That's not why they aren't models (boring). They look like women. If they can't pass for 14 year old boys, they can't be models. Clearly what you see as not 'average and boring' are girls that look like boys.
No heterosexual man prefers boyish girls over feminine girls.
do you think i have masculine face or feminine face? too masculine or just average? or maybe on the feminine side?
I think I have high broad cheekbones but my jaw is weak, maybe because I still have fat on my face, but on this page says that the mandible doesnt have to do with masculinity
1. If their breasts are their own, and 100% natural they ARE normal.
2. Breast shape and size are determined by genetics - genetics that have been around for the last 100,000 years. Your opinion has been around 40 yearss. please, get over yourself.
3. Those 2 women look lovely, and have zero deficiencies. If you were a REAL man, you'd put them in the same section as the other women. Beauty is holistic; stupidity, here, is suprisingly localized...
This arugment is childish. Each individual finds beauty in different shapes and sizes. At times, what one finds desirable to the touch is not what they find beautiful to the eye. Trying to stifle ones opinion or voice does little to promote the understanding of the topic at hand.
Jim: My article does not support Kanazawa’s article, but criticizes it.
I can explain the apparent and actual off-topic issues.
xxxxxxxxxxxx
1. The mission of this site is better stated in terms of targeting Western/European populations rather than specifically addressing European women. Said purpose is best served by focusing on European women, especially given free time considerations. However, some aspects of masculine-feminine variation and correlates of attractiveness can be shown as more robust concepts if it is shown that they also apply to demographic groups other than European women, and in some cases this becomes necessary. There are articles and comments within this site left by me where the masculinity-femininity and attractiveness of men have been addressed. So an occasional discussion of non-European women is not so odd, and in the article, the applicability of some correlates of attractiveness has been discussed.
2. If you look at the discussions at this site, accusations of racism abound. This requires a discussion of facts to distinguish unflattering arguments based on prejudice from those based on facts.
3. I came across someone recommending me for lots of evolutionary psychology on beauty! This person had no idea that I hold this field in contempt and the last thing I would be doing is evolutionary psychology.
4. I believe in a scientific spirit, which is a borderline-religious belief. Few people have it, and Kanazawa is one of them. Note the excerpt I cited from Kanazawa. Kanazawa has this conviction that “the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake is the only legitimate goal in science” and “no other criteria besides the truth should matter or be applied in evaluating scientific theories or conclusions.”
I recall struggling with whether humans should shy away from pursuing some types of knowledge. The answer escaped me for many years, and then it was three things that clicked together.
a) There is not a truth existing which I fear or would wish unknown to the whole world. - Thomas Jefferson
Take home message: Do not fear truth.
b) And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. - John 8:32
Take home message: Truth is not ugly or harmful but liberating.
c) Pravda vítěz (Czech: Truth prevails)
सत्यमेव जयते (Sanskrit: Truth alone triumphs)
Take home message: What is the point of dabbling with falsehoods when it is truth that will ultimately win?
And so I was possessed by the spirit of science, and have never looked back.
As far as I am concerned, possessing this spirit is much more important than being right in one’s argument and conclusion(s) because the spirit drives one to seek the truth and carries no pride or ego, allowing the discovery process to be self-correcting.
Note that I have not defended Kanazawa’s argument but extensively criticized it. But in Kanazawa I recognize a kindred spirit, and no one who possesses this spirit should have to grovel, humiliate himself.
xxxxxxxxxxxx
Between #1-4, the first two are relevant to this site. #3 is partly relevant, part personal. That I am disgusted to be associated with evolutionary psychology is personal, but at the same time people should not mistake science for the controlled opposition discipline of evolutionary psychology. #4 is purely personal.
#1-4 lent themselves to being tied together. The occasional inclusion of issues not relevant to this site, as long as they can be tied to what is relevant, is editorial discretion at play.
I find it very interesting that you have stated that this site's supposed mission is to specifically talk about European women only with the few exceptions being when the topic happens to pop up in fashion industry discussions (e.g. Adriana Lima). You've even flat out avoided talking about non-European women at times when requested to.
Yet you go out of your way to write quite a lengthy article to support this so-called study.
