Dude. I am Northern European. Northern European women have small perky tits and asses okay? So don't say that they usually have the "curvy" hourglass shape cuz they dont kay? This doesnt mean they arent attractive. It just means they have really athletic bodies and thats why I like my Northern European women okay? Maybe you are talking about central Europe where the women are shorter and curvier. But Northern European women are known from being tall and having long legs, and perky small breasts and cute little asses and sexy athletic bodies. Sorry, but if you come up here in the North you will see the tall beautiful angels not super curvy rounded women. Dude, seriously though. What is your problem? Like who seriously puts a website like this up? And by the way don't be dissing Rebecca. She is like a typical beauty. WTF?
Erik: Since there is increasing evidence to show that steroid hormones play a major role in beauty, to what extent would you say that high levels of Estradiol are responsible for creating a 'beautiful' feminine skull?
Especially considering that people like Uldouz and Shagheyegh probably owe their careers to Estradiol. Obviously many other proteins are involved, but without high levels of Estradiol, maybe they would be more average?
I find this website interesting, and i think the views about the more masculine a woman looks the less attractive she becomes to straight men is true.
I know this because i have a very typically masculine face(square robust jawline) people have mistook me for a man in drag many atimes, and almost everyday men will make awful comments about how they think that im a tranny.
But i ve got used to this,as its true. I dont really like the way we have to have ,'typical', masculine and feminine ideals, and how we feel obliged to pigeon hole people into these ideas, and if they dont fit we reject them.
most people i see have masculine and feminine features, but that doesnt make them abnormal, and they shouldnt be looked at distainlyfully.
The model was made by a couple of Dutch artists who said they wanted to make something that will make people go "that looks like our aunt ", it is deliberately deceptive in my opinion. Here is the typical Neanderthal skull: the Old Man of Chapell Aux Saints http://www.worldmuseumofman.org/neanderthallechapelle1.htm
The reconstruction shown here is fairly accurate in my opinion http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1050205.ece
Neanderthals had scapulas that made them unable to throw spears but it is holding a long spear.
Neandethals had virtually no chin and according to this site women have less well developed chins but she has an extreme amount of chin compared to the men.
Neanderthals had retreating foreheads and long flat topped skulls with a jutting occuput but it doesn't and the head is way too high.
In Neanderthals the cheekbones and maxillary bone on each side formed a process which pushed the whole nasal region forward the nose was extremely projecting compared to real humans, it has none of this beyond what is observable in many living humans.
It has white skin as do the men, there is no evidence for this at all in Neanderthals
The nose is far smaller and she has fine features compared to the men yes, but the evidence is that the Neanderthal females had far less sexual dimorphism. According to NG they acompanied the males on the hunt this would involve grabbing and stabbing while wrestling the prey to the ground, most of the skeletons have broken bones. The Neanderthal men would probably have some thing like this attractive. That is beside the point this looks like a slightly modified modern human female to me a
I care because it scares the shit out of any straight man when someone claims that all the women he has been attracted to his whole life are "masculine" or manly. Like Cindy Crawford. I always thought she was really hot! Even after you sent me that picture of her supposedly "manly" face, I was still attracted to her! Is something wrong with me? So please understand that I will naturally get very defensive and try to argue with you. It's very hard to argue with you by the way. You are very intelligent and you know how to make a good point. I still don't agree with you 100% on everything. I also still think you should present your work in a little bit of a different manner. I still wonder... why spend so much time on a website like this? Just out of curiousity what does this have to do with you? Is it just a hobby? I mean I go on here because a while ago I accidentally found it, I don't even remember how. Anyways, I looked at it and it scared me because it seems I find the masculine and feminine women very attractive. That made me angry because in an indirect way it seemed to suggest to me that I am attracted to masculinity. That's hard on a guy. Oh, and I appreciate your link to the Disney Land website, but I'm a little too old for it thank you!
