"The truth is that you have to step on some toes when you want to change attitudes. Diplomacy can sometimes come across as weakness."
To change attitudes you have to walk on the fine line between sycophancy and offensive directness. Everyone to an extent dismisses negativity and criticism as jealousy and it's hard to imagine people in the fashion industry judging this as the work of a hater.
"Men have been bombarded with masculine models for so long, and they are told that they should desire them, so they begin to actually prefer them, UNTIL they see the difference when you start comparing them to more normal and feminine women."
We are not the first era to have an androgynized aesthetic for women.
There was no mass media in ancient Egypt and Ancient Rome, and only newspapers in the mid 1800s when the pre-Raphaelite painters were active, yet the androgynized and masculinized women they portrayed were considered quite beautiful, as were the feminine boys. Androgyny is a constant theme in western art that goes in and out of fashion. Androgynous beauty is certainly not the only kind, which is why Erik's site is useful, but to posit that it's current popularity is solely the result of conspiracy and sheeplike men blindly following the mass media is simply ahistorical.
The fashion industry is overwhelmingly dominated by white models so he's right in focusing on white women here. His main goal seems to be to change men's perception of what is attractive in white women, and to put pressure on the fashion industry. He has never said his goal was to show all kinds of women. You can use one type in order to show a general problem. If you think a car model looks bad you don't have to show that car in all colors available. You will still get the point.
The truth is that you have to step on some toes when you want to change attitudes. Diplomacy can sometimes come across as weakness. If he thinks a model is masculine he should say so. They often are. Being direct sometimes makes you seem less "nice" but it's easier to disregard someone who tries to be a crowd-pleaser. The truth is that fashion designers prefer masculine, VERY thin models without any curves or natural body fat. Slender or slim to them is seriously the same thing as being fat! They seem to want to avoid feminine, healthy models at all costs, and that's not normal or acceptable.
Men have been bombarded with masculine models for so long, and they are told that they should desire them, so they begin to actually prefer them, UNTIL they see the difference when you start comparing them to more normal and feminine women.
If you repeat a lie often enough it becomes the truth, it seems. The fashion industry is doing exactly that. I think it's propaganda, and the goal is to make the differences between feminine and masculine - women and men - smaller and less clear. It's anyone's guess why they do it. The fact is though, that men within the fashion industry are often not heterosexual, and more often than not homosexual.
And these men seem pretty content too with their choices..
No, I'm not a lesbian. I love men. :) This site is about feminine beauty, you know, so the topic of discussion is women's looks. One can appreciate beauty without being sexually attracted. Voila, you learn something new every day. Your question seems rather immature. Women generally love to assess and comment on other women's looks, so we must all be lesbians, then.
When it comes to beauty I do think Nordic women, generally speaking, are outstanding. I think their femininity, elegance and refined and delicate facial features are unsurpassed. So is the color of their eyes, hair and skin. I'm not saying that I cannot see beauty in other types and races, as well. I do. However, I find that the sheer amount of elegant, beautiful and feminine Nordics is higher than in other types and races. There are more of them, simply put, when you compare the same amount of women. This is something that most men who visit Scandinavia will verify.
Are Britney's cheekbones high or low? To me they appear low but this picture throws me off. Why? Is it just airbrushed to make her cheekbones look high?
It is pretty sad that scientists don't really know what they are talking about because they cannot even properly define what they are studying, such as high cheekbones. There is so much confusing research out there that is so contradictory and a person like me will easily get confused. I am kind of getting into anthropology. I was always interested in differences between people, where people got certain characteristics from, culture, etc. So I look up this stuff when I have time, but I realized that few sources are credible. Anyways, I do get the point about high cheekbones. I always thought that high cheekbones were really just well defined cheekbones, but they are just placed high on the face. I always thought the reason Marilyn Monroe's face was considered so attractive was because of her "high cheekbones" but now I think she only had well-defined low cheekbones. Are there people that are just in between though? Anyways, here are some pictures of Marilyn Monroe:
Ok, so I went a little crazy with the pictures but am I right that she is really feminine and so are her cheekbones? Also, I noticed that Marilyn's wide face makes her extremely attractive. However, how common is a wider face among Northern Europeans? They are obviously the most feminine as you explained, so do they too often have wider faces? My face is medium, and I can't seem to find anyone in my family (we are Northern European) with a wide face.
If you do end up posting pictures comparing cheekbones, might I suggest that you also post up pics of men with low and high cheekbones. I know this whole website is about women and not men but I think that if you posted a pic of a low cheekboned female compared to a highcheekboned female next to a male with high cheekbones I can see how a masculine woman looks more like a man than a feminine woman. Also, I read in many articles recently that high cheekbones are actually sexually selected by women in men. Women like high cheekbones on men because it makes them more masculine. I would like to see and compare how cheekbones enhance a man's appearance but don't do the same for a woman's appearance.
One more question, and sorry if its stupid, but I noticed that masculine men are attracted to super feminine women, and visa versa. So, about evolution... will extreme femininity and masculinity eventually die out and will we all be kind of balanced and in the middle of the scale of femininty and masculinity? How is femininity preserved in this case? I am attracted to more masculine men with high cheekbones, but I want to have feminine kids. I don't think its possible to have feminine kids if I go for the type of men I like.
Also, I see your point with the model you posted. Her cheekbones indeed are not high according to your def. and pics. They are just wide and well-defined. I do think her cheekbones are really the only thing that makes her attractive though.
Hi Erik,
I've visited your site for a while and you present an interesting case. I was recently diagnosed with polycystic ovarian syndrome, a condition where women have higher than normal male hormones. In retrospect I look back and see many parts of my personality - my rigorous lack of sentimentality in debate, my ability to detach and not take intellectual matters (like your website) personally, my higher than average sex drive and a preoccupation with sex - as evidence of high androgens.
I am considered attractive, though, since many men do like cheekbones when combined with a small chin, nose and large eyes. I approve of your aim to show how unrealistic the fashion model is to emulate, however I have a few suggestions. A lot of quant guys aren't great at PR, so I suggest that you soften your language a bit. Instead of calling certain women "masculine" (unless they really do resemble linebackers) you might call them "relatively masculine". Instead of saying a woman "is not feminine" you could say she "is not particularly feminine". Instead of saying "she is feminine" you could say "she is extremely feminine". I know that it seems like splitting hairs, but if you want to persuade people you must to a certain extent cater to their sensibilities or you simply preach to the choir.