Really now, what "numerous problems" has this caused for you that you needed to break the central rule of this website (no nonwhite women)?
Fascinating topic, and may be scientifically correct, even though it will cause controversy and possible claims of racism, given that it is politically incorrect.
Some Nordic people have weird noses too. Sharp large nostrils. And somewhat hooked look to their nose. I've seen it before. Like Princess Madeliene of Sweden for instance. Her nose is kind of weird.
I'm fascinated with this topic as I am a queer woman with a very low digit ratio (.94), and some very masculine facial features (heavier brow ridge, eastern euro cheekbones). I was prowling the web in search of more inspiration for my blog, and found this site. I've also got some other interesting stuff in my blog regarding gender and the way the lines can be blurred, coincidentally.
There seems to be evidence that biological characteristics are also related to personality and psychology (for instance, low 2d Ratios in both men and women are related to more aggressiveness, especially in men.)
Adrienne: Your statement, “Just because... does not mean it is naive to believe there may be socially constructed preferences underlying the aesthetic preferences,” is arguing against an assumption you make, not the people you are criticizing. My claim was not in reference to just about any beauty preference, but the central tendencies of aesthetic preferences in a population.
If you wanted to discuss the notion of the social construction of these central tendencies, you would need to come up with a few examples and some justification for them, which you have not done, which is not to say that beauty preferences are never socially constructed.
One study is discussed here. There are many others like it. Why don’t you read more of this site?
Sorry but all of this coming from you just because you don't like her body. That's fine but the fact you are trying to turn your dislike of her as a fact is childish.
Her legs are shapely and her "massive" behind is very attractive. You may not like them but many heterosexual men, including myself, do.
Her "thickness" only adds to the curvature of her body thus making her more feminine than average.
'Thick' means big boned. Not feminine. You are correct that large breasts are feminine. She does have nice breasts. But her 'booty' is massive and she has thick legs. One would never confuse her for being small boned...it is this (along with the face - keep in mind she has had plastic surgery), that makes her more 'masculine'. But, yes, she does have some feminine traits. She probably has both. Is she better than fashion models? No doubt. Is she more feminine than average? No.
Just because a statistical relationship can be found between biological agents in someone's urine and a social perception of beaty does not mean it is naive to believe there may be socially constructed preferences underlying the aesthetic preferences. Firstly the questions posed as to the judges' sense of the subjects' femininity and health are not aesthetic questions but biological ones, so if one were to take this small study as being at all representative of the larger population, it merely demonstrates biological perceptiveness. As this presentation of teh study does not differentiate between judgements about health, femininity and attractiveness, and indeed having these three categories presented together could be seen to be leading the judges' in what attractiveness actually is, the amorphous concept of attractiveness can more or less be discarded from this study as being contaminated by bad experimental design. Thus all you demonstrate is that young men in the peak of their development are quite good at determining the hormone levels of similar aged women when asked to judge health and femininity. Duh.
As presented here, this study has nothing whatever to say about aesthetics, nothing about what people find attractive, but only that people can detect health and sexiness when directed to in the opposite sex.
THis is one of the many examples that demonstrates that social scientists are completely naive about all subtle philosophical concepts and almost completely naive about the complexity of the human mind in a social situation - the social situation in this case being the experiment.
Bad philosophy, bad experimental design, bad science, leading questions, and over-egging the imporatance of an experiment which is little more than a demonstration of experimental bias and a desire to prove pre-existing prejudices.
Who funds this?
I'm not comparing Kim to fashion models and declaring her feminine because compared to them she is more feminine. I'm looking at her by herself and stating the fact that she is very feminine because her body is very feminine. Large breasts, big and pronounced backside, very wide hips, etc...
The only thing noticeably masculine about her is her face which has some masculinity (the fact her face is narrow shaped) and is not as masculine as typical fashion models.
The thing is you just don't like her body. That's fine, your opinion, but to make it into a fact that she isn't feminine the way you are is bordering on the childish. Your description of her body being "exaggerated femininity" being a good example. I've seen many women with much larger breasts and behinds than her. So if she is "exaggerated" what are they?
Her being "thick" doesn't make her less feminine in any way. Your definition is arbitrary.
