"There is something known as age-appropriate knowledge. Small children should be taught in a language suited to them, and a clinical description of how babies come about isn’t it."
According to who? You? Children develop at different rates. If a clinical description of where babies come from is beyond their understanding, what harm will it do to them? By the age of seven, I already knew what sperm and eggs were, would recognize each in a photograph, and knew that a sperm cell fertilizes the egg to later form an embryo. Did it do me any harm to know this? Not at all. Would I have benefited from hearing a stork story instead? Of course not, it is completely useless to be taught that storks bring babies to mommies and daddies that want them.
The way you treat children is absolutely disgusting.
Tara: In the pictures, Barbie doesn’t have basketball breasts. She could be designed with more anatomically correct prominent breasts, thereby having to rely less on an expanded ribcage to present an appearance of a prominent bust, but this isn’t the point of the doll or something of much relevance to the girls to which the doll is marketed to.
Barbie does have broad shoulders, but the presumable reason is to make posing her easy. With narrower shoulders, her hips would push her hands to the side. There are many dresses for Barbie which make her hips look wider, and the broad shoulders are then in comparison hardly noticeable. The overall look is feminine. There have been many versions of Barbie. Barbie in recent years has been a teenage girl, more slender, whereas in the past Barbie was a young adult.
Barbie’s jawline isn’t masculine, she doesn’t have an angry look in her eyes and she doesn’t have high cheekbones. High cheekbones are stacked vertically high on the face, not cheekbones that are more sideways prominent. Her mid-face is flattened, but she is a doll, not a high-fidelity plastic replica of a feminine and attractive woman. There are bound to be cartoonish elements to her.
Jules: There is something known as age-appropriate knowledge. Small children should be taught in a language suited to them, and a clinical description of how babies come about isn’t it. Discouraging children from asking a few pesky questions isn’t the same as stifling their curiosity. Children ask lots of questions and I typically answer them to the best of my ability and give them more knowledge than what they expected. So my attitude encourages them to ask all sorts of questions, minus a handful of pesky ones, the answers to which they will eventually find out.
Regarding teaching children who they can trust, I will briefly state my own experiences. English is not my native language, and when I was a kid, my parents, knowing many languages, decided that it was best for them to talk in English if they wanted to hide something from me. Little did they realize that I had picked up enough English to figure out what they were saying, and boy were they saying some neat things! A few years later, when I was old enough to be taught about more serious matters, I noticed a curious phenomenon. Often I would be asked to believe in some beliefs strongly cherished by others. The confidence and tenacity with which they held these beliefs were no less remarkable than the nature of the beliefs themselves, but they refused to entertain any questioning. Very strange. A little investigation, none aided by those who would have me accept their beliefs, revealed nearly all such beliefs to be wishful thinking, malicious lies or delusions.
If I hadn’t developed healthy skepticism at an early age this site would not exist or perhaps wouldn’t appear until years from now when I am middle-aged and wiser. This site is full of items that you will not be taught about by your parents, school teachers, college professors, newspapers, television or magazines. I had to learn it on my own, and I know lots of interesting things about matters that do not concern this site.
If there are children under my care, I would want them to grow up with healthy skepticism. Most of the time I will be telling them the truth and they would know that they can generally trust me, but what is the big deal if I occasionally tell them a non-malicious lie so that they don’t blindly trust me or anyone else? I don’t have to keep telling lies. Sow the seeds of skepticism at a very early age and it will endure. After the seeds have been sown, I can tell them only the truth without the risk that they will turn into gullible individuals as adults. Some level of skepticism is healthy. It reduces the likelihood of being duped by the mass of nonsense that the mainstream media are filled with, thanks to the malicious individuals in charge.
I will provide some other examples of non-malicious lies that I have used and you tell me if they are harmful.
Boy aged two and a half years - I told him I would give him some yummy chocolate and he eagerly followed me. Then I opened a can of red kidney beans and gave him a bean to chew. He eagerly started to chew it, then spit it out. I had no luck trying to get him to chew a bean after that. On a separate occasion, I was cleaning out my shirt pocket when out popped a piece of chocolate wrapped in aluminum foil. He made a grab for it, but I got it first. I told him that it was nasty, filthy doggy poo, meant to chase the cats away, but he wanted it. I had no choice but to give it to him or he would scream. I kept saying, “Ewwwww…..doogy poo, ewwwww,” and he was a little confused. He somewhat hesitantly popped it in his mouth, and was confused that it tasted good but was it poo? He had to ask his mother, “mom, doggy poo?” His mother was not pleased. Anyway, this kid really liked me, and I wasn’t messing with him most of the time.
Boy aged eight – I was writing something on homosexuals. He asked me what I was writing, and I couldn’t really tell him. So I told him that I was writing an essay on how to deal with naughty children. He wanted to read it, and I made him read a passage on the mechanism underlying a form of brain damage that is much more prevalent among lesbians (the passage was safe because it didn’t mention lesbians). He could barely read it, but he quickly said that the passage was not about naughty children. I told him that it was but in adult language, and translated for children, it read that the best way to deal with naughty children is to spank them, and I recommend that all children should be spanked twice a day to keep them well behaving. Then I told him that this reminded me that he needs a spanking, and I made a motion to grab him, whereupon he scooted and I didn’t see him for long enough to finish the writing. That took care of the problem.