The lack of non-white women in the attractive women file is definitely a sore point for some visitors, and I suggest you create a section for non-white beauties. Even if you aren't attracted to non-white women (and I am not criticizing you if that's the case) your criteria is objective and could easily be applied in comparing non-white women to each other as you did with Zuleyka Rivera Mendoza and Natalia Cruze.
Finally, you argue that many outwardly straight men in the fashion world have been intimate with men and thus like the looks of relatively mannish women. Models like Adriana Lima and Alessandra Ambrosio are very popular with men in all walks of life and to say that men who like them are gay or bi (and saying they aren't "lifetime exclusive heterosexuals" is unconvincing euphemism that placates no one) will not endear your arguments to them. It's a very minimal part of your theory and I suggest you stop writing about it. The multicultural fashion industry will not take you seriously if you cannot produce feminine women of different races, and its straight men will not appreciate you questioning their sexuality. Still, the fashion world needs to showcase all types of beauty so your perspective would be helpful if you were a bit more diplomatic.
Tammy: You called Asians the most feminine ethnic group and then inferred from their cheekbones how more feminine cheekbones should look like. There are two problems with this approach. Firstly, face shape differences across ethnic groups are overwhelmingly due to factors apart from sex hormones and other elements responsible for making men look different from women. Secondly, East Asians have reduced secondary sexual characteristics compared to Europeans, which means that the men look less masculine and the women less feminine on average compared to their European counterparts, but this cannot be described as East Asians being a more feminine ethnic group. Just looking at the example of East Asian women, there are far fewer East Asian women with hourglass figures than European women. Whereas East Asian women have lower testosterone levels than European women, on average, they also have lower estrogen levels and higher testosterone levels for a given amount of estrogen levels. All this hardly translates to describing East Asian women as more feminine than European women, and they look less feminine than European women, on average. If East Asians were a more feminine ethnic group, both their men and women would be more feminine than their counterparts in a more masculine ethnic group.
Tammy: This high cheekbones issue has created a lot of trouble for me. Too many people use the term to refer to width or sideways prominence. You mentioned this topic in the scientific literature, and I know that there have been contradictory findings, partly because the researchers have not used the term in a consistent manner and partly because they didn’t have proper controls. I suppose I will have to come up with picture comparisons, but this will take a while. In the meantime, the following should help.
In the image below, the orange part colors the cheekbones, and you can observe that the yellow part of the mid-facial bone forms part of the bony portion of the cheeks. The cross-hatched portion refers to the arches of the cheekbones.
Now look at the following skulls; the female is at the left. Note that the cheekbone arches are much more powerfully developed in the male (right) but the cheekbones in the cheek area are shrunken in the male (all references are to shape differences). Note also that the cheekbones sit higher on the face in the male (a combination of the shrunk appearance of the bony portion of the cheeks and the longer lower face; if you saw these skulls in front view, you would also note that a more powerful development of the cheekbone arches further tends to make more masculine cheekbones appear placed higher on the face). The skulls are shown at different angles and I will try to find better examples, but I think you should get the idea.
Now if you look at Gabrielle, whereas her cheekbone arches are somewhat sideways prominent, her cheekbones are also expanded in the cheek area. This is a good illustration of how much of her cheeks are filled with the cheekbones (a lot); the placement of the cheekbones is clearly low on the face. The picture on top of this page isn’t clear because she is looking down, but expansion of the cheekbones in the cheek area is a more significant feature of Gabrielle’s cheeks than the development of the cheekbone arches.
So the answer to the attractiveness question is that a more feminine development of the cheekbones in women and a more masculine development of the cheekbones in men will tend to correspond to greater attractiveness, within limits, of course. And since attractiveness depends on how it all fits together, you will surely find attractive and overall feminine-looking women with high cheekbones (as in high placement of the cheekbones on the face).
I don't see why you think "pasty" is a bad thing. Although tan skin can make almost anyone look more attractive many white women pull off "ivory" or very white skin off very beautifully. My mother is very pale with blue eyes, if she was tanner she would look fake and unnatural as blue eyes rarely go with tan skin. However, she doesn't need to tan because her vibrant ivory skin and light blue eyes make her a sight to see. She was so beautiful when she was younger. A quality that makes many people attractive does not make ALL people attractive and in fact can do the opposite. So yes, many white women don't look good extremely white, but MANY white women do look good. Many tan middle easterners look amazing with darker skin, however some don't look good with their darker skin. Also, many middle easterners have darker features so darker skin matches that. It's like picking between a white or chocolate labrador, it all comes down to your individiual preferences. Although, I have to say that a softer color of the skin to me is more feminine. This is not to say that a woman with dark skin is not feminine, but how soft is that version of the color. If she is brown, is it a soft brown? White woman often have a soft color. White women with pinkish skin as often seen in the very nordic countries, still look good with that pink skin as long as it is a soft pink. Even skin tone contributes a lot to everything as well.
ok well I didn't know I was using the wrong terminology. But now since you know what I mean, when people say that high cheekbones give a more youthful appearance later in life reducing eye wrinkles, etc. do they mean high cheekbones or sideways prominent ones. Also, is it possible for a female with high cheekbones to still be feminine overall? I read somewhere on here that Asians are the most feminine race, looked it up and found it was true. Asians often have high cheekbones. So now I am confused as to why high cheekbones are masculine, if the most feminine race tends to have higher cheekbones. Also, can you please post some pictures of women with sideways prominent cheekbones because I don't know if I just can't tell the diff. For example this woman you posted on this page to me seems to have high cheekbones because they expand right below the temple just like you said. Yet you claim she is feminine? Do you understand my confusion?
I can't tell the diff. between high and "sideways prominent" cheekbones. I understand what you are saying but then looking at this picture I see by your definition she has high cheekbones. "the cheekbones expand in the arches (the bony process of the cheebones, just beneath the temple). " Her cheekbones expand at the arches. She is attractive however her hairstyle, lips, and bad nose make her unattractive. I am still confused about the whole cheekbone thing.