Kardashian's body is very feminine and very attractive.
You are comparing Kim to fashion models which are definitely not only not feminine but have the looks of 14 year old boys. You are correct that Kim Kardashian does not have this look. Nevertheless, she is 'thick' - she is big boned but also has exaggerated femininity (i.e. large breasts and buttocks). She is nevertheless more masculine than feminine (you've agreed her face is masculine).
Look at her body: large boned, thick. Not feminine. A feminine women is not robust yet has large breasts and a small waist. Kim is simply heavy boned. She does have feminine traits in terms of breast size and pronounced buttocks but she is definitely not feminine.
Agree with most of what you say here. This site actually made me feel a lot better about my own physique. I was recently discussing this topic with my friend who works in the fashion industry. I was wondering why most male fashions these days are feminine looking. I mean not every male has a perfect body to fit into the tight pants and shirts that seem to be in style these days and I personally don't find them appealing anyway. She enlightened me saying that most designers are homosexual males and that is the look they prefer. So, then it occurred to me that female fashion styles these days are meant for a masculine body, the fabrics, silhouettes, etc. It's hard to find anything that would complement a more curvaceous softer feminine body types. It was a revelation that was staring in my face for years. The male models are not sexually appealing to heterosexual women and female models are not sexually appealing to heterosexual males. And what it worse, a lot of the "fashionable" clothes don't help regular men and women look better. It is a really sad state of a affairs. I see so many women killing themselves in the gym trying to look more masculine. So, thank you for this site. I don't agree with some racial connotations here, I believe there are sexy women of all races, you can't assume males of other races are not sexually attracted to women from their own country. That is in response to your argument that the only truly attractive women are Northern European. In fact, a lot of those masculine looking models are from Northern Europe, Scandinavia, Germany, etc. So, yes, I did find your site biased and somewhat prejudiced but still it is courageous of you to address this topic.
"Eurocentric? Hardly. The media keeps insisting she is 'beautiful with a great ass"
Eurocentric? Definitely. I don't know what media you keep talking about but almost all of the women paraded in the mainstream media keeps pushing women with hardly any curves whatsoever. Kim Kardashian is one of the very few women visible at all in the media with curves and the only reason she is there just the way she looks is because she didn't get to become a celebrity through the usual channels.
And yes, because a woman has large breasts and a large booty it does make her more feminine as those are both physical feminine features. She also has noticeably wide hips and is also not very tall. It's only her face that has masculinity but it looks sexy to me. It's only when she tries to highlight the narrow shape of her face through make up and pictures that it doesn't look as good to me.
"She is actually short and stocky."
Being tall is a masculine physical trait and she isn't "stocky" she is curvy.
Sounds to me you are a fashion industry fan or not a heterosexual man which would explain your comments.
Kim Kardashian is definitely masculine in the face. Lots of makeup not to mention plastic surgery (her face was more obviously masculine before. Check her face without makeup - not very feminine).
She has a huge rear end...not attractive (Eurocentric? Hardly. The media keeps insisting she is 'beautiful with a great ass). She is very thick.
There is nothing feminine about her. Just because she has large breasts and a large booty doesn't mean she is feminine. She is actually short and stocky.
More from me:)I think that her face has some kind masculine look to it but it is in her brow bone and chin area.But as i said i think it is because of her armenian ancestry and not because she is masculine.She looks really good to me she is just not as fine featured as a northern european women.
Erik Kim Kardashian's cheek bones are not masculine are they?Somehow i don't think she is masculine at all.I think that the part's of her that seem as if they are masculine are only because of her armenian ancestry.I may not like her very much but i think she is very good looking.
JC,
There is no "illusion of masculinity". Those that claim that Kardashian's body is "robust" are mostly fashion fanatics and/or non-heterosexual men that have a distaste for feminine and curvy bodies.
While Kim Kardashian's face has masculine features her body is very feminine (and very attractive).
