I know this is a stereotype but Asians on average are very intelligent. Let's say there is this hideous Asian woman, but extremely intelligent, should no one mate with her because she is "not feminine" and not beautiful? Will we not lose out on smart genes then?
Therefore selecting a mate is based on many factors besides just attractiveness. Beauty plays only a small role in the whole scheme of things.
just ignore people. Northern Europeans are obviously extremely attractive. I am not going to go out there and say they are the most attractive, because I haven't been to enough places to determine that. But I just think people shouldn't have to prove anything. You are what you are, you know? Anyone can get all the plastic surgery in the world and its not going to make them any happier. Beauty is useful in successful reproduction and eugenics, beyond that there is little importance in outward beauty. Take care of your body, skin, and take pride in your appearance. But more importantly take care of eachother guys, no matter where you come from:) Even though certain races/sub-races may be less attractive, that doesn't make them any less valuable to our world. It is true some races are more attractive, others smarter, others more athletic, others in the middle. But we are all homo sapiens. I don't believe in that equality crap. I hate worrying about what is "politically correct" these days. However, lets say that we stereotype all Nordics to be the most beautiful people but not very bright and say Asians are the least attractive and most bright. Lets say we change all our social policies to accomodate these groups to what fits them best. What about the Nordic woman that is both beautiful and extremely intelligent? Will she be denied the education and the chance to prove her intelligence if she is stereotyped to only be good at being beautiful? This is why we have to give everyone in the world a fair chance to be the best they can be and offer what they can to our world.
So this website is about beauty, not politics. I get that. But, what I am trying to say is that if one race is more beautiful than another so what? And why are we trying to prove this so much, what is the hidden agenda? Eugenics? Should others races breed less? Well wouldn't we be losing valuable talent and other gains? How ethic and moral is the concept of Eugenics? You have to ask these questions really.
Oh and nice try passing Channing Tatum as a nordic male...I am sure you know he has some native blood?
As well that other male model that posed in the underwear commercial...I find him unattractive due to his abnormally robust cheekbones....some people who didn't know better will call it feminine but its not!
Also my dearest if your going to post pictures of "feminine" Nordic women...read Eril's posts again and look at their facial features. Many of them have narrow faces, angular chins (not rounded), thin lips, deep set/close set eyes, protuding eyebrow ridges etc etc.... SO much for feminine beauty!
If you think light eyes, light hair, light skin and upturned noses make women feminine and beautiful than your living in a "dream world".
Have you ever thought that the reason some men flock to Sweden and such because these women offer something rare? Blond hair, blue eyes etc... and not particularly because they are feminine or the world's most beautiful.
Now i hope your not going to equate rare phenotype with beauty?
Told you, you had met your match hehehe :D
Do i see a weak chin and a broadish nose? Why don't you post pictures of your "goddesses" in different angles? Surely they look beautiful from any angle right?
EMILY!!!!!!!!!!! EMILY!!!!!!!!!!!! Darling what do i have to get your attention????
Do i have to call you a BITCH or start posting pictures of unattractive Nords???
Anyways my love you have contradicted yourself many times!!! I don't know how this picture thing works but i will give it a go...
For example, the group photo of the Swedes is very nice but I have never in my life seen a Swede with the kind of moustache that the man on the left has, so that would be an example of an unrepresentative Swede, since people might think that Swedes generally sport these kinds of moustaches. Hihihi
"I am not a fan of Emily’s approach, namely posting individual pictures since one could be accused of selection bias, but average facial features are better compared in group photographs drawn from similar settings. I happened to come across some pictures from an international meet showing group photos of representatives from different countries, all being young adults. This is a good example of employing controls: people drawn from a similar setting and representing regular or ordinary individuals from their nations."
Sometimes you have to use individual photos since it is very difficult to find group photos where you see people from only the ethnic group you want to demonstrate. Also, these group photos may not be of people who are the best representatives of their country or ethnic group - depending on a lot of factors - for example from which part of a region the people in the pictures are from, on whether or not they are athletes, actors, or represent minor fractions of some sort that wouldn't give an appropriate and balanced picture.
