he is not exposing his appearance and trying to convince audience, that he is pinnacle of masculine beauty and desirableness. If you are not feminine, eat yourself; he only stated the facts, and it is good thing, since the fashion world is outright evil.

1. how you can call a personal preference a fact in the first place is beyond me. "x is unattractive" is not a fact in any way, shape or form.

2. ah, so i'm not allowed to bring this guy's looks into the picture, but obviously my criticism reflects my deep-seated insecurities about how i am ugly and masculine! brilliant! for the record, i have no issue with myself not being 'feminine'. i have a vagina, i'm feminine.

3. how can he be objective when it is female bodies he takes to pieces, not male ones? maybe if he had his entire body reduced to the sum of its parts and then criticised in a way that not only deems him hideous and unattractive, but apparently makes him unworthy of his own GENDER, it would become a bit more clear that taking away a beauty standard for very thin fashion models and replacing it with one for slightly fatter soft-porn models makes no difference.

this entire thing is a statement of one person's personal preference and an attack on women, under the facade of a female-progressive, scientific viewpoint.


brom is just mad cause his mom cut off his peepee at a young age :(

did it hurt, brom? when mommy cut off your peepee? did it?

it did?

good. hahahha. i bet you bleed all over the place like a bitch on the rag, brommy.


PS: white power! i too, erik, enjoy prepubescent white girls. white power! pedophile power!

sorry, Laura, I have nothing else to say; read through the entire site, carefuly, and you will see, there is nothing true in your words: everything I read on this site is such an echo of all my lifelong observations, it is almost as listening to my husband, only with many references. It is not just personal preference, as you can read on this site, and it is irrefutable. Beautiful girls are attacked by the fashion model beauty standard and are left feeling unworthy,( hearing so many times: 'oh, you really should be a model, you have stunningly beautiful face, and thin you are too, but not a model body' WHERE cid= '; this site is refreshing for any, at least feminine, if not very beautiful woman. Has it ever occured to you, why is it so, that they are only seen posing naked? Sure, they refuse to take high rank modeling jobs and extravagant salaries.
I DON'T KNOW HOW GOOD IT REALLY IS, but I think it is ok to replace one beauty standard for another, if it is fine grounded, and is female-progressive, oh whatever, don't worry, it won't happen just because I wish it.

As for attacking women with analysis of their looks under the facade of scientific viewpoint, (it is really facade and science is many times not worthy of its name)-, well, dear,it happens all the time, reading in magazines, on the internet, on television, and on respectful tv programmes, and they are louder than this site is, and sooo scientific.

And even if you are not feminine, I don't think you are ugly, because I don't know you. OK?

And now, I bid farewell, I became too involved, and am attracting some profane wastes- NO, I DON'T MEAN YOU.

"this site is refreshing for any, at least feminine, if not very beautiful woman"

as the fashion industry is 'refreshing' for very thin women. why is one good and the other bad?

"it is ok to replace one beauty standard for another, if it is fine grounded, and is female-progressive"

how is reducing a massive thing like gender to something as passing and meaningless as physical appearence positive to the gender involved? by telling women they are not women because of the way they look?!

"it happens all the time, reading in magazines, on the internet, on television, and on respectful tv programmes"

yes, does that make it right? no.

"And even if you are not feminine, I don’t think you are ugly, because I don’t know you. OK?"

if you don't know me, as you don't, why are you so sure i'm not 'feminine'? am i sending masculine vibes over the internet?

from what i've read of this website, i'd probably be ranked 'normal' (oh joy), but i probably resemble the 'feminine' more than the 'masculine'. i'm not very thin, nor very broad, my face doesn't really have any of the 'masculine aspects mentioned. does that mean i have to think it's brilliant that numerous women's bodies and faces are being ripped apart is good? your presumption that i am only trying to stand up for my 'un-feminine' self is very telling.