Because Eurocentric societies have allowed the fashion industry to dictate what is supposedly the epitome of female beauty in the mainstream many in those societies have been very much socially conditioned to the point of being confused and unable to recognize physical femininity. No one with a sane mind would see Kardashian's body and think it is masculine in any way unless, like I pointed out, they are not heterosexual men and want to dismiss her. So in the case of someone like Kim Kardashian, if someone is confused as to whether or not her body is feminine then this is due to the person in doubt being brought up in a fashion industry inspired environment not because a body like Kardashian's isn't clearly feminine.
Personal taste is bound to vary based on preferences for specific physical traits such as hair color, eye color, nose shape and so forth. My question is how might one know if a woman is feminine when they have been told from scholarly sources that they are masculinized due to specific traits such as robustness? Robustness is synonymous with masculinity. Based on the criteria for assessing femininity, one might reach the conclusion that after judging a woman's anatomy she possesses traits that are feminine yet give the illusion of masculinity. A woman may possess traits that are deemed as being masculine yet after a thorough inspection they may somehow give the illusion of femininity. One may not be physically attracted to a specific woman based on the aforementioned illusions. The specific physical traits of a masculinized woman may be attractive however I have personally found the importance of assessing one’s full anatomy before drawing conclusions concerning their stance on the androgyny spectrum. I will give the example of Kim Kardashian to further explain the importance of discerning pseudo femininity. Kim’s physical features are quite attractive and when one judges them seperately, one may find them attractive.
A closer inspection of her face reveals masculinity due to the placement of her cheekbones. One may note the overall placement of her facial features including her eyes in proximity to her chin and the angularity of her jaw.
One may claim that Kim’s steatopygous rear end (and entire body shape for that matter) is feminine yet another individual may claim that it is robust.
Not women who are naturally thin, but women who are anorexic thin, like the models, and those who are underweight, there is a difference, but most hetro men prefer curves in some places, there are always exceptions to every rule.
Erik my measures are 42 32 42 do u knw wat I am or who I look like I'm also 5ft 9
That's not why they aren't models (boring). They look like women. If they can't pass for 14 year old boys, they can't be models. Clearly what you see as not 'average and boring' are girls that look like boys.
No heterosexual man prefers boyish girls over feminine girls.
hello
do you think i have masculine face or feminine face? too masculine or just average? or maybe on the feminine side?
I think I have high broad cheekbones but my jaw is weak, maybe because I still have fat on my face, but on this page says that the mandible doesnt have to do with masculinity
http://oi41.tinypic.com/98ytk8.jpg
Honestly, the 'hyper-feminine' women featured here just look way too average and boring. Which is why they aren't models. Duh.
"if only these women had normal breasts"
Oh please!
1. If their breasts are their own, and 100% natural they ARE normal.
2. Breast shape and size are determined by genetics - genetics that have been around for the last 100,000 years. Your opinion has been around 40 yearss. please, get over yourself.
3. Those 2 women look lovely, and have zero deficiencies. If you were a REAL man, you'd put them in the same section as the other women. Beauty is holistic; stupidity, here, is suprisingly localized...
This arugment is childish. Each individual finds beauty in different shapes and sizes. At times, what one finds desirable to the touch is not what they find beautiful to the eye. Trying to stifle ones opinion or voice does little to promote the understanding of the topic at hand.
Jim: My article does not support Kanazawa’s article, but criticizes it.
I can explain the apparent and actual off-topic issues.
xxxxxxxxxxxx
1. The mission of this site is better stated in terms of targeting Western/European populations rather than specifically addressing European women. Said purpose is best served by focusing on European women, especially given free time considerations. However, some aspects of masculine-feminine variation and correlates of attractiveness can be shown as more robust concepts if it is shown that they also apply to demographic groups other than European women, and in some cases this becomes necessary. There are articles and comments within this site left by me where the masculinity-femininity and attractiveness of men have been addressed. So an occasional discussion of non-European women is not so odd, and in the article, the applicability of some correlates of attractiveness has been discussed.
2. If you look at the discussions at this site, accusations of racism abound. This requires a discussion of facts to distinguish unflattering arguments based on prejudice from those based on facts.
3. I came across someone recommending me for lots of evolutionary psychology on beauty! This person had no idea that I hold this field in contempt and the last thing I would be doing is evolutionary psychology.