For example, showing a group picture of people attending a diet class would give you the impression that the people the pictures represent are generally more or less obese. In order to give you a whole, complete picture that is as fair and representative of a people as possible, it is therefore almost always necessary to show individual photos, also. When possible I have also shown group photos of all ethnicities I was discussing, so one shouldn't imply that I only use individual photos.
Furthermore, in order to demonstrate the typical femininity and beauty of a people it's not always possible to find that in a group picture, so group photos have limited value, unless you only want to demonstrate typical anthropological features. What I have done is to show typical examples of people who accurately represent true ethnic Nordics, people you would actually see when you visit the region, since that's what people are interested in, I think. I avoided the most attractive and least attractive people regardless of ethnicity in order to give a fair picture.
I prefer to show ordinary people in ordinary settings, the ones you will actually see when you visit a country - not top models or actresses, such as is often the case here when people show unrepresentative examples of half- Indian and half-Asian models and actresses purporting to represent ordinary people in those regions. When I have shown Nordic models it has been in direct response to people starting posting model pictures that not represent ordinary people, since only models should be compared to models, ordinary people to ordinary people, and so on.
Regarding accusations of bias this is something that is impossible to avoid completely unless you always say what people WANT you to say, rather than stating the objective truth or the opinion that the majority holds. You have been attacked here so many times now by people who feel somehow left out and unable to measure up. They talk about themselves, describing their looks, and somehow mean that they are relevant, even though they are just one individual. I never understand why people take this so personally. It is not always possible to live up to ideals of beauty and femininity.
If we would let people's insecurities prevent us from discussing and demonstrating beauty and femininity we would not do honesty and beauty much justice. I think the problem is that women who feel deeply insecure browse the net for sites dealing with beauty, seeking validation from those sites, and when they don't find it and instead feel judged you will see this circus and personal attacks on you and on everybody else they perceive as the "enemy". It's unfortunate but not unavoidable, since people, tragically, browse these sites looking mainly for personal validation. The truth is acceptable only as long as it reinforces their preferred image of themselves.
I noticed that these fashion models obviously stand closer to the women you put in your attractive women section. Many people will say that the women you post in that section look young and "like a regular girl you would see walking down the street or in a mall". However, this is the reason these girls are soo attractive, because averageness is attractive to us since it is easier for our brains to process average features, and neotony is attracive to us because it indicates youth and in turn health. Then you go farther and claim that women that are more feminine than the average, are typically more attractive. I agree with this as well. My question is based on this study:
Please read!
I would like to know, what is the difference between the first "average" face and then the second face composed of the most attractive faces? I do feel it is more feminine, has lower cheekbones, but I can't really put my finger on it. I agree it is more attractive, but I don't know why? Can you please point out EXACTLY what makes this face more attractive than the first?
Your idea parallels one that already exsists, however while your idea is that the features they look for is masculine vs. feminine, in more proper terms it is neoteny vs. dominant features. Here is the site URL: http://employees.csbsju.edu/lmealey/hotspots/Chapter09.htm.
There are the "dominant" features: high cheekbones, strong jawline, high forehead, heighth. These are features that happen to be more common in males due to mate selection, as females prefer "dominant" features in men. Then there are "neotenic" (or babylike) features: large eyes, large lips, long eyelashes, small nose. These features happen to be more common in females, due to men's preference of neoteny features in women.
If the objective of a model is to be a beautiful, blank canvas then the best way to appeal to all audiences is by having someone with both features so that when they add whatever fashion, the model's features can play up the parts.
Eric: High heels have some negatives, but these can be reduced by using insolia inserts or something equivalent.
I worked in woman's shoes for a long while. I am pretty sure there is a problem with most woman's shoes, fashionable or not. The ankle support inst there which results in a lot of issues in that area especially in the golden years.