like..wow! i never seen anything so intense on a forum b4! i can cut through the tension here because it's sooo thick. i'm with "yawn"
here! all the scientific data in the world can't change my mind on what i constitute as feminine/masculine or not. i'm female who is athletic/slim/muscular yet very feminine in most ways(too me). men enjoy and compliment my muscle tone and outlines abs at the gym. the woman aforementioned in previous posts is not masculine by any means.she has curves. the men/women who came up with that hip/waist ratio gave their opinion too..thats all that is.. most women who are slim will most likely have smaller breast/hips compared to larger women..no science behind it..but u see it continually! some ppl become some brainwashed behind stas/numbers..and old science..decades ago it was considered to be masculine if a woman had any muscle at all...which is nasty (be it skinny or fat) because you have no form or shape withpout muscle...i'm not saying i don't have masculine ways...but i definitely look female! r
there's no scientific data(to my knowledge) that i can run faster than my 5 yr old students, but i know i'm faster...some things you just know...
dontworryaboutit: The point of this site is explained in the FAQ, where it is clearly explained how this site is not doing the same thing as the fashion industry except for having different standards.
I am not defining attractive but explaining what different people find attractive in women, and this is necessary to understand how fashion model norms can be so different from most people’s preferences. Attractiveness and beauty largely capture the same things when applied to human physical appearance, but the beauty term is usually not used for men. Like you, I find the notion of homosexual men in the fashion industry brainwashing straight men absurd, and I have not argued it. And the point of going into some detail about what is attractive is to help promote women – in various mainstream settings – who are closer to what most people find very attractive, not criticize those who lack feminine beauty; read the FAQ for more.
Women are not known for high and well-defined cheekbones as there are plenty of women without this combination and plenty of men with this combination. Masculinization causes a higher placement of the cheekbones on the face, and masculinization and feminization define different parts of the cheekbones. Feminization expands the cheekbones in the cheek area whereas masculinization expands/more powerfully develops the zygomatic arches (part of the cheekbones just beneath the temple). I have cited evidence for these claims whereas you are just giving me your word and citing a German study. Regarding this study, depending on the people used, one can show that higher or lower cheekbones are more attractive in women. The German study also found that more attractive female faces were narrower, whereas another study found that more attractive female faces were wider. Again, you can end up in either direction depending on the participants chosen, but what is the inference? It is well-documented that women’s attractiveness is strongly related to femininity as far as most people are concerned, and hence if you have proper or representative sampling, then female faces of above average attractiveness will be distinguished from less attractive faces by greater femininity on average, i.e., lower cheekbones and wider faces on average. But of course, it would not be difficult to find examples of female faces that are more attractive even though they are narrower or have higher cheekbones. The key here is the overall appearance, and that is what I am considering when I am looking at high-fashion models, not just a single element such as shoulder width.
You mention my bringing up Cindy Crawford’s broad shoulders. This is the not the only thing I have addressed in her. I mentioned Cindy’s muscularity, voluptuousness by the standards of the fashion industry and skeletal masculinization also. Broad shoulders by themselves are of little relevance, and shoulder breadth is of little relevance to supporting large breasts. You cited a picture of her where it is difficult to judge how feminine she is, and if that were the only picture I saw of Cindy Crawford them my first impression would be that she is a sexy woman and I need to get to see more of her. But a quick search would reveal excessive masculinization (example, the face of Cindy Crawford) and it appears that in pictures where she looks more feminine we are looking at some combination of posing tricks/concealment and airbrushing/digital editing.
You think I am telling women how they should look? If so, why should you or anyone care? Who am I for anyone to care? And, what is the point of my telling women how they should look? If I am saying this is how your backside should be, what are women who don’t have this backside – and most won’t – going to do about it? This website does address some ways of enhancing attractiveness, but it is for those who are interested; there are no obligations.
Discussing the nature’s of women’s attractiveness or what different groups of people find attractive is not the same as specifying how one should look. If you are sickened by the grossness of this site, please go here and stay away from this site.