I don’t think these kinds of lies are bad. If there are children under my care, they will acquire plenty of critical thinking skills, and I will try to minimize the extent to which they acquire these skills by being spoon fed. Nothing beats figuring it out yourself.
It's probably not about any reputed proclivities of anyone in the fashion industry.
One reason is that every time they decide to advertise using images of young men that look like boys, they sell a lot. It doesn't have to be overtly sexual either. Everyone likes boys. Some grown men like boys. Some grown women like boys. Lots of boys like other boys. Girls like boys. So why not fashion designers too?
Heck even some lesbians try to look like boys. Every time I tell one of them I thought for a second that they were a boy, they're thrilled.
Many of the skinny young adult models are gay. Often they are skinny not because that's what fashion designers want, they're skinny because they want to look their best so they can get laid more often. The same holds true for the straight ones.
Sorry, when I say European norms in the above posts I mean NORTHERN European norms. Also, to the person who posted about Charlize Theron you are wrong. She is not the poster child for Northern European women. You should go study some anthropology because you have no idea what you are talking about. Charlize Theron is of French and German decent. She is not 100% Nordic. Her French features are clear. Her face is rounder and this is not common among Nordic women. They tend to have more elongated faces as the woman above. Her nose is not as well defined as a Nordics person and her lips are not as thin. She is not the poster child for Nordic women.
I'm sorry I just fail to see why most people prefer the "Nordic" nose. Her nose is too thin. Not to mention her face is too thin to be desirable and I see this trend in most nordic women. Her eyes are strange and cold. I was never a fan of blue eyes. They always looked a bit unhealthy to me. Lack of color in my opinion is least attractive in Nordic women. The light hair is alright, but it comes with light eyelashes and eyebrows. Darker eyebrows and eyelashes seem more "fertile" to me. Their lips are often too thin. From my experience they age badly. This is not to say all white European women age badly. Being myself white, I admit I am attracted to white women and they are my preference. I have traveled throughout Europe and I realized I prefer Polish or Czech women. They take care of themselves but they also have the facial bone structure and body structure to be attractive even if they don't take care of themselves. They too often have blonde hair, but I like it on them. They often have light eyes as well but they are never quite gray/light blue and often have more color in them.
Now Kim Kardashian is not my ideal woman. I am not a fan of the "exotic" dark hair and eyes etc. I think it is overdone and never was really attracted to women like this. However, I like her tan and if she was one or two shades lighter at least hair wise I would find her most attractive. Here is a picture of Kim at a very young age.
Now, here she is in her twenties. She developed to become a bit more mascunilized as most women do as they develop and later start to age. Her nose becomes thinner but notice still that her nose still appears a bit wider and youthful than your typical nordic nose. Although it is long it is still more desirable and softer looking.
I could not find a good picture of her sister Kourtney, but Kourtney has a nice nose as well.
Kate Winslet in my opinion is very feminine and beautiful. She has an extremely attractive nose. However, this is not within the European norms. Neither are her lips or far set eyes.
Britney Spears also has a nice nose and eye area. She is not within normal European norms either even though she too is technically English as are most Americans that originate from her home state.
I notice most "Nordic" celebrities express the desired nordic features but never to the Nordic "norms". It is interesting. The ideal "Nordics" people see in the media are never really how normal Nordics look is it?
erik, i'm really intrigued by this. is there anything, short of plastic surgery, that can be done to basically enhance your hourglass figure? or is it just something you're born with? as an adolescent(about 13) i had scoliosis so bad i had to have surgery. it fixed my crooked spine, but left me with kind of a lopsided figure. one side of my body has a nice curved in waist, while the other side is straight like a rectangle. so it leaves me with kind of a bigger waist than i think i'd ought to have, because from the side i'm very slender. anyway, my waist measurements as of now are about 36c, 29, 38. yeah, i know, not very impressive measurements. but is there anything to be done about it? i got my body fat percentage checked and i'm at 27%, which is a bit higher than ideal.
Erik, you dealt with your friend's child very inappropriately. Children should be encouraged to ask questions, not told lies to discourage a child's natural curiousity. And don't come back with some story stating that children lie too so it's okay to lie to them, and that it teaches them to be better liars themselves for certain situations. You said it yourself that "The important point is that he stopped asking me pesky questions".
Parents, should be teaching children who they can trust and who they cannot. Parents are supposed to be on the 'trust' list, as most parents intentions for their children are good, and children need to understand that any limits they place on them is for their wellbeing, and not just more 'lie games'. Parents should also be encouraging critical thinking, not by lying, but by asking their children questions about their beliefs. If they find their children are too naive, then they should address that with them is a serious and HONEST matter so that their children understand the implications of being too naive.