I think allot of this "masculinity" in women is pretty subjective it reads like allot of art historical text from the Italian early modern period. you are also assuming there is a quintessence of womanhood... and manhood(our societal notion of this really comes from allot of gay sources if you look closely.) ... this branding is too similar to the fashion hierarchy to me.
I think you are totally over looking what chanel did to the fashion world too, historically that seems to be the start of your masculinization, not so much her, but 20 century modernism ( flapper look, abandoning the courset for jersey material that is more akin to active wear... i think that the binary approach to gender is becoming pretty suspicious. It is probably of more use to the hard sciences.
I think the aproximation that men can be feminine is an utter failure of binary thinking. Gay men are equated with the female gender but i really dont draw the parallel between women ( and if you are going to cite 4th wave feminism's gynomisation of races other then white and queer persona as a basis to categorized male persons as feminine you are falling prey to the failure of binary thinking as well, I would say that it is a seperate construct more closely affiliated with high culture you see it alot in celebrities like the Hilton girl too.
But i think calling this "feminine" you are seeing in gay men (and i am seeing in some women that are conspicuous consumers) is not a product of queer culture either. Queer culture such as the Leather movement(which has its own problems steming from a binary effort to distiquish itself from the gay-as-fairy steriotype[which arose in pre-christian Rome but really matured in pre-kinesy era judeo-christian-muslim world])participants and early segment of the lesbian movement were anti-high fashion as it is a construction that comodifies women and really capitalizes off of the "pink pound." Gay identing as feminine serves as a counterbalance to help perpetuate exhausting role of being the pilar of society placed squarely on white hetero/sexist roman ideology -(and those instrumental to their political motives to secure leadership) as creators/conquerors of society. Postmodernism seems to be calling into question our progess as it drags like a nice long painful audit. Probably the most successful method of power structuring is absolute democracy which would be initially so hazardous as things exist today
i think your willingness to blame all gays for fashion is also suspicious lesbian culture seems to be pretty opposed. and the high end affiliations of gay culture are really not with out really specific agents more related to "heterosexual-elite" patronage
This gets into all sorts of arguments about the ruling bodies with in society
I think your bit partisan... yes fashion is bad, but so is this typification, and idealization... it is pretty alienating and strangely fictional kind of like the academic autopsy of baroque art or werewolves
One poster wanted to throw Venus and Serena Williams into this discussion somewhere, but probably female professional athletes don't really enter into your thesis at all. Besides, there is increasing evidence that their linebacker-like physiques quite possibly were steroid induced.
The sun just came up a little bit, so it's a new day. Another great beauty with lots of jawbone is Kristy Swanson, shoulders to the max, too. I read in RR's bio that RR was referred to as the 'Jolly Blonde Giant' in school, so maybe even then, her classmates were picking up a little of that masculine vibe, since giantism is generally considered masculine, too.
My final post, for today, anyway. Please do not avoid nudity on this site, particularly since you used it almost exclusively to illustrate your thesis.
To further reinforce your argument about jawline, notice how most of the photographers hide that feature with a swoop of hair, angle of camera or other device.
Oh, in the square jaw department, consider another Sports Illustrated covergirl, Kathy Ireland. Somebody else already pointed out Elle McPherson. Interesting the confluence of this feature on a magazine devoted to sports other than girl watching. Hmmmmm.
Oh, and since my identity wasn't threatened by any of this, thanks to the poster who came up with the photos of Carol Lynley, one of my all-time favorites. By the way, Marilyn Monroe spent most of her career between sizes 14-18 and was actually a redhead. Look closely at the famous calendar poses that launched her career; you can still see traces of strawberry blonde in it. The blazing red backdrop tends to overwhelm it, but it's there.