4. I believe in a scientific spirit, which is a borderline-religious belief. Few people have it, and Kanazawa is one of them. Note the excerpt I cited from Kanazawa. Kanazawa has this conviction that “the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake is the only legitimate goal in science” and “no other criteria besides the truth should matter or be applied in evaluating scientific theories or conclusions.”
I recall struggling with whether humans should shy away from pursuing some types of knowledge. The answer escaped me for many years, and then it was three things that clicked together.
a) There is not a truth existing which I fear or would wish unknown to the whole world. - Thomas Jefferson
Take home message: Do not fear truth.
b) And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. - John 8:32
Take home message: Truth is not ugly or harmful but liberating.
c) Pravda vítěz (Czech: Truth prevails)
सत्यमेव जयते (Sanskrit: Truth alone triumphs)
Take home message: What is the point of dabbling with falsehoods when it is truth that will ultimately win?
And so I was possessed by the spirit of science, and have never looked back.
As far as I am concerned, possessing this spirit is much more important than being right in one’s argument and conclusion(s) because the spirit drives one to seek the truth and carries no pride or ego, allowing the discovery process to be self-correcting.
Note that I have not defended Kanazawa’s argument but extensively criticized it. But in Kanazawa I recognize a kindred spirit, and no one who possesses this spirit should have to grovel, humiliate himself.
xxxxxxxxxxxx
Between #1-4, the first two are relevant to this site. #3 is partly relevant, part personal. That I am disgusted to be associated with evolutionary psychology is personal, but at the same time people should not mistake science for the controlled opposition discipline of evolutionary psychology. #4 is purely personal.
#1-4 lent themselves to being tied together. The occasional inclusion of issues not relevant to this site, as long as they can be tied to what is relevant, is editorial discretion at play.
I find it very interesting that you have stated that this site's supposed mission is to specifically talk about European women only with the few exceptions being when the topic happens to pop up in fashion industry discussions (e.g. Adriana Lima). You've even flat out avoided talking about non-European women at times when requested to.
Yet you go out of your way to write quite a lengthy article to support this so-called study.
Really now, what "numerous problems" has this caused for you that you needed to break the central rule of this website (no nonwhite women)?
Fascinating topic, and may be scientifically correct, even though it will cause controversy and possible claims of racism, given that it is politically incorrect.
Some Nordic people have weird noses too. Sharp large nostrils. And somewhat hooked look to their nose. I've seen it before. Like Princess Madeliene of Sweden for instance. Her nose is kind of weird.
I'm fascinated with this topic as I am a queer woman with a very low digit ratio (.94), and some very masculine facial features (heavier brow ridge, eastern euro cheekbones). I was prowling the web in search of more inspiration for my blog, and found this site. I've also got some other interesting stuff in my blog regarding gender and the way the lines can be blurred, coincidentally.
http://ideasforabetterhumanity.blogspot.com/2011/10/famous-fingers.html
http://ideasforabetterhumanity.blogspot.com/2011/10/more-on-gender.html
http://ideasforabetterhumanity.blogspot.com/2011/11/more-on-gender-identity-really-awesome.html
There seems to be evidence that biological characteristics are also related to personality and psychology (for instance, low 2d Ratios in both men and women are related to more aggressiveness, especially in men.)
Adrienne: Your statement, “Just because... does not mean it is naive to believe there may be socially constructed preferences underlying the aesthetic preferences,” is arguing against an assumption you make, not the people you are criticizing. My claim was not in reference to just about any beauty preference, but the central tendencies of aesthetic preferences in a population.
If you wanted to discuss the notion of the social construction of these central tendencies, you would need to come up with a few examples and some justification for them, which you have not done, which is not to say that beauty preferences are never socially constructed.
One study is discussed here. There are many others like it. Why don’t you read more of this site?
Sorry but all of this coming from you just because you don't like her body. That's fine but the fact you are trying to turn your dislike of her as a fact is childish.
Her legs are shapely and her "massive" behind is very attractive. You may not like them but many heterosexual men, including myself, do.
Her "thickness" only adds to the curvature of her body thus making her more feminine than average.