Being honest with a child asking serious questions about life prevents any confusion and future unlearning of false facts and relearning of the real facts. A child as young as three may not fully comprehend a realistic description of where babies come from, but they will retain some of the building blocks for future better understanding.
how in da hell Tyra cud call sum1 out about bein honest wen she has a fake nose and Lord know what else and doesn't say anyting about it. Tyra is a fake a total fake she trys so hard 2 make people tink dat she's such a gud, honest, person which she is not. She wants people to tink she is perfect which she is not. She is way 2 full of her self and her beauty is not sumting she was born wit, many sum of it but da rest was purchased. She needs 2 get ova herself, get a life and start being honest wit herself and her fans. I was a big fan of hers until noticing how she aways try 2 tel ppls wud dey shud n shud not do. She gat issues she use her show as a way 2 dictate 2 ppl, she aways wants 2 b in control and have every1 agree wit her she talks ova ppl wen dey try 2 voice dere opinions. She is truly a piece of work. She talks down 2 ppl for changing tings about dem selfs dey dnt like wen she did da same. She is a sad little person.
Your choices of images for non-whites is most unfortunate. You used images of aboriginal female and Ibo female from a century ago, and juxtaposed that with a modern caucasian with the benefit of modern diet, exercise techniques, and make up. I assure you,that having met and known many modern Ibo women, none of them looks anything (with/without clothes) like the one presented on your page.
In any case as a black male, the I would not consider the black supermodel you showed as an icon of black female beauty. I don't know how she got the job (supermodel), she was probably selected by white guys, not black guys. I have cousins and sisters who look far more beautiful than she. For staters she should grow some hair.
Finally I'm not trying to bash you, hope you see that, but I do find your choice of images/models for the non whites extremely, weak to put it politely.
Erik, you said "I don’t have anything against skinny or masculinized women, and I don’t have problems with using masculinized women in modeling scenarios where there is a need for it, as in using non-feminine women to market athletic products."
Women cannot be athletic and feminine at the same time? If a woman wants to look feminine, should she refrain from exercise in order to not look like the masculinized models you think should be used to promote athletic products?
You mentioned that feminine women that are considered attractive by 'lifetime-exclusive heterosexual men' (or whatever you call it) should be used to advertize lingerie and clothing targeted towards women because such clothing are indirectly targeted at men and women are supposed to be buying the clothing in order to attract men. Are women who buy athletic gear and exercise considered unattractive to heterosexual men?
Well above I think we have to have a healthy eating program in order to start a fair fight with cellulite, it's not that easy to get rid of it and the best ways to beat it are the longest and meticulous ways. Also natural products have great effects, I know this for a fact. I currently use sea mud soap and I am happy about my skin.
As far as I know to be an hourglass figure, the waist/hip ratio should be less than 0.75 and the bust and hips (measured around the bum) should be around the same size. Just because a woman's waist/hip ratio is not dead on 0.7 doesn't mean she is not an hourglass. It's only once they go over 0.75 that they become more straight in body shape.
I've got a 0.68 waist/hip ratio but my bust is several inches smaller than my hips and my BMI is 23...guess I'm not fitting in with the author's idea of the perfect female body...oh well.
I should like to point out that: (1) The cited article is E. Holland's ONLY publication in a peer-reviewed academic journal; (2) it is not an original research article, it is a critical review of another author's work; (3) it is published in a journal with a relatively low impact factor (around 0.5). This means that it is not a very prestigious journal and generally publishes articles of limited importance.
If your many ideas really do stand up to scientific scrutiny, why not publish more of them in academic journals?
OH MY GOSH!!!!! what the f...k is ur prOblem with allesandra ambrOsio dude?! u a f-ing idiOt! r u deliberately trying 2 put her down because she's hot and u trying 2 make teenage girls with low self esteem feel better?? PLEASE THINK AGAIN! u actualy make me laugh! ha-ha-ha...btw i think allesandra is extremely gorgeous!!! duh!! wtf r u doing with these amateur porno pictures!!! eeeuuuuuuu!!!! u sickoOo...those galz dont luk much older than mee! and their bodies are soo unappealing! i mean...they dont even have tans...i by the way...have a body similar 2 allesandra's i've got a healthy natural tan complexion...hahaha...ohk maybe im like half her height haha...but i get many compliments over my body and u know we are all differnt! its up 2 us 2 accept who we are...and deal with the fact that god made us that way! y do u keep un saying what u think is..."attractive"? this "infO site shud be shut down...i mean u only making girls feel worst about themselvez! yes...yes maybe some faces are more masculine than others...but that doesnt make them any less attractive! all the girls you have compared to these supermodels are ending up looking like shit Oh and btw...it seems like you have tried 2 find the worst picz of these models...even so...they stil look HOTTTT! ...so plz srop doing what you doing...u are embarrasing urself...and those poor cheap tarts wu posed naked. i dont mean to be rude...but you really need 2 get a life. gay men design the best clothes evvvvvvvvvver! so they shud know what they talking about hey...i would like 2 c u put a picture of yourself on this site...so that we can all judge u! =D...i will have a great time doing that! btw dasha or wuevaz body is gross! the colour of her skin is like pink and white...like 2 toned!!??? what the hell?? hahahahaha! and btw none of allesandras pictures look as slutty as these sluts you say are attractive! shes purely sexy! you probably some insecure woman that needs emotional support...it ok we all feel that way sometimes...:(...hehe...but us normal ppl dont go arnd critting SUPERMODELZ! OMG! anyway enjOy the rest of ur life! :) im out...