Discussing for a moment one of the secondary assertions you make in your article: (I hope I got this right) predominantly homosexual fashion designers strongly tend to choose models with masculine characteristics. This is unquestionably true. All the highest fashion houses design with sizes (00-02) that suggest young boys, devoid of breasts and buttocks. Height must be at least 5'10; this too is masculine. And woe be to the model who gains even a few pounds in feminine places; they are banished to modeling swimwear and lingerie, like RR. In fact, it is always a matter of wonderment and note when a model shows up on a runway with anything approaching a feminine figure. Africans are tolerated in this context because they introduce the exotic factor, some are even quite overbearingly masculine, Iman and Grace Jones, to a lesser extent Naomi Campbell and Tyra Banks. This last has actually created a whole series on TV based on models looking fierce, no, capitalize that, FIERCE. She constantly turns aways stunningly beautiful, extremely feminine contestants in favor of angular, small-breasted, thin, but FIERCE candidates.
There are many women who are considered extremely beautiful and feminine who have the two main features you 'criticize?' RR for exhibiting. I won't go into the square shoulder debate, but for square jaws, consider Carmen Electra, Salma Hayek, Cindy Crawford, Paula Abdul, Ava Gardner, Nicole Kidman, Ashley Judd (and her mom, Naomi.) Just a sampling. Perhaps a square jaw isn't as clearly a masculine characteristic as your article suggests, just as a cleft chin isn't: Lucy Liu, Jessica Simpson, Marilyn Monroe. Regarding RR's selection as Mystique: you left out, I think, perhaps her MOST masculine feature; she's almost 6' tall. In the movies, she has to kick some very bad guy/mutant haters boo-tays. Check the stills from the scene where she has giant manacles on when she's flying through the air attacking them or choking them. Were this a diminutive or less broad shouldered heroine, the fight scene would not work as well, especially the choking. Some prominent slender, 'feminine' women such as Cameron Diaz and Lucy Liu (in the Charlie's Angels films) have been depicted as fearsome warriors, but it always plays a little (or a lot) fake. Lucy has a little more credibility as a martial artist because she is Asian, but neither is credible taking or delivering a punch. The acrobatics, OK. The speed of their maneuvers, OK, but not the blows they receive and deliver. RR, as Mystique, does not suffer from this disbelief. Also, she has avoided the MOST masculine of traits we see in actresses and artists today: washboard abs and hard, cut muscles, such as Madonna exhibits. Also, Layla is not very pretty; she is an example a 'blank canvas upon which to create' type of face (and body, too.) You mention an observer needing other, feminine visual cues to determine if RR, or any other character, is indeed a woman. Bear in mind, in modeling, the cues are ALWAYS there: hair, breasts, legs, makeup, clothes, context, body and facial features other than height, shoulder bone structure, and jawline. It IS interesting to note that facial makeup for Mystique shadowed out much of the squareness of her jawline using darker pigment from ear to chin eliminating much of the rear of her jaw where the squareness is most pronounced.
Rebecca Romijn IS attractive for all those reasons.You are right Richard.
so I'm gay for liking Rebecca Romijn? if thats what these others think,well then,HI FELLAS!Rebecca is as sexy, as women get.
Dude, what are you talking about? Kristin Kreuk looks gorgeous to me, even in the bad lighting she looks cute... much more so than that other girl you posted- too bland. And I've never even heard of either of them before now.
Can you pin-point exactly what you find ugly about Kreuk?
Um...Why in the hell are people calling Dana fat? Her tummy isn't even big. It's soft and naturally rounded. The female tummy normally is. I personally have never found the flat tummy look appealing AND it builds the muscles in that area up causing the waist to be large. I've got a body like Dana's. No one ever calls me fat these days. I think some of you need to stop watching the TV. It's rotting your brain.
Might I add,
I know this is a stereotype but Asians on average are very intelligent. Let's say there is this hideous Asian woman, but extremely intelligent, should no one mate with her because she is "not feminine" and not beautiful? Will we not lose out on smart genes then?