Also, there has been extensive research done on the appeal of high cheekbones. The results are always that "high cheekbones" add attractiveness to both males and females. Both males and females are sexually selected over "low-cheekboned" counterparts. If you want some links I can provide them just ask, but I am too lazy to go back and get them right now. Of course within those results is also the fact that cheekbones that are too high start to lose their charm and therefore high cheekbones that are not too high are most attractive but that high cheekbones in general are more attractive than low. So, are the researchers really mistakening "high" cheekbones for "sideways prominent ones"? Just look up some research on your own and you will easily find what I am talking about. So please clear the whole high cheekbone vs. sideways prominent cheekbones confusion with me.
Also: What about the whole Halle Barry epidemic? I mean why were people so crazy about her high cheekbones if they were unattractive? Why are women to this day still requesting to have their cheekbones done like hers?
Moonface: I did not say that looking like a child is a correlate of beauty in women. With increasing femininity, attractiveness will start diminishing beyond some point.
paerarru: Your comment is centered on the following:
I think the problem is that you have confused femininity with human female attractiveness. They are not the same thing! Yes, the studies show that more feminine women are generally more attractive than masculine women, and that makes sense after all, but that doesn't mean that the -most- feminine woman is the most attractive, not at all! It would be fallacious to make this conclusion.
The data cited in the article that you are commenting on clearly do not equate femininity to female attractiveness or argue that the most feminine woman is the most attractive. So I don’t see how you can assign the interpretation in your quote to me.
I agree with you that most men’s preferences are less of a concern to pornographers than the preferences of the men who regularly purchase pornography, but why should we assume that these regulars are getting exactly what they want? Most women will not pose nude, let alone indulge in pornography. So you are wasting your time trying to explain the looks of porn stars primarily in terms of what the customers prefer. You must also consider non-looks-related factors such as screen presence and behavior.
The subgenre of porn that focuses on women with very large breasts usually doesn’t sell as well as regular porn because this is a niche, and the models or actresses are disproportionately overweight or obese.
You got it right that regular porn customers are more into atypical or disinhibited sex acts, but they are also a minority among men. Most men will be exposed to porn but few will become regular customers. So the preferences of these regulars should not be extrapolated to most men.
You also said that if regular customers more into atypical or disinhibited sex acts were interested in feminine women, they would make porn movies featuring feminine women best sellers. But, there are few feminine women porn stars to start with and fewer still who will indulge in more atypical/disinhibited sex acts, and the latter will usually be co-featured with the less feminine ones as the pornographers would like to make more money by having customers buy 5 videos featuring 5 women each and only one attractive woman per video rather than one movie with 5 attractive women. So the pornographers are hardly making ‘”feminine” women bestsellers.’
WOMEN THAT RICH MEN WANT OR END UP WITH
I didn’t make it clear that when I talked about rich men disproportionately taking up the more feminine and attractive women, I was specifically talking about wives. I added the note about wives after the statement. So wives are included, but so are other types of female partners, whom I explicitly stated later as girlfriends or escorts, and this isn’t changing my tune. It should be obvious that the women that rich men are disproportionately seen with in upscale settings are not necessarily their wives. You can add mistresses or concubines to the list.
You interpreted my statement that “There is no reason why an interest in masculinized women and Bayes’ theorem cannot work in concert” as incompatible with the claim that feminine women are disproportionately taken up by rich men, and earlier as incompatible with a greater frequency of nonheterosexuality among rich men.
Let us say that 10% of the general male population but 20% of rich men are interested in masculinized women because of higher rates of nonheterosexuality among rich men. Let us assume that most of the remaining men in either group are interested in feminine women. Let us say that 33% of the general male population but 25% of rich men end up with masculinized women. Let us say that 33% of the general male population but 40% of rich men end up with feminine women. Under these assumptions, we note that rich men are disproportionately nonheterosexual and disproportionately take up more feminine women. We also note that among rich men, even though they are few and desirable and hence have their choice of women, 60% end up with normal or masculinized women whereas upward of 70% and less than 80% prefer feminine women. So at least 5% of rich men who either prefer feminine or normal women end up with masculinized women and roughly a third or more of rich men end up with a female partner with a non-desired level of masculinity-femininity. This hypothetical scenario is simultaneously compatible with a higher prevalence of nonheterosexuality among rich men, rich men disproportionately taking up feminine women (this would be especially so if we consider what kind of women these men obtain on the side) and many rich men marrying women who they don’t find particularly physically appealing for a variety of reasons such as personality factors, an attempt to avoid gold-diggers (see the discussion on Bayes’ logic), business interests, trying to keep wealth within the extended family, etc. So I don’t have a problem making up my mind.
Tammy: The term ‘high’ in ‘high cheekbones’ obviously refers to height (high vs. low) or vertical placement on the face. Prominence or sideways projection of the cheekbones is a separate matter. I don’t completely disagree with your statement that ‘High cheekbones are a sign of beauty/attractiveness in women’ since you are actually referring to sideways prominence of the cheekbones, and more attractive women will more often than not have wider faces than the less attractive ones, but you have chosen incorrect terminology. With feminization-related shape changes, the cheekbones expand in the cheek area whereas with masculinization the cheekbones expand in the arches (the bony process of the cheebones, just beneath the temple). So a combination of shape changes comprising of shrunk cheekbones in the cheek area, expanded cheekbone arches and a longer lower face give a high appearance/placement of the cheekbones with masculinization.
The face shape differences between high-fashion models and glamour models shown within this site are predominantly because of the bony face structure, not the amount of fat deposited in the face because these women, like typical people, have little fat in the face.
Ok, I don't get it. Why would men like a weak stupid retarded looking woman anyways? I mean if I were a guy I would want a woman that has feminine qualities but not to the point where she looks like a child or a retard. Not to mention many of the women in your attractive women's section have bad teeth. Bad teeth or good teeth can totally alter bone structure. The women in your pics have weak jaws and "low cheekbones" or more accuratley ill-defined cheekbones because their teeth are bad. High cheekbones are not cheekbones placed high on the face. They are prominent cheekbones, or cheekbones that are well-defined. Please look up the definition of high cheekbones before you make up your own. High cheekbones are a sign of fertility in women. High cheekbones are a sign of beauty/attractiveness in women. The reason high fashion models' cheekbones look masculine is because there is no fat on them. This makes them look robust and manly. Women that are feminine will gain fat on their faces causing a more rounded face appearance, but the cheekbones can still be prominent. This is actually what an attractive women should look like. She should have fat placed on the right places on her face, including her cheekbones. Her cheekbones should be well-defined but softened due to the fat placement. Therefore she looks feminine but "well-structured", soft but strong, not weak and retarded. Women lose fat from their faces as they age due to a change in hormones. This causes them to look more masculinized as they age. High cheekbones are a good thing. Weight loss will result in little fat on the face causing the cheekbones to appear too prominent. This gives off the "masculine" look. The only part you have right is the fact that wider lips are in fact more masculine.