'Thick' means big boned. Not feminine. You are correct that large breasts are feminine. She does have nice breasts. But her 'booty' is massive and she has thick legs. One would never confuse her for being small boned...it is this (along with the face - keep in mind she has had plastic surgery), that makes her more 'masculine'. But, yes, she does have some feminine traits. She probably has both. Is she better than fashion models? No doubt. Is she more feminine than average? No.
Just because a statistical relationship can be found between biological agents in someone's urine and a social perception of beaty does not mean it is naive to believe there may be socially constructed preferences underlying the aesthetic preferences. Firstly the questions posed as to the judges' sense of the subjects' femininity and health are not aesthetic questions but biological ones, so if one were to take this small study as being at all representative of the larger population, it merely demonstrates biological perceptiveness. As this presentation of teh study does not differentiate between judgements about health, femininity and attractiveness, and indeed having these three categories presented together could be seen to be leading the judges' in what attractiveness actually is, the amorphous concept of attractiveness can more or less be discarded from this study as being contaminated by bad experimental design. Thus all you demonstrate is that young men in the peak of their development are quite good at determining the hormone levels of similar aged women when asked to judge health and femininity. Duh.
As presented here, this study has nothing whatever to say about aesthetics, nothing about what people find attractive, but only that people can detect health and sexiness when directed to in the opposite sex.
THis is one of the many examples that demonstrates that social scientists are completely naive about all subtle philosophical concepts and almost completely naive about the complexity of the human mind in a social situation - the social situation in this case being the experiment.
Bad philosophy, bad experimental design, bad science, leading questions, and over-egging the imporatance of an experiment which is little more than a demonstration of experimental bias and a desire to prove pre-existing prejudices.
Who funds this?
Sorry but yes.
I'm not comparing Kim to fashion models and declaring her feminine because compared to them she is more feminine. I'm looking at her by herself and stating the fact that she is very feminine because her body is very feminine. Large breasts, big and pronounced backside, very wide hips, etc...
The only thing noticeably masculine about her is her face which has some masculinity (the fact her face is narrow shaped) and is not as masculine as typical fashion models.
The thing is you just don't like her body. That's fine, your opinion, but to make it into a fact that she isn't feminine the way you are is bordering on the childish. Your description of her body being "exaggerated femininity" being a good example. I've seen many women with much larger breasts and behinds than her. So if she is "exaggerated" what are they?
Her being "thick" doesn't make her less feminine in any way. Your definition is arbitrary.
Kardashian's body is very feminine and very attractive.
Sorry, no.
You are comparing Kim to fashion models which are definitely not only not feminine but have the looks of 14 year old boys. You are correct that Kim Kardashian does not have this look. Nevertheless, she is 'thick' - she is big boned but also has exaggerated femininity (i.e. large breasts and buttocks). She is nevertheless more masculine than feminine (you've agreed her face is masculine).
Look at her body: large boned, thick. Not feminine. A feminine women is not robust yet has large breasts and a small waist. Kim is simply heavy boned. She does have feminine traits in terms of breast size and pronounced buttocks but she is definitely not feminine.
Agree with most of what you say here. This site actually made me feel a lot better about my own physique. I was recently discussing this topic with my friend who works in the fashion industry. I was wondering why most male fashions these days are feminine looking. I mean not every male has a perfect body to fit into the tight pants and shirts that seem to be in style these days and I personally don't find them appealing anyway. She enlightened me saying that most designers are homosexual males and that is the look they prefer. So, then it occurred to me that female fashion styles these days are meant for a masculine body, the fabrics, silhouettes, etc. It's hard to find anything that would complement a more curvaceous softer feminine body types. It was a revelation that was staring in my face for years. The male models are not sexually appealing to heterosexual women and female models are not sexually appealing to heterosexual males. And what it worse, a lot of the "fashionable" clothes don't help regular men and women look better. It is a really sad state of a affairs. I see so many women killing themselves in the gym trying to look more masculine. So, thank you for this site. I don't agree with some racial connotations here, I believe there are sexy women of all races, you can't assume males of other races are not sexually attracted to women from their own country. That is in response to your argument that the only truly attractive women are Northern European. In fact, a lot of those masculine looking models are from Northern Europe, Scandinavia, Germany, etc. So, yes, I did find your site biased and somewhat prejudiced but still it is courageous of you to address this topic.