Therefore selecting a mate is based on many factors besides just attractiveness. Beauty plays only a small role in the whole scheme of things.
Emily,
just ignore people. Northern Europeans are obviously extremely attractive. I am not going to go out there and say they are the most attractive, because I haven't been to enough places to determine that. But I just think people shouldn't have to prove anything. You are what you are, you know? Anyone can get all the plastic surgery in the world and its not going to make them any happier. Beauty is useful in successful reproduction and eugenics, beyond that there is little importance in outward beauty. Take care of your body, skin, and take pride in your appearance. But more importantly take care of eachother guys, no matter where you come from:) Even though certain races/sub-races may be less attractive, that doesn't make them any less valuable to our world. It is true some races are more attractive, others smarter, others more athletic, others in the middle. But we are all homo sapiens. I don't believe in that equality crap. I hate worrying about what is "politically correct" these days. However, lets say that we stereotype all Nordics to be the most beautiful people but not very bright and say Asians are the least attractive and most bright. Lets say we change all our social policies to accomodate these groups to what fits them best. What about the Nordic woman that is both beautiful and extremely intelligent? Will she be denied the education and the chance to prove her intelligence if she is stereotyped to only be good at being beautiful? This is why we have to give everyone in the world a fair chance to be the best they can be and offer what they can to our world.
So this website is about beauty, not politics. I get that. But, what I am trying to say is that if one race is more beautiful than another so what? And why are we trying to prove this so much, what is the hidden agenda? Eugenics? Should others races breed less? Well wouldn't we be losing valuable talent and other gains? How ethic and moral is the concept of Eugenics? You have to ask these questions really.
Oh and nice try passing Channing Tatum as a nordic male...I am sure you know he has some native blood?
As well that other male model that posed in the underwear commercial...I find him unattractive due to his abnormally robust cheekbones....some people who didn't know better will call it feminine but its not!
Also my dearest if your going to post pictures of "feminine" Nordic women...read Eril's posts again and look at their facial features. Many of them have narrow faces, angular chins (not rounded), thin lips, deep set/close set eyes, protuding eyebrow ridges etc etc.... SO much for feminine beauty!
If you think light eyes, light hair, light skin and upturned noses make women feminine and beautiful than your living in a "dream world".
Have you ever thought that the reason some men flock to Sweden and such because these women offer something rare? Blond hair, blue eyes etc... and not particularly because they are feminine or the world's most beautiful.
Now i hope your not going to equate rare phenotype with beauty?
Told you, you had met your match hehehe :D
http://i362.photobucket.com/albums/oo62/picturesofswedes/l8.jpg
Do i see a weak chin and a broadish nose? Why don't you post pictures of your "goddesses" in different angles? Surely they look beautiful from any angle right?
EMILY!!!!!!!!!!! EMILY!!!!!!!!!!!! Darling what do i have to get your attention????
Do i have to call you a BITCH or start posting pictures of unattractive Nords???
Anyways my love you have contradicted yourself many times!!! I don't know how this picture thing works but i will give it a go...
Correction;
"It's unfortunate but not AVOIDABLE, since people, tragically, browse these sites looking mainly for personal validation."
For example, the group photo of the Swedes is very nice but I have never in my life seen a Swede with the kind of moustache that the man on the left has, so that would be an example of an unrepresentative Swede, since people might think that Swedes generally sport these kinds of moustaches. Hihihi
"I am not a fan of Emily’s approach, namely posting individual pictures since one could be accused of selection bias, but average facial features are better compared in group photographs drawn from similar settings. I happened to come across some pictures from an international meet showing group photos of representatives from different countries, all being young adults. This is a good example of employing controls: people drawn from a similar setting and representing regular or ordinary individuals from their nations."
Sometimes you have to use individual photos since it is very difficult to find group photos where you see people from only the ethnic group you want to demonstrate. Also, these group photos may not be of people who are the best representatives of their country or ethnic group - depending on a lot of factors - for example from which part of a region the people in the pictures are from, on whether or not they are athletes, actors, or represent minor fractions of some sort that wouldn't give an appropriate and balanced picture.