Someone said that she will listen to Karl because he sounds more intelligent and non-biased. The basis for listening to a person should be the substance in his arguments, not his perceived intelligence or biases.
Most of Karl’s points address arguments that bear no resemblance to mine. He points out that a high level of thinness in girls/women does not equate to boyishness. Of course it doesn’t. Who hasn’t seen plenty of overweight/obese boys, clearly male in spite of being fatter than many/most girls? The important issue is skeletal shape, on which I focus much more on than body fat, and this Karl ignores – he accuses me of ignoring a large number of non-weight-dependent markers of gender congruity, but skeletal shape is a non-weight ‘marker.’ Then I consider the combination of skeletal features and body fat levels/distribution, which is the key.
Karl also brings in the issue of gender/sex recognition (gender discernment), but this is of little relevance here. Most women I am describing as masculinized are recognizable as female and are feminine compared to men, but not feminine among women in general.
Karl writes as if I am treating indicators of femininity as independent, but why then would I be talking about the global effects of sex hormones?
Karl wonders whether part of my argument is that there is something intrinsically feminine about being heavier, but ever since this site was set up, I have posted an article citing evidence that obese women tend to have above average testosterone levels (see ‘eating disorders’ link at the navigation bar on top of this page). Additionally, the women that I have been labeling as attractive are within a subset of the medically healthy range of body fat levels and mostly closer to the lower end of this range.
Karl mentions that my selection of attractive women is ‘remarkably homogenous in body archetype, craniofacial proportion and race.’ But given that this site is targeting people of European ancestry, the diversity should be judged within the context of European phenotypes, and plenty of European diversity is represented within this site.
Dude you are... So no prestigious journal would publish anything remotely similar to what I publish at this site? Funny, a lot of what I publish here is taken from science journals, many prestigious. Here is an example of an article that is directly relevant to this site; note the author of the article. Your allegations of pseudo-science, racism and biased crap remain allegations.
You said that I believe that I can identify what is most desirable in women. This is poorly summed. What I can do and have been doing is to identify physical features that most people find desirable in women, illustrate these features, discuss alternative preferences and the reasons underlying the preferences. You said that ‘It is our nature, our instinct, to be attracted to certain characteristics in another individual.’ What have I been doing if not documenting what these characteristics are using the best possible sources that exist?
You have acknowledged your malice, but you have little choice since I have listed numerous examples of it, but where is your justification for my being malicious? I have never said that I am 100% correct or faultless. How can I even begin to admit that some of my ideas are bogus unless you identify them and preferably justify why they are bogus? Yes, arguments that have been altered after challenges are more polished, but you have failed to identify a single example of criticism leveled at my arguments that has undermined my arguments yet I have not altered my arguments. I suppose you could point to comments that I haven’t replied to, but I have limited time, and unreplied comments do not imply that the criticism is valid, and if you point out such comments, I will make it a priority to reply to them soon rather than at my convenience. On the other hand, I have used the feedback I have received to make my arguments clearer and more comprehensive.
I have called you a great statistician because your method of statistical inference – in reference to the breast size distribution issue – is the hallmark of a great statistician.
Thank you for the compliment. I don’t believe that my work is completely non-beneficial. This site has greatly pleased many and also strongly displeased some. This is consistent with doing noteworthy work though not proof of it. Beneficial work is not necessarily something that pleases all.
Miranda Kerr is too fug, she is ugly and has a very manly looking face. Look at these pics and tell me she is pretty, becuase she isnt.
Exhibit A-
http://mirandakerrfan.net/gallery/displayimage.php?pid=4330&fullsize=1
http://mirandakerrfan.net/gallery/displayimage.php?pid=7572&fullsize=1
http://mirandakerrfan.net/gallery/displayimage.php?pid=7708&fullsize=1
Kerr with her Mother (the mom looks like she got some plastic surgery done on her)
http://mirandakerrfan.net/gallery/displayimage.php?pid=5218&fullsize=1
http://mirandakerrfan.net/gallery/displayimage.php?pid=9372&fullsize=1
Last but not least, greasy fug phace 2008!!!
http://mirandakerrfan.net/gallery/displayimage.php?pid=5040&fullsize=1
She's pretty, but I'd still rather look like Adriana Lima or Angelina Jolie.
"There is something known as age-appropriate knowledge. Small children should be taught in a language suited to them, and a clinical description of how babies come about isn’t it."