WOah, whoever hosts this site..thank you for all the pictures and info!
I'm not actually interested in feminine beauty at all, however I got to this site googling for resources on human anatomy.
And I must say, as a drawing student myself I find this website quite useful.
Please don't claim that this website is not about telling women how they should look. You may not realize it, but honestly look at your website! If you are just trying to show everyone that healthy is attractive and fashion models are thin, unhealthy, and therefore unattractive, you are not accomplishing your goal! You are going about it the wrong way. It's just a gross website. It makes me sick.
Oh and you mention Cindy Crawford's broad shoulders on your website. Well, I love a woman with an athletic figure, and no that does not make me gay. That makes me look for a STRONG mate. Now I agree that a woman should never have extremely broad shoulders or look as athletic as a man. I like women that are soft and feminine, but at the same time athletic. This is the ideal woman for me. Cindy Crawford has amazing shoulders. Besides, full breasts need to be supported by a larger upper body. Full breasts are an extremely feminine characteristic and uh... generally the shoulders are broader as the breasts are bigger. Big breasts need to be supported. They don't just pop out of someone's chest. Full breasts with little support are called saggy breasts. Cindy Crawford has full perky breasts. Men will go for a woman with generally feminine features, however, athletic features are very desirable in a woman. Maybe you are just intimidated by beautiful,feminine,smart, and athletic women who have all these features in one.
I mean I agree. I think healthy is attractive and that fat is not healthy and therefore not attractive. I don't think too thin or too fat is attractive. I think a healthy weight is the ideal attractive weight.
By the way Eric, women are known for high and well defined cheekbones. Not men. This is due to the fact that they tend to go towards the brachycephalic end of the cephalic index. In any race the average woman will generally be more brachycephalic than the average man. Therefore high cheekbones and well defined cheekbones are a well known characteristic of women. Also, this is something that is attractive to men. Yes, the cheekbones of high fashion models stick out too much and are too well defined. However, this is only because they are soo thin. In general though well defined cheekbones are attractive.
Honestly, what is the point of this website? You try to tell women how they should look? I agree the fashion industry is messed up. Fashion models are too thin, they look frail and unhealthy and that is very unattractive. However, you are doing the exact same thing as the fashion industry by trying to define what beauty is by posting on this website. In all honesty you have no idea what beauty is. The fashion industry doesn't capture the idea of beauty, but you don't have a clue about it either. This whole website is aimed at trying to define what is ATTRACTIVE. However, beauty and attraction are two different things. Any dumb animal knows what it is attracted to. What we are attracted to is generally hard wired into our brains. Male and female brains are wired differently, therefore they are attracted to different things. Anyways, if a dumb animal knows what it is attracted to, then why do I need you to tell me what I should be attracted to? I know what I am attracted to! I don't need the fashion industry or you to tell me what I should find attractive in a woman. Now beauty is totally different. Like I said, it takes logic and an evolved mind to understand the concept of beauty, which is entirely different than the concept of attraction. So stop using the word "beauty" anywhere on this website because it has nothing to do with beauty. This website is based on the primitive concept of attraction. If you want to learn about beauty go study some philosiphy, art, etc. Then you can make references to it and use the word on your website. If you think feminine characteristics are beautiful that's great. However, don't criticize and analyze every part of a woman's body and find fault with something that is against your idea of an "ideal woman". This is disturbing and unhealthy. Women come in all shapes and sizes and are beautiful. Some are taller, thinner, more masculine, or more feminine. So what? If men are attracted to Victoria's Secret models what is the problem? They know what they are attracted to. If you are suggesting that homosexual men in the industry are brainwashing straight men... well... just listen to how that sounds? Yes images in the fashion industry affect us. However, I like Victoria's secret models because they are curvy, tall, lean, and leggy all at the same time. I am not attracted to high fashion models. Also, I am not particularly attracted to one race or the other. If a woman is attractive she is attractive period. Nothing to do with race. I have seen attractive women of all races. I still don't get the point of this website. To tell me what is feminine and that I should like feminine women? Well, I know what I like and why I like it and I don't see why so much effort goes into something that takes little brain activity to understand. Like I said what we are attracted to is hardwired into are brains!