"She has a huge rear end...not attractive"
Incorrect. Very attractive.
"Eurocentric? Hardly. The media keeps insisting she is 'beautiful with a great ass"
Eurocentric? Definitely. I don't know what media you keep talking about but almost all of the women paraded in the mainstream media keeps pushing women with hardly any curves whatsoever. Kim Kardashian is one of the very few women visible at all in the media with curves and the only reason she is there just the way she looks is because she didn't get to become a celebrity through the usual channels.
And yes, because a woman has large breasts and a large booty it does make her more feminine as those are both physical feminine features. She also has noticeably wide hips and is also not very tall. It's only her face that has masculinity but it looks sexy to me. It's only when she tries to highlight the narrow shape of her face through make up and pictures that it doesn't look as good to me.
"She is actually short and stocky."
Being tall is a masculine physical trait and she isn't "stocky" she is curvy.
Sounds to me you are a fashion industry fan or not a heterosexual man which would explain your comments.
Kim Kardashian is definitely masculine in the face. Lots of makeup not to mention plastic surgery (her face was more obviously masculine before. Check her face without makeup - not very feminine).
She has a huge rear end...not attractive (Eurocentric? Hardly. The media keeps insisting she is 'beautiful with a great ass). She is very thick.
There is nothing feminine about her. Just because she has large breasts and a large booty doesn't mean she is feminine. She is actually short and stocky.
More from me:)I think that her face has some kind masculine look to it but it is in her brow bone and chin area.But as i said i think it is because of her armenian ancestry and not because she is masculine.She looks really good to me she is just not as fine featured as a northern european women.
Erik Kim Kardashian's cheek bones are not masculine are they?Somehow i don't think she is masculine at all.I think that the part's of her that seem as if they are masculine are only because of her armenian ancestry.I may not like her very much but i think she is very good looking.
JC,
There is no "illusion of masculinity". Those that claim that Kardashian's body is "robust" are mostly fashion fanatics and/or non-heterosexual men that have a distaste for feminine and curvy bodies.
While Kim Kardashian's face has masculine features her body is very feminine (and very attractive).
Because Eurocentric societies have allowed the fashion industry to dictate what is supposedly the epitome of female beauty in the mainstream many in those societies have been very much socially conditioned to the point of being confused and unable to recognize physical femininity. No one with a sane mind would see Kardashian's body and think it is masculine in any way unless, like I pointed out, they are not heterosexual men and want to dismiss her. So in the case of someone like Kim Kardashian, if someone is confused as to whether or not her body is feminine then this is due to the person in doubt being brought up in a fashion industry inspired environment not because a body like Kardashian's isn't clearly feminine.
Personal taste is bound to vary based on preferences for specific physical traits such as hair color, eye color, nose shape and so forth. My question is how might one know if a woman is feminine when they have been told from scholarly sources that they are masculinized due to specific traits such as robustness? Robustness is synonymous with masculinity. Based on the criteria for assessing femininity, one might reach the conclusion that after judging a woman's anatomy she possesses traits that are feminine yet give the illusion of masculinity. A woman may possess traits that are deemed as being masculine yet after a thorough inspection they may somehow give the illusion of femininity. One may not be physically attracted to a specific woman based on the aforementioned illusions. The specific physical traits of a masculinized woman may be attractive however I have personally found the importance of assessing one’s full anatomy before drawing conclusions concerning their stance on the androgyny spectrum. I will give the example of Kim Kardashian to further explain the importance of discerning pseudo femininity. Kim’s physical features are quite attractive and when one judges them seperately, one may find them attractive.
A closer inspection of her face reveals masculinity due to the placement of her cheekbones. One may note the overall placement of her facial features including her eyes in proximity to her chin and the angularity of her jaw.
One may claim that Kim’s steatopygous rear end (and entire body shape for that matter) is feminine yet another individual may claim that it is robust.
Not women who are naturally thin, but women who are anorexic thin, like the models, and those who are underweight, there is a difference, but most hetro men prefer curves in some places, there are always exceptions to every rule.
Pages