According to who? You? Children develop at different rates. If a clinical description of where babies come from is beyond their understanding, what harm will it do to them? By the age of seven, I already knew what sperm and eggs were, would recognize each in a photograph, and knew that a sperm cell fertilizes the egg to later form an embryo. Did it do me any harm to know this? Not at all. Would I have benefited from hearing a stork story instead? Of course not, it is completely useless to be taught that storks bring babies to mommies and daddies that want them.
The way you treat children is absolutely disgusting.
Tara: In the pictures, Barbie doesn’t have basketball breasts. She could be designed with more anatomically correct prominent breasts, thereby having to rely less on an expanded ribcage to present an appearance of a prominent bust, but this isn’t the point of the doll or something of much relevance to the girls to which the doll is marketed to.
Barbie does have broad shoulders, but the presumable reason is to make posing her easy. With narrower shoulders, her hips would push her hands to the side. There are many dresses for Barbie which make her hips look wider, and the broad shoulders are then in comparison hardly noticeable. The overall look is feminine. There have been many versions of Barbie. Barbie in recent years has been a teenage girl, more slender, whereas in the past Barbie was a young adult.
Barbie’s jawline isn’t masculine, she doesn’t have an angry look in her eyes and she doesn’t have high cheekbones. High cheekbones are stacked vertically high on the face, not cheekbones that are more sideways prominent. Her mid-face is flattened, but she is a doll, not a high-fidelity plastic replica of a feminine and attractive woman. There are bound to be cartoonish elements to her.
Jules: There is something known as age-appropriate knowledge. Small children should be taught in a language suited to them, and a clinical description of how babies come about isn’t it. Discouraging children from asking a few pesky questions isn’t the same as stifling their curiosity. Children ask lots of questions and I typically answer them to the best of my ability and give them more knowledge than what they expected. So my attitude encourages them to ask all sorts of questions, minus a handful of pesky ones, the answers to which they will eventually find out.
Regarding teaching children who they can trust, I will briefly state my own experiences. English is not my native language, and when I was a kid, my parents, knowing many languages, decided that it was best for them to talk in English if they wanted to hide something from me. Little did they realize that I had picked up enough English to figure out what they were saying, and boy were they saying some neat things! A few years later, when I was old enough to be taught about more serious matters, I noticed a curious phenomenon. Often I would be asked to believe in some beliefs strongly cherished by others. The confidence and tenacity with which they held these beliefs were no less remarkable than the nature of the beliefs themselves, but they refused to entertain any questioning. Very strange. A little investigation, none aided by those who would have me accept their beliefs, revealed nearly all such beliefs to be wishful thinking, malicious lies or delusions.
If I hadn’t developed healthy skepticism at an early age this site would not exist or perhaps wouldn’t appear until years from now when I am middle-aged and wiser. This site is full of items that you will not be taught about by your parents, school teachers, college professors, newspapers, television or magazines. I had to learn it on my own, and I know lots of interesting things about matters that do not concern this site.
If there are children under my care, I would want them to grow up with healthy skepticism. Most of the time I will be telling them the truth and they would know that they can generally trust me, but what is the big deal if I occasionally tell them a non-malicious lie so that they don’t blindly trust me or anyone else? I don’t have to keep telling lies. Sow the seeds of skepticism at a very early age and it will endure. After the seeds have been sown, I can tell them only the truth without the risk that they will turn into gullible individuals as adults. Some level of skepticism is healthy. It reduces the likelihood of being duped by the mass of nonsense that the mainstream media are filled with, thanks to the malicious individuals in charge.
I will provide some other examples of non-malicious lies that I have used and you tell me if they are harmful.
Boy aged two and a half years - I told him I would give him some yummy chocolate and he eagerly followed me. Then I opened a can of red kidney beans and gave him a bean to chew. He eagerly started to chew it, then spit it out. I had no luck trying to get him to chew a bean after that. On a separate occasion, I was cleaning out my shirt pocket when out popped a piece of chocolate wrapped in aluminum foil. He made a grab for it, but I got it first. I told him that it was nasty, filthy doggy poo, meant to chase the cats away, but he wanted it. I had no choice but to give it to him or he would scream. I kept saying, “Ewwwww…..doogy poo, ewwwww,” and he was a little confused. He somewhat hesitantly popped it in his mouth, and was confused that it tasted good but was it poo? He had to ask his mother, “mom, doggy poo?” His mother was not pleased. Anyway, this kid really liked me, and I wasn’t messing with him most of the time.
Boy aged eight – I was writing something on homosexuals. He asked me what I was writing, and I couldn’t really tell him. So I told him that I was writing an essay on how to deal with naughty children. He wanted to read it, and I made him read a passage on the mechanism underlying a form of brain damage that is much more prevalent among lesbians (the passage was safe because it didn’t mention lesbians). He could barely read it, but he quickly said that the passage was not about naughty children. I told him that it was but in adult language, and translated for children, it read that the best way to deal with naughty children is to spank them, and I recommend that all children should be spanked twice a day to keep them well behaving. Then I told him that this reminded me that he needs a spanking, and I made a motion to grab him, whereupon he scooted and I didn’t see him for long enough to finish the writing. That took care of the problem.