For example, showing a group picture of people attending a diet class would give you the impression that the people the pictures represent are generally more or less obese. In order to give you a whole, complete picture that is as fair and representative of a people as possible, it is therefore almost always necessary to show individual photos, also. When possible I have also shown group photos of all ethnicities I was discussing, so one shouldn't imply that I only use individual photos.
Furthermore, in order to demonstrate the typical femininity and beauty of a people it's not always possible to find that in a group picture, so group photos have limited value, unless you only want to demonstrate typical anthropological features. What I have done is to show typical examples of people who accurately represent true ethnic Nordics, people you would actually see when you visit the region, since that's what people are interested in, I think. I avoided the most attractive and least attractive people regardless of ethnicity in order to give a fair picture.
I prefer to show ordinary people in ordinary settings, the ones you will actually see when you visit a country - not top models or actresses, such as is often the case here when people show unrepresentative examples of half- Indian and half-Asian models and actresses purporting to represent ordinary people in those regions. When I have shown Nordic models it has been in direct response to people starting posting model pictures that not represent ordinary people, since only models should be compared to models, ordinary people to ordinary people, and so on.
Regarding accusations of bias this is something that is impossible to avoid completely unless you always say what people WANT you to say, rather than stating the objective truth or the opinion that the majority holds. You have been attacked here so many times now by people who feel somehow left out and unable to measure up. They talk about themselves, describing their looks, and somehow mean that they are relevant, even though they are just one individual. I never understand why people take this so personally. It is not always possible to live up to ideals of beauty and femininity.
If we would let people's insecurities prevent us from discussing and demonstrating beauty and femininity we would not do honesty and beauty much justice. I think the problem is that women who feel deeply insecure browse the net for sites dealing with beauty, seeking validation from those sites, and when they don't find it and instead feel judged you will see this circus and personal attacks on you and on everybody else they perceive as the "enemy". It's unfortunate but not unavoidable, since people, tragically, browse these sites looking mainly for personal validation. The truth is acceptable only as long as it reinforces their preferred image of themselves.
srry, here is the link to the article:
http://www.world-science.net/exclusives/071222_beauty.htm
Erik,
I noticed that these fashion models obviously stand closer to the women you put in your attractive women section. Many people will say that the women you post in that section look young and "like a regular girl you would see walking down the street or in a mall". However, this is the reason these girls are soo attractive, because averageness is attractive to us since it is easier for our brains to process average features, and neotony is attracive to us because it indicates youth and in turn health. Then you go farther and claim that women that are more feminine than the average, are typically more attractive. I agree with this as well. My question is based on this study:
Please read!
I would like to know, what is the difference between the first "average" face and then the second face composed of the most attractive faces? I do feel it is more feminine, has lower cheekbones, but I can't really put my finger on it. I agree it is more attractive, but I don't know why? Can you please point out EXACTLY what makes this face more attractive than the first?
It's all biology really.
Your idea parallels one that already exsists, however while your idea is that the features they look for is masculine vs. feminine, in more proper terms it is neoteny vs. dominant features. Here is the site URL: http://employees.csbsju.edu/lmealey/hotspots/Chapter09.htm.
There are the "dominant" features: high cheekbones, strong jawline, high forehead, heighth. These are features that happen to be more common in males due to mate selection, as females prefer "dominant" features in men. Then there are "neotenic" (or babylike) features: large eyes, large lips, long eyelashes, small nose. These features happen to be more common in females, due to men's preference of neoteny features in women.
If the objective of a model is to be a beautiful, blank canvas then the best way to appeal to all audiences is by having someone with both features so that when they add whatever fashion, the model's features can play up the parts.
Eric: High heels have some negatives, but these can be reduced by using insolia inserts or something equivalent.