Laura: When it comes to beauty, most people have a similar personal preference, and with respect to women, this preference is for feminine beauty. Not addressing the looks of men does not imply lack of objectivity. This site has nothing to do with the looks of men. Before you critique this site as an attack on women, you should read the FAQ. It is by no means true that it makes no difference whether there is a skinny and masculine female standard or a feminine beauty standard, which is explained in the FAQ. The consequences of having skinny women occupy the top ranks of models are much worse than if these top models were feminine and attractive because no negative health behaviors can be indulged in to acquire feminine beauty and most people naturally harbor a feminine beauty standard.

Some of the analyses about different body parts are required to show that the arguments are not merely subjective. This site is not about gender but about physical appearance. It is also not saying that unless your looks lie within a given range you are not a woman. Masculinized women are still women.

8D: I have lost a commentator because of your foul and retarded comments. This commentator does not want to post comments at a site “disreputed by some hysterical mental institution runaway” (commentator’s expression). You must behave or you will be banned from commenting.

i've read the faq, and i still find this website insulting to women in general, but mostly to a certain physique. you literally criticise certain body parts, going on endlessly about how ugly and unattractive they are. sorry, but you can't be objective until you've been subjected to what you are subjecting these women to. doubtless they will never see any of this, but people who look similar may do.

there are plenty of unhealthy practises people can indulge in to be 'feminine'. the tiny waist and huge breasts and hips you love so much have been achieved through corset training for centuries. this can damage ribs and deform the liver and intestines. there is also the more modern issue of cosmetic surgery, for example liposuction on the midsection, breast implants (i know you don't personally like these, but it is pursuing this extreme hourglass that leads people to want them) and operations on the face. serious unecessary surgery can be far more dangerous than a slimming diet.

billions are spent on advertising every year. if slim models didn't sell products, then there would be 'attractive' (to you) models on advertisments. a recent study (at arizona state university) found women had LOWER self-esteem after viewing moderately heavy models and HIGHER self-esteem after viewing moderately thin ones (an extreme in either reversed the effect). as a moderately 'feminine' woman by your standards, i can safely say i have no desire to look like a fashion model.

and there are no 'analyses' about body parts. there are insults, plain and simple.

i am so proud!

hugs and kisses,



yeah, he doesn't get it. never really will. it's just funny. this site is like ebaumsworld, only less intelligent.

foul and inane and yet you keep on responding to me. best thing would be to ignore me and i'll go away.




ps: erik- you are probably much too poor to afford designer clothing. thus, they will not give a shit about you, or your views.

8D: What choice do I have but to respond if you keep repeating nonsense? At the very least I have to ask you to behave or leave.

Laura: I haven’t described high-fashion models as ugly. Ugliness results from physical defects/abnormalities, which high-fashion models lack. Making an objective argument requires citing evidence, not having my looks critiqued by others.

The “unhealthy practices” you have described in the pursuit of femininity are mostly misunderstandings:


Corsets did not affect actual breast and hip size/shape; just their appearance in clothes. Corsets are also unable to alter the rib cage except the lower part and are thereby not able to provide a natural hourglass shape. This site is working toward promoting women with physiques that looks feminine without the aid of clothing/mini-corsets.

The physiological underpinnings of femininity correspond to deposition of fat away from the abdominal region and the development of a smaller rib cage. Therefore, non-pregnant women with abdominal fat sufficiently abundant so as to require surgical removal for aesthetic purposes have a low likelihood of being feminine in the first place and removing this excess fat will give them a narrower mid-section that will nevertheless not be narrow enough to be an example of feminine beauty. Regardless of the promotion of feminine beauty many individuals will desire minimal abdominal fat and some will undergo liposuction, but liposuction cannot render feminine a mid-section that is unfeminine with respect to lean tissue structures.

Breast implants are often not helpful in making a woman look feminine. A good way of understanding this is to go through the Victoria’s Secret model entries within this site. Start below and change the dig