I don’t think these kinds of lies are bad. If there are children under my care, they will acquire plenty of critical thinking skills, and I will try to minimize the extent to which they acquire these skills by being spoon fed. Nothing beats figuring it out yourself.
Kris: The model is Luca Gadjus.
Someone asked why reply to some comments but not others. The answer is lack of time. I hope to answer all comments pending spare time.
very nice! Moscow People
It's probably not about any reputed proclivities of anyone in the fashion industry.
One reason is that every time they decide to advertise using images of young men that look like boys, they sell a lot. It doesn't have to be overtly sexual either. Everyone likes boys. Some grown men like boys. Some grown women like boys. Lots of boys like other boys. Girls like boys. So why not fashion designers too?
Heck even some lesbians try to look like boys. Every time I tell one of them I thought for a second that they were a boy, they're thrilled.
Many of the skinny young adult models are gay. Often they are skinny not because that's what fashion designers want, they're skinny because they want to look their best so they can get laid more often. The same holds true for the straight ones.
http://i37.tinypic.com/htzaq1.jpg
this was a model put on this site..what's her name?
Sorry, when I say European norms in the above posts I mean NORTHERN European norms. Also, to the person who posted about Charlize Theron you are wrong. She is not the poster child for Northern European women. You should go study some anthropology because you have no idea what you are talking about. Charlize Theron is of French and German decent. She is not 100% Nordic. Her French features are clear. Her face is rounder and this is not common among Nordic women. They tend to have more elongated faces as the woman above. Her nose is not as well defined as a Nordics person and her lips are not as thin. She is not the poster child for Nordic women.
Here is a picture of the Nordic woman that I forgot to post. I only posted the link but here is the picture so you can compare:
http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn198/foreverago02/alkea.jpg
I'm sorry I just fail to see why most people prefer the "Nordic" nose. Her nose is too thin. Not to mention her face is too thin to be desirable and I see this trend in most nordic women. Her eyes are strange and cold. I was never a fan of blue eyes. They always looked a bit unhealthy to me. Lack of color in my opinion is least attractive in Nordic women. The light hair is alright, but it comes with light eyelashes and eyebrows. Darker eyebrows and eyelashes seem more "fertile" to me. Their lips are often too thin. From my experience they age badly. This is not to say all white European women age badly. Being myself white, I admit I am attracted to white women and they are my preference. I have traveled throughout Europe and I realized I prefer Polish or Czech women. They take care of themselves but they also have the facial bone structure and body structure to be attractive even if they don't take care of themselves. They too often have blonde hair, but I like it on them. They often have light eyes as well but they are never quite gray/light blue and often have more color in them.
Now Kim Kardashian is not my ideal woman. I am not a fan of the "exotic" dark hair and eyes etc. I think it is overdone and never was really attracted to women like this. However, I like her tan and if she was one or two shades lighter at least hair wise I would find her most attractive. Here is a picture of Kim at a very young age.
Now, here she is in her twenties. She developed to become a bit more mascunilized as most women do as they develop and later start to age. Her nose becomes thinner but notice still that her nose still appears a bit wider and youthful than your typical nordic nose. Although it is long it is still more desirable and softer looking.
I could not find a good picture of her sister Kourtney, but Kourtney has a nice nose as well.
Kate Winslet in my opinion is very feminine and beautiful. She has an extremely attractive nose. However, this is not within the European norms. Neither are her lips or far set eyes.
Britney Spears also has a nice nose and eye area. She is not within normal European norms either even though she too is technically English as are most Americans that originate from her home state.
I notice most "Nordic" celebrities express the desired nordic features but never to the Nordic "norms". It is interesting. The ideal "Nordics" people see in the media are never really how normal Nordics look is it?
erik, i'm really intrigued by this. is there anything, short of plastic surgery, that can be done to basically enhance your hourglass figure? or is it just something you're born with? as an adolescent(about 13) i had scoliosis so bad i had to have surgery. it fixed my crooked spine, but left me with kind of a lopsided figure. one side of my body has a nice curved in waist, while the other side is straight like a rectangle. so it leaves me with kind of a bigger waist than i think i'd ought to have, because from the side i'm very slender. anyway, my waist measurements as of now are about 36c, 29, 38. yeah, i know, not very impressive measurements. but is there anything to be done about it? i got my body fat percentage checked and i'm at 27%, which is a bit higher than ideal.
Erik, you dealt with your friend's child very inappropriately. Children should be encouraged to ask questions, not told lies to discourage a child's natural curiousity. And don't come back with some story stating that children lie too so it's okay to lie to them, and that it teaches them to be better liars themselves for certain situations. You said it yourself that "The important point is that he stopped asking me pesky questions".
Parents, should be teaching children who they can trust and who they cannot. Parents are supposed to be on the 'trust' list, as most parents intentions for their children are good, and children need to understand that any limits they place on them is for their wellbeing, and not just more 'lie games'. Parents should also be encouraging critical thinking, not by lying, but by asking their children questions about their beliefs. If they find their children are too naive, then they should address that with them is a serious and HONEST matter so that their children understand the implications of being too naive.