I worked in woman's shoes for a long while. I am pretty sure there is a problem with most woman's shoes, fashionable or not. The ankle support inst there which results in a lot of issues in that area especially in the golden years.
I think allot of this "masculinity" in women is pretty subjective it reads like allot of art historical text from the Italian early modern period. you are also assuming there is a quintessence of womanhood... and manhood(our societal notion of this really comes from allot of gay sources if you look closely.) ... this branding is too similar to the fashion hierarchy to me.
I think you are totally over looking what chanel did to the fashion world too, historically that seems to be the start of your masculinization, not so much her, but 20 century modernism ( flapper look, abandoning the courset for jersey material that is more akin to active wear... i think that the binary approach to gender is becoming pretty suspicious. It is probably of more use to the hard sciences.
I think the aproximation that men can be feminine is an utter failure of binary thinking. Gay men are equated with the female gender but i really dont draw the parallel between women ( and if you are going to cite 4th wave feminism's gynomisation of races other then white and queer persona as a basis to categorized male persons as feminine you are falling prey to the failure of binary thinking as well, I would say that it is a seperate construct more closely affiliated with high culture you see it alot in celebrities like the Hilton girl too.
But i think calling this "feminine" you are seeing in gay men (and i am seeing in some women that are conspicuous consumers) is not a product of queer culture either. Queer culture such as the Leather movement(which has its own problems steming from a binary effort to distiquish itself from the gay-as-fairy steriotype[which arose in pre-christian Rome but really matured in pre-kinesy era judeo-christian-muslim world])participants and early segment of the lesbian movement were anti-high fashion as it is a construction that comodifies women and really capitalizes off of the "pink pound." Gay identing as feminine serves as a counterbalance to help perpetuate exhausting role of being the pilar of society placed squarely on white hetero/sexist roman ideology -(and those instrumental to their political motives to secure leadership) as creators/conquerors of society. Postmodernism seems to be calling into question our progess as it drags like a nice long painful audit. Probably the most successful method of power structuring is absolute democracy which would be initially so hazardous as things exist today
i think your willingness to blame all gays for fashion is also suspicious lesbian culture seems to be pretty opposed. and the high end affiliations of gay culture are really not with out really specific agents more related to "heterosexual-elite" patronage
This gets into all sorts of arguments about the ruling bodies with in society
I think your bit partisan... yes fashion is bad, but so is this typification, and idealization... it is pretty alienating and strangely fictional kind of like the academic autopsy of baroque art or werewolves
One poster wanted to throw Venus and Serena Williams into this discussion somewhere, but probably female professional athletes don't really enter into your thesis at all. Besides, there is increasing evidence that their linebacker-like physiques quite possibly were steroid induced.
Tia Carrera, jaw and shoulders maxing out. Not a model, though.
The sun just came up a little bit, so it's a new day. Another great beauty with lots of jawbone is Kristy Swanson, shoulders to the max, too. I read in RR's bio that RR was referred to as the 'Jolly Blonde Giant' in school, so maybe even then, her classmates were picking up a little of that masculine vibe, since giantism is generally considered masculine, too.
My final post, for today, anyway. Please do not avoid nudity on this site, particularly since you used it almost exclusively to illustrate your thesis.
To further reinforce your argument about jawline, notice how most of the photographers hide that feature with a swoop of hair, angle of camera or other device.
Oh, in the square jaw department, consider another Sports Illustrated covergirl, Kathy Ireland. Somebody else already pointed out Elle McPherson. Interesting the confluence of this feature on a magazine devoted to sports other than girl watching. Hmmmmm.
Oh, and since my identity wasn't threatened by any of this, thanks to the poster who came up with the photos of Carol Lynley, one of my all-time favorites. By the way, Marilyn Monroe spent most of her career between sizes 14-18 and was actually a redhead. Look closely at the famous calendar poses that launched her career; you can still see traces of strawberry blonde in it. The blazing red backdrop tends to overwhelm it, but it's there.