I do not see the point in promoting fatness. Being too fat is no better for your health than being too thin. This is just the same thing as promoting thinness; it's the other extreme. It makes no sense.
Gisele's figure is entirely straight, and she's not pretty. I thought my figure was straight but I'm curvier than her - now I feel better. Thanks, Gisele!
Surely if women generally have thinner eyebrows it would follow that thinner eyebrows are more feminine and attractive than thicker ones? I pluck mine, not too thin, but I think less facial hair, that is, thinner eyebrows make me look younger and prettier.
I mean look at Brooke Shields - an attractive woman, yes, but those eyebrows!! I'm so glad she did something about that.
It looks primitive, fat and repulsive and the way they reconstruct the hair so dishevelled and scruffy and with dirt all over it's face does not help at all. Lucky we don't all look like that nowadays. However, the female neanderthal kind of looks Asian because of it's robust features, wide nose, flattened face and small squinty eyes.
dontworryaboutit: Have you bothered to read enough of this site before leaving your comment? Where have I said that a woman is a man if she has “a little more testosterone”? Have I said anything implying that masculinized women are incapable of giving birth? I have mentioned slight masculinization in women as a correlate of their sexiness to men, and hence have not implied that men have no interest in masculinization in women, period.
If you think I am using the worst pictures of fashion models then come up with better pictures that reveal their face and body shape in a clear manner. “Worst pictures” on my part had better not be pictures doing a good job at revealing shape.
I have not said anything about the necessity of having large breasts. Plenty of attractive women shown within this site have small breasts.
There is a need to discuss what people find attractive in women in some detail. This is necessary or else it would be one’s personal preference vs. another’s and subjective arguments throughout. If most people share a similar notion of attractiveness, then it is worth it to discuss what it is and what makes people differ in their preferences.
I have long argued that it is not possible to objectively compare the attractiveness of people from different geographic populations. So fullness of lips and of buttocks, for instance, should be judged within groups, and there is plenty of variation within groups on these counts. Hence, your points about ethnicity are completely irrelevant and mostly absurd. Those attracted to blond hair in women are not attracted to it because it suggests child-like youth. Seriously, people are not foolish enough to attempt to judge fertility and youth by looking at hair color rather than the other readily assessed and informative features such as skin texture/wrinkles and body shape variables. Speaking of thick hair, Northern Europeans (except redheads) have more individual hairs on their scalp than other populations, on average, and so even if the hairs are finer, the amount of hair is plentiful. A raised nose bridge is not more masculine unless masculinization is responsible for why it is raised. If you believe that brown eyes look less youthful or brighter, this is your own opinion. Brighter means reflecting more light, and lighter colors reflect more light. Even the sclera (white region of the eye) is lighter in Europeans than in many populations, especially several African ones.
Intelligence and personality are long-standing criteria for mate selection.
You must make an effort to read enough of this site before leaving criticism, and address the arguments not assumed characteristics of mine. I am neither a woman (hence not a lonely fat girl) nor a middle-aged man or a man with any other feature you have mentioned.