Being honest with a child asking serious questions about life prevents any confusion and future unlearning of false facts and relearning of the real facts. A child as young as three may not fully comprehend a realistic description of where babies come from, but they will retain some of the building blocks for future better understanding.
how in da hell Tyra cud call sum1 out about bein honest wen she has a fake nose and Lord know what else and doesn't say anyting about it. Tyra is a fake a total fake she trys so hard 2 make people tink dat she's such a gud, honest, person which she is not. She wants people to tink she is perfect which she is not. She is way 2 full of her self and her beauty is not sumting she was born wit, many sum of it but da rest was purchased. She needs 2 get ova herself, get a life and start being honest wit herself and her fans. I was a big fan of hers until noticing how she aways try 2 tel ppls wud dey shud n shud not do. She gat issues she use her show as a way 2 dictate 2 ppl, she aways wants 2 b in control and have every1 agree wit her she talks ova ppl wen dey try 2 voice dere opinions. She is truly a piece of work. She talks down 2 ppl for changing tings about dem selfs dey dnt like wen she did da same. She is a sad little person.
Please refer to the images on this link: http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://i281.photobucket.com/albums/kk205/caricederaad/girl2.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.femininebeauty.info/objective-comparisons-in-beauty-pageants&h=374&w=500&sz=49&hl=en&start=12&um=1&usg=__nEpHtnfa1Df3vAfQYYxz_8I1IOM=&tbnid=e9irBE5ynYACLM:&tbnh=97&tbnw=130&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dskeletal%2Banatomy%2Braces%2Bcaucasian%2Bblack%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DG
Your choices of images for non-whites is most unfortunate. You used images of aboriginal female and Ibo female from a century ago, and juxtaposed that with a modern caucasian with the benefit of modern diet, exercise techniques, and make up. I assure you,that having met and known many modern Ibo women, none of them looks anything (with/without clothes) like the one presented on your page.
In any case as a black male, the I would not consider the black supermodel you showed as an icon of black female beauty. I don't know how she got the job (supermodel), she was probably selected by white guys, not black guys. I have cousins and sisters who look far more beautiful than she. For staters she should grow some hair.
Finally I'm not trying to bash you, hope you see that, but I do find your choice of images/models for the non whites extremely, weak to put it politely.
That means you are a small hourglass shape. If you gain weight you can fill out.
Erik, you said "I don’t have anything against skinny or masculinized women, and I don’t have problems with using masculinized women in modeling scenarios where there is a need for it, as in using non-feminine women to market athletic products."
Women cannot be athletic and feminine at the same time? If a woman wants to look feminine, should she refrain from exercise in order to not look like the masculinized models you think should be used to promote athletic products?
You mentioned that feminine women that are considered attractive by 'lifetime-exclusive heterosexual men' (or whatever you call it) should be used to advertize lingerie and clothing targeted towards women because such clothing are indirectly targeted at men and women are supposed to be buying the clothing in order to attract men. Are women who buy athletic gear and exercise considered unattractive to heterosexual men?
Well above I think we have to have a healthy eating program in order to start a fair fight with cellulite, it's not that easy to get rid of it and the best ways to beat it are the longest and meticulous ways. Also natural products have great effects, I know this for a fact. I currently use sea mud soap and I am happy about my skin.
As far as I know to be an hourglass figure, the waist/hip ratio should be less than 0.75 and the bust and hips (measured around the bum) should be around the same size. Just because a woman's waist/hip ratio is not dead on 0.7 doesn't mean she is not an hourglass. It's only once they go over 0.75 that they become more straight in body shape.
I've got a 0.68 waist/hip ratio but my bust is several inches smaller than my hips and my BMI is 23...guess I'm not fitting in with the author's idea of the perfect female body...oh well.
Dude, you're a moron.
I should like to point out that: (1) The cited article is E. Holland's ONLY publication in a peer-reviewed academic journal; (2) it is not an original research article, it is a critical review of another author's work; (3) it is published in a journal with a relatively low impact factor (around 0.5). This means that it is not a very prestigious journal and generally publishes articles of limited importance.
If your many ideas really do stand up to scientific scrutiny, why not publish more of them in academic journals?