Discussing for a moment one of the secondary assertions you make in your article: (I hope I got this right) predominantly homosexual fashion designers strongly tend to choose models with masculine characteristics. This is unquestionably true. All the highest fashion houses design with sizes (00-02) that suggest young boys, devoid of breasts and buttocks. Height must be at least 5'10; this too is masculine. And woe be to the model who gains even a few pounds in feminine places; they are banished to modeling swimwear and lingerie, like RR. In fact, it is always a matter of wonderment and note when a model shows up on a runway with anything approaching a feminine figure. Africans are tolerated in this context because they introduce the exotic factor, some are even quite overbearingly masculine, Iman and Grace Jones, to a lesser extent Naomi Campbell and Tyra Banks. This last has actually created a whole series on TV based on models looking fierce, no, capitalize that, FIERCE. She constantly turns aways stunningly beautiful, extremely feminine contestants in favor of angular, small-breasted, thin, but FIERCE candidates.
There are many women who are considered extremely beautiful and feminine who have the two main features you 'criticize?' RR for exhibiting. I won't go into the square shoulder debate, but for square jaws, consider Carmen Electra, Salma Hayek, Cindy Crawford, Paula Abdul, Ava Gardner, Nicole Kidman, Ashley Judd (and her mom, Naomi.) Just a sampling. Perhaps a square jaw isn't as clearly a masculine characteristic as your article suggests, just as a cleft chin isn't: Lucy Liu, Jessica Simpson, Marilyn Monroe. Regarding RR's selection as Mystique: you left out, I think, perhaps her MOST masculine feature; she's almost 6' tall. In the movies, she has to kick some very bad guy/mutant haters boo-tays. Check the stills from the scene where she has giant manacles on when she's flying through the air attacking them or choking them. Were this a diminutive or less broad shouldered heroine, the fight scene would not work as well, especially the choking. Some prominent slender, 'feminine' women such as Cameron Diaz and Lucy Liu (in the Charlie's Angels films) have been depicted as fearsome warriors, but it always plays a little (or a lot) fake. Lucy has a little more credibility as a martial artist because she is Asian, but neither is credible taking or delivering a punch. The acrobatics, OK. The speed of their maneuvers, OK, but not the blows they receive and deliver. RR, as Mystique, does not suffer from this disbelief. Also, she has avoided the MOST masculine of traits we see in actresses and artists today: washboard abs and hard, cut muscles, such as Madonna exhibits. Also, Layla is not very pretty; she is an example a 'blank canvas upon which to create' type of face (and body, too.) You mention an observer needing other, feminine visual cues to determine if RR, or any other character, is indeed a woman. Bear in mind, in modeling, the cues are ALWAYS there: hair, breasts, legs, makeup, clothes, context, body and facial features other than height, shoulder bone structure, and jawline. It IS interesting to note that facial makeup for Mystique shadowed out much of the squareness of her jawline using darker pigment from ear to chin eliminating much of the rear of her jaw where the squareness is most pronounced.
Rebecca Romijn IS attractive for all those reasons.You are right Richard.
so I'm gay for liking Rebecca Romijn? if thats what these others think,well then,HI FELLAS!Rebecca is as sexy, as women get.
And really...Heidi's bones are sticking out in almost every picture. That's just disgusting.
Dude, what are you talking about? Kristin Kreuk looks gorgeous to me, even in the bad lighting she looks cute... much more so than that other girl you posted- too bland. And I've never even heard of either of them before now.
Can you pin-point exactly what you find ugly about Kreuk?
Um...Why in the hell are people calling Dana fat? Her tummy isn't even big. It's soft and naturally rounded. The female tummy normally is. I personally have never found the flat tummy look appealing AND it builds the muscles in that area up causing the waist to be large. I've got a body like Dana's. No one ever calls me fat these days. I think some of you need to stop watching the TV. It's rotting your brain.
Pages