I also find #1 more attractive than #7, and #8 closely trailing #7 in third place, along with #4.
I'm sorry Erik but despite some very good observations, your argument fails. I think the problem is that you have confused femininity with human female attractiveness. They are not the same thing! Yes, the studies show that more feminine women are generally more attractive than masculine women, and that makes sense after all, but that doesn't mean that the -most- feminine woman is the most attractive, not at all! It would be fallacious to make this conclusion.
In fact, it makes sense that a certain degree of masculinity, certainly not excessive but nonetheless well marked, a number of harmonizing masculine features would be seen as attractive in women... and viceversa! After all, mothers that are -too- feminine would beget male children that are too feminine, while fathers that are -too- masculine would beget female children that are too masculine. The two extremes are not desirable! Parents are looking to beget children -of both sexes- that are primarily healthy, but also attractive, meaning sexually desirable, and because of the mixture of features from -both- parents, because of the very nature of the exchange, a -balanced- set of features is bound to become the most sought after. No super-masculine men, and no super-feminine women, but overall masculine men with a few soft touches, and overall feminine women with a few sharp features. That's the true ideal of beauty! What's interesting is that you yourself touch upon this in your discussion on "antagonistic selection", but you failed to realize how your very own correct, rational, common sense expectations contradict the main premise of the whole site!
I think you have let your personal preferences get in the way of your reasoning. It's fine if you prefer extra "feminine" women to sharp featured, more lean and athletic model types, but you should realize that your preference has absolutely no bearing on the general, popular attractiveness or -true- femininity of these women! It is simply your personal preference. Contrary to what you might have incorrectly inferred from proper scientific studies...
Beyond masculine and feminine, there's actually an encompassing, -human- beauty ideal. And this is the one that matters most. Symmetry, fitness, a healthy degree of diversity, all these and others are much more important factors, when it comes to human attractiveness, than sheer masculinity and femininity. I'm sorry Erik, not only is your argument ultimately incorrect, but your aesthetic sense seems very eschewed, and lacking. Or at best unrefined.
Despite being surrounded by Nordic women this Nowegian man married an African woman.
There are many beautiful Nordics, but there are beautiful people in every race, and everyone has their tastes. I think the Russian women posted are more attractive than the Swedish ones. Nordic beauty tends more toward the bland, media-perfect look where the Russian women look more interesting and unique.
So I want to have beautiful daughters, but I am attracted to really really masculine men. Can I still have a beautiful daughter if I have one with a really masculine man? I myself am very feminine, at least according to what I learned from your website. So if I am feminine can I still have a feminine daughter with a masculine man? I don't like the feminine men:(.
Oh and do you think lots of men go for women like this because of their subconcious desire to have strong looking sons? Can't a feminine woman beat out a woman like this? I mean can't a feminine woman still have a masculine son if the father is masculine? I thought feminine woman always win over the masculinized ones.
I look "like a Roman" God only a bit more feminine. I have the bone structure of those typical Romans though and it is probably because I have Roman ancestry, not Italian ancestry, Roman. I don't think I am your mainstream beauty, but I do believe I am beautiful and intelligent. Am I masculine? Yes I have masculine aspects. My nose is a bit hooked. Am I intelligent? Yes, or at least my IQ score tells me so. Can I run faster than you? Yes, thanks to my "masculine" body characteristics. Do I still have big breasts and a curvy but fit and strong body? Yes. I can break blocks with my fist and do the splits. I have a tiny waist (25) compared to my hips(34) and am of average height, my nose bridge is tall and high, I have naturally golden hair (light ash blonde/platinum when I was younger. My eyes can appear black or hazel depending on lighting. I have a round face that is often mistaken for oval. I have a big skull(very broad and sort of flat).
Can a masculine woman be beautiful? Yes. You just have to look at the whole package.
I am not trying to be conceided, I am just trying to prove a point. Stop feeling bad if you are a more masculine woman. I am not "really" masculine, but I do have my masculine features (hooked nose). However, I take what I have and make the best of it. I refuse to get plastic surgery. My boyfriend takes me for what I am. If you don't like my nose than that is fine. However, I usually get to pick and choose who I want to be with. I never had a problem with selection.
Don't even take Emily seriously. She actually believes the crap she writes. Of course most Swedish women and most Nordic women in general DO NOT have blonde hair. She just lives in a fantasy world. The majority of blonde people live in the Nordic countries, but there are blondes all throughout Europe. In fact I have seen many blondes in Southern and Eastern Europe with lighter blonde hair than some Nordic women. I have traveled to Finland because I have friends there. My neice has platinum blonde hair. She is Hungarian,Polish, and Czech.
This could be completely irrelevant, but I felt inclined to comment, as a masculine-looking female. My parents were paragons of masculinity and femininity (i.e. my father was ultra-masculine and my mother was ultra-feminine - I have never seen a woman more feminine than my mother). However, I've ended up more closely resembling my dad, as have my brothers (yes, of course I am resentful). This would imply that femininity isn't as dominant as masculinity when it comes to expressing itself. Interestingly, I've looked through the photo albums of my dad's family in previous generations, and it's the same thing all along - very masculine men (at least one son of each generation has been in military service), and masculine and plain-looking women (like myself). There must be a genetic tendency to it - I certainly hope I have sons because my husband is masculine too!
Just to reassure female visitors - there is nothing to say that just because you may look masculine you are unattractive. I am probably more masculine-looking than any of you and I've attracted many men, because of my attitude and personality! Obviously some men have been derogatory to me in the past, but as these tend to be the fat, unattractive ones I really don't mind ;)
"The truth is that you have to step on some toes when you want to change attitudes. Diplomacy can sometimes come across as weakness."