oOpz i meant STOP haha...i cant type! lol
OH MY GOSH!!!!! what the f...k is ur prOblem with allesandra ambrOsio dude?! u a f-ing idiOt! r u deliberately trying 2 put her down because she's hot and u trying 2 make teenage girls with low self esteem feel better?? PLEASE THINK AGAIN! u actualy make me laugh! ha-ha-ha...btw i think allesandra is extremely gorgeous!!! duh!! wtf r u doing with these amateur porno pictures!!! eeeuuuuuuu!!!! u sickoOo...those galz dont luk much older than mee! and their bodies are soo unappealing! i mean...they dont even have tans...i by the way...have a body similar 2 allesandra's i've got a healthy natural tan complexion...hahaha...ohk maybe im like half her height haha...but i get many compliments over my body and u know we are all differnt! its up 2 us 2 accept who we are...and deal with the fact that god made us that way! y do u keep un saying what u think is..."attractive"? this "infO site shud be shut down...i mean u only making girls feel worst about themselvez! yes...yes maybe some faces are more masculine than others...but that doesnt make them any less attractive! all the girls you have compared to these supermodels are ending up looking like shit Oh and btw...it seems like you have tried 2 find the worst picz of these models...even so...they stil look HOTTTT! ...so plz srop doing what you doing...u are embarrasing urself...and those poor cheap tarts wu posed naked. i dont mean to be rude...but you really need 2 get a life. gay men design the best clothes evvvvvvvvvver! so they shud know what they talking about hey...i would like 2 c u put a picture of yourself on this site...so that we can all judge u! =D...i will have a great time doing that! btw dasha or wuevaz body is gross! the colour of her skin is like pink and white...like 2 toned!!??? what the hell?? hahahahaha! and btw none of allesandras pictures look as slutty as these sluts you say are attractive! shes purely sexy! you probably some insecure woman that needs emotional support...it ok we all feel that way sometimes...:(...hehe...but us normal ppl dont go arnd critting SUPERMODELZ! OMG! anyway enjOy the rest of ur life! :) im out...
Someone said that she will listen to Karl because he sounds more intelligent and non-biased. The basis for listening to a person should be the substance in his arguments, not his perceived intelligence or biases.
Most of Karl’s points address arguments that bear no resemblance to mine. He points out that a high level of thinness in girls/women does not equate to boyishness. Of course it doesn’t. Who hasn’t seen plenty of overweight/obese boys, clearly male in spite of being fatter than many/most girls? The important issue is skeletal shape, on which I focus much more on than body fat, and this Karl ignores – he accuses me of ignoring a large number of non-weight-dependent markers of gender congruity, but skeletal shape is a non-weight ‘marker.’ Then I consider the combination of skeletal features and body fat levels/distribution, which is the key.
Karl also brings in the issue of gender/sex recognition (gender discernment), but this is of little relevance here. Most women I am describing as masculinized are recognizable as female and are feminine compared to men, but not feminine among women in general.
Karl writes as if I am treating indicators of femininity as independent, but why then would I be talking about the global effects of sex hormones?
Karl wonders whether part of my argument is that there is something intrinsically feminine about being heavier, but ever since this site was set up, I have posted an article citing evidence that obese women tend to have above average testosterone levels (see ‘eating disorders’ link at the navigation bar on top of this page). Additionally, the women that I have been labeling as attractive are within a subset of the medically healthy range of body fat levels and mostly closer to the lower end of this range.
Karl mentions that my selection of attractive women is ‘remarkably homogenous in body archetype, craniofacial proportion and race.’ But given that this site is targeting people of European ancestry, the diversity should be judged within the context of European phenotypes, and plenty of European diversity is represented within this site.
Karl would not be surprised if my standards of masculinity are feminized. Information on ‘my standards’ of masculinity can be found here.
Karl has a valid point that many of my photographic comparisons are confounded by posture and other correlates of photography, but we have lots of pictures to work with, and the conclusions are clear. Certainly, no stretch of the imagination is required to note that the faces of these female fashion models bear an uncanny resemblance to those of adolescent boys.
Dude you are... So no prestigious journal would publish anything remotely similar to what I publish at this site? Funny, a lot of what I publish here is taken from science journals, many prestigious. Here is an example of an article that is directly relevant to this site; note the author of the article. Your allegations of pseudo-science, racism and biased crap remain allegations.
You said that I believe that I can identify what is most desirable in women. This is poorly summed. What I can do and have been doing is to identify physical features that most people find desirable in women, illustrate these features, discuss alternative preferences and the reasons underlying the preferences. You said that ‘It is our nature, our instinct, to be attracted to certain characteristics in another individual.’ What have I been doing if not documenting what these characteristics are using the best possible sources that exist?
You have acknowledged your malice, but you have little choice since I have listed numerous examples of it, but where is your justification for my being malicious? I have never said that I am 100% correct or faultless. How can I even begin to admit that some of my ideas are bogus unless you identify them and preferably justify why they are bogus? Yes, arguments that have been altered after challenges are more polished, but you have failed to identify a single example of criticism leveled at my arguments that has undermined my arguments yet I have not altered my arguments. I suppose you could point to comments that I haven’t replied to, but I have limited time, and unreplied comments do not imply that the criticism is valid, and if you point out such comments, I will make it a priority to reply to them soon rather than at my convenience. On the other hand, I have used the feedback I have received to make my arguments clearer and more comprehensive.
I have called you a great statistician because your method of statistical inference – in reference to the breast size distribution issue – is the hallmark of a great statistician.
Thank you for the compliment. I don’t believe that my work is completely non-beneficial. This site has greatly pleased many and also strongly displeased some. This is consistent with doing noteworthy work though not proof of it. Beneficial work is not necessarily something that pleases all.
Pages