To change attitudes you have to walk on the fine line between sycophancy and offensive directness. Everyone to an extent dismisses negativity and criticism as jealousy and it's hard to imagine people in the fashion industry judging this as the work of a hater.
"Men have been bombarded with masculine models for so long, and they are told that they should desire them, so they begin to actually prefer them, UNTIL they see the difference when you start comparing them to more normal and feminine women."
We are not the first era to have an androgynized aesthetic for women.
There was no mass media in ancient Egypt and Ancient Rome, and only newspapers in the mid 1800s when the pre-Raphaelite painters were active, yet the androgynized and masculinized women they portrayed were considered quite beautiful, as were the feminine boys. Androgyny is a constant theme in western art that goes in and out of fashion. Androgynous beauty is certainly not the only kind, which is why Erik's site is useful, but to posit that it's current popularity is solely the result of conspiracy and sheeplike men blindly following the mass media is simply ahistorical.
The fashion industry is overwhelmingly dominated by white models so he's right in focusing on white women here. His main goal seems to be to change men's perception of what is attractive in white women, and to put pressure on the fashion industry. He has never said his goal was to show all kinds of women. You can use one type in order to show a general problem. If you think a car model looks bad you don't have to show that car in all colors available. You will still get the point.
The truth is that you have to step on some toes when you want to change attitudes. Diplomacy can sometimes come across as weakness. If he thinks a model is masculine he should say so. They often are. Being direct sometimes makes you seem less "nice" but it's easier to disregard someone who tries to be a crowd-pleaser. The truth is that fashion designers prefer masculine, VERY thin models without any curves or natural body fat. Slender or slim to them is seriously the same thing as being fat! They seem to want to avoid feminine, healthy models at all costs, and that's not normal or acceptable.
Men have been bombarded with masculine models for so long, and they are told that they should desire them, so they begin to actually prefer them, UNTIL they see the difference when you start comparing them to more normal and feminine women.
If you repeat a lie often enough it becomes the truth, it seems. The fashion industry is doing exactly that. I think it's propaganda, and the goal is to make the differences between feminine and masculine - women and men - smaller and less clear. It's anyone's guess why they do it. The fact is though, that men within the fashion industry are often not heterosexual, and more often than not homosexual.
And these men seem pretty content too with their choices..
No, I'm not a lesbian. I love men. :) This site is about feminine beauty, you know, so the topic of discussion is women's looks. One can appreciate beauty without being sexually attracted. Voila, you learn something new every day. Your question seems rather immature. Women generally love to assess and comment on other women's looks, so we must all be lesbians, then.
When it comes to beauty I do think Nordic women, generally speaking, are outstanding. I think their femininity, elegance and refined and delicate facial features are unsurpassed. So is the color of their eyes, hair and skin. I'm not saying that I cannot see beauty in other types and races, as well. I do. However, I find that the sheer amount of elegant, beautiful and feminine Nordics is higher than in other types and races. There are more of them, simply put, when you compare the same amount of women. This is something that most men who visit Scandinavia will verify.
Are Britney's cheekbones high or low? To me they appear low but this picture throws me off. Why? Is it just airbrushed to make her cheekbones look high?
Erik,
It is pretty sad that scientists don't really know what they are talking about because they cannot even properly define what they are studying, such as high cheekbones. There is so much confusing research out there that is so contradictory and a person like me will easily get confused. I am kind of getting into anthropology. I was always interested in differences between people, where people got certain characteristics from, culture, etc. So I look up this stuff when I have time, but I realized that few sources are credible. Anyways, I do get the point about high cheekbones. I always thought that high cheekbones were really just well defined cheekbones, but they are just placed high on the face. I always thought the reason Marilyn Monroe's face was considered so attractive was because of her "high cheekbones" but now I think she only had well-defined low cheekbones. Are there people that are just in between though? Anyways, here are some pictures of Marilyn Monroe:
Ok, so I went a little crazy with the pictures but am I right that she is really feminine and so are her cheekbones? Also, I noticed that Marilyn's wide face makes her extremely attractive. However, how common is a wider face among Northern Europeans? They are obviously the most feminine as you explained, so do they too often have wider faces? My face is medium, and I can't seem to find anyone in my family (we are Northern European) with a wide face.
If you do end up posting pictures comparing cheekbones, might I suggest that you also post up pics of men with low and high cheekbones. I know this whole website is about women and not men but I think that if you posted a pic of a low cheekboned female compared to a highcheekboned female next to a male with high cheekbones I can see how a masculine woman looks more like a man than a feminine woman. Also, I read in many articles recently that high cheekbones are actually sexually selected by women in men. Women like high cheekbones on men because it makes them more masculine. I would like to see and compare how cheekbones enhance a man's appearance but don't do the same for a woman's appearance.
One more question, and sorry if its stupid, but I noticed that masculine men are attracted to super feminine women, and visa versa. So, about evolution... will extreme femininity and masculinity eventually die out and will we all be kind of balanced and in the middle of the scale of femininty and masculinity? How is femininity preserved in this case? I am attracted to more masculine men with high cheekbones, but I want to have feminine kids. I don't think its possible to have feminine kids if I go for the type of men I like.
Also, I see your point with the model you posted. Her cheekbones indeed are not high according to your def. and pics. They are just wide and well-defined. I do think her cheekbones are really the only thing that makes her attractive though.
What do you think of Amanda Seyfried?
Hi Erik,
I've visited your site for a while and you present an interesting case. I was recently diagnosed with polycystic ovarian syndrome, a condition where women have higher than normal male hormones. In retrospect I look back and see many parts of my personality - my rigorous lack of sentimentality in debate, my ability to detach and not take intellectual matters (like your website) personally, my higher than average sex drive and a preoccupation with sex - as evidence of high androgens.
I am considered attractive, though, since many men do like cheekbones when combined with a small chin, nose and large eyes. I approve of your aim to show how unrealistic the fashion model is to emulate, however I have a few suggestions. A lot of quant guys aren't great at PR, so I suggest that you soften your language a bit. Instead of calling certain women "masculine" (unless they really do resemble linebackers) you might call them "relatively masculine". Instead of saying a woman "is not feminine" you could say she "is not particularly feminine". Instead of saying "she is feminine" you could say "she is extremely feminine". I know that it seems like splitting hairs, but if you want to persuade people you must to a certain extent cater to their sensibilities or you simply preach to the choir.
The lack of non-white women in the attractive women file is definitely a sore point for some visitors, and I suggest you create a section for non-white beauties. Even if you aren't attracted to non-white women (and I am not criticizing you if that's the case) your criteria is objective and could easily be applied in comparing non-white women to each other as you did with Zuleyka Rivera Mendoza and Natalia Cruze.
Finally, you argue that many outwardly straight men in the fashion world have been intimate with men and thus like the looks of relatively mannish women. Models like Adriana Lima and Alessandra Ambrosio are very popular with men in all walks of life and to say that men who like them are gay or bi (and saying they aren't "lifetime exclusive heterosexuals" is unconvincing euphemism that placates no one) will not endear your arguments to them. It's a very minimal part of your theory and I suggest you stop writing about it. The multicultural fashion industry will not take you seriously if you cannot produce feminine women of different races, and its straight men will not appreciate you questioning their sexuality. Still, the fashion world needs to showcase all types of beauty so your perspective would be helpful if you were a bit more diplomatic.
Tammy: You called Asians the most feminine ethnic group and then inferred from their cheekbones how more feminine cheekbones should look like. There are two problems with this approach. Firstly, face shape differences across ethnic groups are overwhelmingly due to factors apart from sex hormones and other elements responsible for making men look different from women. Secondly, East Asians have reduced secondary sexual characteristics compared to Europeans, which means that the men look less masculine and the women less feminine on average compared to their European counterparts, but this cannot be described as East Asians being a more feminine ethnic group. Just looking at the example of East Asian women, there are far fewer East Asian women with hourglass figures than European women. Whereas East Asian women have lower testosterone levels than European women, on average, they also have lower estrogen levels and higher testosterone levels for a given amount of estrogen levels. All this hardly translates to describing East Asian women as more feminine than European women, and they look less feminine than European women, on average. If East Asians were a more feminine ethnic group, both their men and women would be more feminine than their counterparts in a more masculine ethnic group.
Tammy: This high cheekbones issue has created a lot of trouble for me. Too many people use the term to refer to width or sideways prominence. You mentioned this topic in the scientific literature, and I know that there have been contradictory findings, partly because the researchers have not used the term in a consistent manner and partly because they didn’t have proper controls. I suppose I will have to come up with picture comparisons, but this will take a while. In the meantime, the following should help.
In the image below, the orange part colors the cheekbones, and you can observe that the yellow part of the mid-facial bone forms part of the bony portion of the cheeks. The cross-hatched portion refers to the arches of the cheekbones.
Now look at the following skulls; the female is at the left. Note that the cheekbone arches are much more powerfully developed in the male (right) but the cheekbones in the cheek area are shrunken in the male (all references are to shape differences). Note also that the cheekbones sit higher on the face in the male (a combination of the shrunk appearance of the bony portion of the cheeks and the longer lower face; if you saw these skulls in front view, you would also note that a more powerful development of the cheekbone arches further tends to make more masculine cheekbones appear placed higher on the face). The skulls are shown at different angles and I will try to find better examples, but I think you should get the idea.
Now if you look at Gabrielle, whereas her cheekbone arches are somewhat sideways prominent, her cheekbones are also expanded in the cheek area. This is a good illustration of how much of her cheeks are filled with the cheekbones (a lot); the placement of the cheekbones is clearly low on the face. The picture on top of this page isn’t clear because she is looking down, but expansion of the cheekbones in the cheek area is a more significant feature of Gabrielle’s cheeks than the development of the cheekbone arches.
So the answer to the attractiveness question is that a more feminine development of the cheekbones in women and a more masculine development of the cheekbones in men will tend to correspond to greater attractiveness, within limits, of course. And since attractiveness depends on how it all fits together, you will surely find attractive and overall feminine-looking women with high cheekbones (as in high placement of the cheekbones on the face).
To Sarah,
I don't see why you think "pasty" is a bad thing. Although tan skin can make almost anyone look more attractive many white women pull off "ivory" or very white skin off very beautifully. My mother is very pale with blue eyes, if she was tanner she would look fake and unnatural as blue eyes rarely go with tan skin. However, she doesn't need to tan because her vibrant ivory skin and light blue eyes make her a sight to see. She was so beautiful when she was younger. A quality that makes many people attractive does not make ALL people attractive and in fact can do the opposite. So yes, many white women don't look good extremely white, but MANY white women do look good. Many tan middle easterners look amazing with darker skin, however some don't look good with their darker skin. Also, many middle easterners have darker features so darker skin matches that. It's like picking between a white or chocolate labrador, it all comes down to your individiual preferences. Although, I have to say that a softer color of the skin to me is more feminine. This is not to say that a woman with dark skin is not feminine, but how soft is that version of the color. If she is brown, is it a soft brown? White woman often have a soft color. White women with pinkish skin as often seen in the very nordic countries, still look good with that pink skin as long as it is a soft pink. Even skin tone contributes a lot to everything as well.
Erik,
ok well I didn't know I was using the wrong terminology. But now since you know what I mean, when people say that high cheekbones give a more youthful appearance later in life reducing eye wrinkles, etc. do they mean high cheekbones or sideways prominent ones. Also, is it possible for a female with high cheekbones to still be feminine overall? I read somewhere on here that Asians are the most feminine race, looked it up and found it was true. Asians often have high cheekbones. So now I am confused as to why high cheekbones are masculine, if the most feminine race tends to have higher cheekbones. Also, can you please post some pictures of women with sideways prominent cheekbones because I don't know if I just can't tell the diff. For example this woman you posted on this page to me seems to have high cheekbones because they expand right below the temple just like you said. Yet you claim she is feminine? Do you understand my confusion?
I can't tell the diff. between high and "sideways prominent" cheekbones. I understand what you are saying but then looking at this picture I see by your definition she has high cheekbones. "the cheekbones expand in the arches (the bony process of the cheebones, just beneath the temple). " Her cheekbones expand at the arches. She is attractive however her hairstyle, lips, and bad nose make her unattractive. I am still confused about the whole cheekbone thing.
Also, there has been extensive research done on the appeal of high cheekbones. The results are always that "high cheekbones" add attractiveness to both males and females. Both males and females are sexually selected over "low-cheekboned" counterparts. If you want some links I can provide them just ask, but I am too lazy to go back and get them right now. Of course within those results is also the fact that cheekbones that are too high start to lose their charm and therefore high cheekbones that are not too high are most attractive but that high cheekbones in general are more attractive than low. So, are the researchers really mistakening "high" cheekbones for "sideways prominent ones"? Just look up some research on your own and you will easily find what I am talking about. So please clear the whole high cheekbone vs. sideways prominent cheekbones confusion with me.
Also: What about the whole Halle Barry epidemic? I mean why were people so crazy about her high cheekbones if they were unattractive? Why are women to this day still requesting to have their cheekbones done like hers?
Moonface: I did not say that looking like a child is a correlate of beauty in women. With increasing femininity, attractiveness will start diminishing beyond some point.
paerarru: Your comment is centered on the following:
The data cited in the article that you are commenting on clearly do not equate femininity to female attractiveness or argue that the most feminine woman is the most attractive. So I don’t see how you can assign the interpretation in your quote to me.
For Whipped Honey
FEMININE WOMEN AND THE NORM IN PORN
I agree with you that most men’s preferences are less of a concern to pornographers than the preferences of the men who regularly purchase pornography, but why should we assume that these regulars are getting exactly what they want? Most women will not pose nude, let alone indulge in pornography. So you are wasting your time trying to explain the looks of porn stars primarily in terms of what the customers prefer. You must also consider non-looks-related factors such as screen presence and behavior.
The subgenre of porn that focuses on women with very large breasts usually doesn’t sell as well as regular porn because this is a niche, and the models or actresses are disproportionately overweight or obese.
You got it right that regular porn customers are more into atypical or disinhibited sex acts, but they are also a minority among men. Most men will be exposed to porn but few will become regular customers. So the preferences of these regulars should not be extrapolated to most men.
You also said that if regular customers more into atypical or disinhibited sex acts were interested in feminine women, they would make porn movies featuring feminine women best sellers. But, there are few feminine women porn stars to start with and fewer still who will indulge in more atypical/disinhibited sex acts, and the latter will usually be co-featured with the less feminine ones as the pornographers would like to make more money by having customers buy 5 videos featuring 5 women each and only one attractive woman per video rather than one movie with 5 attractive women. So the pornographers are hardly making ‘”feminine” women bestsellers.’
WOMEN THAT RICH MEN WANT OR END UP WITH
I didn’t make it clear that when I talked about rich men disproportionately taking up the more feminine and attractive women, I was specifically talking about wives. I added the note about wives after the statement. So wives are included, but so are other types of female partners, whom I explicitly stated later as girlfriends or escorts, and this isn’t changing my tune. It should be obvious that the women that rich men are disproportionately seen with in upscale settings are not necessarily their wives. You can add mistresses or concubines to the list.
You interpreted my statement that “There is no reason why an interest in masculinized women and Bayes’ theorem cannot work in concert” as incompatible with the claim that feminine women are disproportionately taken up by rich men, and earlier as incompatible with a greater frequency of nonheterosexuality among rich men.
Let us say that 10% of the general male population but 20% of rich men are interested in masculinized women because of higher rates of nonheterosexuality among rich men. Let us assume that most of the remaining men in either group are interested in feminine women. Let us say that 33% of the general male population but 25% of rich men end up with masculinized women. Let us say that 33% of the general male population but 40% of rich men end up with feminine women. Under these assumptions, we note that rich men are disproportionately nonheterosexual and disproportionately take up more feminine women. We also note that among rich men, even though they are few and desirable and hence have their choice of women, 60% end up with normal or masculinized women whereas upward of 70% and less than 80% prefer feminine women. So at least 5% of rich men who either prefer feminine or normal women end up with masculinized women and roughly a third or more of rich men end up with a female partner with a non-desired level of masculinity-femininity. This hypothetical scenario is simultaneously compatible with a higher prevalence of nonheterosexuality among rich men, rich men disproportionately taking up feminine women (this would be especially so if we consider what kind of women these men obtain on the side) and many rich men marrying women who they don’t find particularly physically appealing for a variety of reasons such as personality factors, an attempt to avoid gold-diggers (see the discussion on Bayes’ logic), business interests, trying to keep wealth within the extended family, etc. So I don’t have a problem making up my mind.
Tammy: The term ‘high’ in ‘high cheekbones’ obviously refers to height (high vs. low) or vertical placement on the face. Prominence or sideways projection of the cheekbones is a separate matter. I don’t completely disagree with your statement that ‘High cheekbones are a sign of beauty/attractiveness in women’ since you are actually referring to sideways prominence of the cheekbones, and more attractive women will more often than not have wider faces than the less attractive ones, but you have chosen incorrect terminology. With feminization-related shape changes, the cheekbones expand in the cheek area whereas with masculinization the cheekbones expand in the arches (the bony process of the cheebones, just beneath the temple). So a combination of shape changes comprising of shrunk cheekbones in the cheek area, expanded cheekbone arches and a longer lower face give a high appearance/placement of the cheekbones with masculinization.
The face shape differences between high-fashion models and glamour models shown within this site are predominantly because of the bony face structure, not the amount of fat deposited in the face because these women, like typical people, have little fat in the face.
Ok, I don't get it. Why would men like a weak stupid retarded looking woman anyways? I mean if I were a guy I would want a woman that has feminine qualities but not to the point where she looks like a child or a retard. Not to mention many of the women in your attractive women's section have bad teeth. Bad teeth or good teeth can totally alter bone structure. The women in your pics have weak jaws and "low cheekbones" or more accuratley ill-defined cheekbones because their teeth are bad. High cheekbones are not cheekbones placed high on the face. They are prominent cheekbones, or cheekbones that are well-defined. Please look up the definition of high cheekbones before you make up your own. High cheekbones are a sign of fertility in women. High cheekbones are a sign of beauty/attractiveness in women. The reason high fashion models' cheekbones look masculine is because there is no fat on them. This makes them look robust and manly. Women that are feminine will gain fat on their faces causing a more rounded face appearance, but the cheekbones can still be prominent. This is actually what an attractive women should look like. She should have fat placed on the right places on her face, including her cheekbones. Her cheekbones should be well-defined but softened due to the fat placement. Therefore she looks feminine but "well-structured", soft but strong, not weak and retarded. Women lose fat from their faces as they age due to a change in hormones. This causes them to look more masculinized as they age. High cheekbones are a good thing. Weight loss will result in little fat on the face causing the cheekbones to appear too prominent. This gives off the "masculine" look. The only part you have right is the fact that wider lips are in fact more masculine.
I also find #1 more attractive than #7, and #8 closely trailing #7 in third place, along with #4.
I'm sorry Erik but despite some very good observations, your argument fails. I think the problem is that you have confused femininity with human female attractiveness. They are not the same thing! Yes, the studies show that more feminine women are generally more attractive than masculine women, and that makes sense after all, but that doesn't mean that the -most- feminine woman is the most attractive, not at all! It would be fallacious to make this conclusion.
In fact, it makes sense that a certain degree of masculinity, certainly not excessive but nonetheless well marked, a number of harmonizing masculine features would be seen as attractive in women... and viceversa! After all, mothers that are -too- feminine would beget male children that are too feminine, while fathers that are -too- masculine would beget female children that are too masculine. The two extremes are not desirable! Parents are looking to beget children -of both sexes- that are primarily healthy, but also attractive, meaning sexually desirable, and because of the mixture of features from -both- parents, because of the very nature of the exchange, a -balanced- set of features is bound to become the most sought after. No super-masculine men, and no super-feminine women, but overall masculine men with a few soft touches, and overall feminine women with a few sharp features. That's the true ideal of beauty! What's interesting is that you yourself touch upon this in your discussion on "antagonistic selection", but you failed to realize how your very own correct, rational, common sense expectations contradict the main premise of the whole site!
I think you have let your personal preferences get in the way of your reasoning. It's fine if you prefer extra "feminine" women to sharp featured, more lean and athletic model types, but you should realize that your preference has absolutely no bearing on the general, popular attractiveness or -true- femininity of these women! It is simply your personal preference. Contrary to what you might have incorrectly inferred from proper scientific studies...
Beyond masculine and feminine, there's actually an encompassing, -human- beauty ideal. And this is the one that matters most. Symmetry, fitness, a healthy degree of diversity, all these and others are much more important factors, when it comes to human attractiveness, than sheer masculinity and femininity. I'm sorry Erik, not only is your argument ultimately incorrect, but your aesthetic sense seems very eschewed, and lacking. Or at best unrefined.
oops, here are the wedding pictures.
Despite being surrounded by Nordic women this Nowegian man married an African woman.
There are many beautiful Nordics, but there are beautiful people in every race, and everyone has their tastes. I think the Russian women posted are more attractive than the Swedish ones. Nordic beauty tends more toward the bland, media-perfect look where the Russian women look more interesting and unique.
Isn't everybody forgetting the basic fact that what may be attractive to someone may not be to someone else?
Erik,
So I want to have beautiful daughters, but I am attracted to really really masculine men. Can I still have a beautiful daughter if I have one with a really masculine man? I myself am very feminine, at least according to what I learned from your website. So if I am feminine can I still have a feminine daughter with a masculine man? I don't like the feminine men:(.
Oh and do you think lots of men go for women like this because of their subconcious desire to have strong looking sons? Can't a feminine woman beat out a woman like this? I mean can't a feminine woman still have a masculine son if the father is masculine? I thought feminine woman always win over the masculinized ones.
I look "like a Roman" God only a bit more feminine. I have the bone structure of those typical Romans though and it is probably because I have Roman ancestry, not Italian ancestry, Roman. I don't think I am your mainstream beauty, but I do believe I am beautiful and intelligent. Am I masculine? Yes I have masculine aspects. My nose is a bit hooked. Am I intelligent? Yes, or at least my IQ score tells me so. Can I run faster than you? Yes, thanks to my "masculine" body characteristics. Do I still have big breasts and a curvy but fit and strong body? Yes. I can break blocks with my fist and do the splits. I have a tiny waist (25) compared to my hips(34) and am of average height, my nose bridge is tall and high, I have naturally golden hair (light ash blonde/platinum when I was younger. My eyes can appear black or hazel depending on lighting. I have a round face that is often mistaken for oval. I have a big skull(very broad and sort of flat).
Can a masculine woman be beautiful? Yes. You just have to look at the whole package.
I am not trying to be conceided, I am just trying to prove a point. Stop feeling bad if you are a more masculine woman. I am not "really" masculine, but I do have my masculine features (hooked nose). However, I take what I have and make the best of it. I refuse to get plastic surgery. My boyfriend takes me for what I am. If you don't like my nose than that is fine. However, I usually get to pick and choose who I want to be with. I never had a problem with selection.
By the way Emily, we have some lovely Nordic women in the United States as well.
omit the brunette one she looks slavic
Emily are you a lesbian? You just seem so into Nordic women.
Don't even take Emily seriously. She actually believes the crap she writes. Of course most Swedish women and most Nordic women in general DO NOT have blonde hair. She just lives in a fantasy world. The majority of blonde people live in the Nordic countries, but there are blondes all throughout Europe. In fact I have seen many blondes in Southern and Eastern Europe with lighter blonde hair than some Nordic women. I have traveled to Finland because I have friends there. My neice has platinum blonde hair. She is Hungarian,Polish, and Czech.
This could be completely irrelevant, but I felt inclined to comment, as a masculine-looking female. My parents were paragons of masculinity and femininity (i.e. my father was ultra-masculine and my mother was ultra-feminine - I have never seen a woman more feminine than my mother). However, I've ended up more closely resembling my dad, as have my brothers (yes, of course I am resentful). This would imply that femininity isn't as dominant as masculinity when it comes to expressing itself. Interestingly, I've looked through the photo albums of my dad's family in previous generations, and it's the same thing all along - very masculine men (at least one son of each generation has been in military service), and masculine and plain-looking women (like myself). There must be a genetic tendency to it - I certainly hope I have sons because my husband is masculine too!
Just to reassure female visitors - there is nothing to say that just because you may look masculine you are unattractive. I am probably more masculine-looking than any of you and I've attracted many men, because of my attitude and personality! Obviously some men have been derogatory to me in the past, but as these tend to be the fat, unattractive ones I really don't mind ;)
Pages