Please bear in mind that the theory revolves around hoe farming which hugely increased the reproductive fitness of men with higher Testosterone (and prenatal testosteronisation). The African Pygmy today is closer to representing the original (ancestral of black Africans) population before the advent of hoe farming made poligmy practicable and led to an increase in stature among other things. It is surprising to me that you should bring forward evidence of the surviving Bambuti and San not being poligamous to contradict his theory; this is what Frost's theory predicts. I have already posted a link to information on the Irish Y-chromosome (Swedish women comment) The Irish are generally acepted to be closely related to Basques so the data are not out of line with my argument and in fact less than the Irish Y-chromosome data which I linked to in the above-mentioned comment. Refresh your memory and look at the maps on the older part of Dr. Frost's site (not the blog the other part) then if you bear in mind the time and place that this selection is theorised to have taken place I beleive a rethink of objections will be in order. Populations on in the Franco-Cantabrian area did not experience the full steppe-tundra conditions. Where would we expect to find a population that did, well http://scienceblogs.com/gnxp/2008/10/are-blacks-exceptionally-homop.php
The issue of high prenatal testosteronisation, viz low and extremely low finger ratios in Swedish and Finnish men respectively is now addressed. The two populations a rather different, both in appearance and genetical data, though they live next to one another Finns are sometimes described as a good example of a certain "subrace", and it is not the Nordic, they are Slavs. I believe Sweden is an extremely cold place, and Finland is an even more extremely cold place. The finger ratios agree with the coldness of the country therefore I concude that the low finger ratios of Swedish men have been brought about by the conditions the have adapted to since leaving the steppe-tundra area several thousand years ago. If prenatal testosteronisation reduces immunity as Prof. Manning says lack of infectious disease may have played a part, number or ofspring is said to be higher for low finger ratios so pressure to decrease them may have become stronger in Sweden far to the North of where the relaxed sexual selection of men and several thousands of years is plenty of time for ratios change to take place for whatever the reason.
True what you say about African American male models, this may be because West African norms, including very black skin, are excessively masculine and percieved negatively as I cited on face shape. However it is my impression that black men are more attractive to white women than black women are to white men. In fact half of cohabiting black men in the UK were doing so with a white woman according to the census of several years ago.
Men emphisize looks for mate selection far more than women tend to. Men with high T. have other ways of getting what they want, which may often make female choice irrelevant.
Dude. I am Northern European. Northern European women have small perky tits and asses okay? So don't say that they usually have the "curvy" hourglass shape cuz they dont kay? This doesnt mean they arent attractive. It just means they have really athletic bodies and thats why I like my Northern European women okay? Maybe you are talking about central Europe where the women are shorter and curvier. But Northern European women are known from being tall and having long legs, and perky small breasts and cute little asses and sexy athletic bodies. Sorry, but if you come up here in the North you will see the tall beautiful angels not super curvy rounded women. Dude, seriously though. What is your problem? Like who seriously puts a website like this up? And by the way don't be dissing Rebecca. She is like a typical beauty. WTF?
Erik: Since there is increasing evidence to show that steroid hormones play a major role in beauty, to what extent would you say that high levels of Estradiol are responsible for creating a 'beautiful' feminine skull?
Especially considering that people like Uldouz and Shagheyegh probably owe their careers to Estradiol. Obviously many other proteins are involved, but without high levels of Estradiol, maybe they would be more average?
I find this website interesting, and i think the views about the more masculine a woman looks the less attractive she becomes to straight men is true.
I know this because i have a very typically masculine face(square robust jawline) people have mistook me for a man in drag many atimes, and almost everyday men will make awful comments about how they think that im a tranny.
But i ve got used to this,as its true. I dont really like the way we have to have ,'typical', masculine and feminine ideals, and how we feel obliged to pigeon hole people into these ideas, and if they dont fit we reject them.
most people i see have masculine and feminine features, but that doesnt make them abnormal, and they shouldnt be looked at distainlyfully.
The model was made by a couple of Dutch artists who said they wanted to make something that will make people go "that looks like our aunt ", it is deliberately deceptive in my opinion. Here is the typical Neanderthal skull: the Old Man of Chapell Aux Saints http://www.worldmuseumofman.org/neanderthallechapelle1.htm
The reconstruction shown here is fairly accurate in my opinion http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1050205.ece
Neanderthals had scapulas that made them unable to throw spears but it is holding a long spear.
Neandethals had virtually no chin and according to this site women have less well developed chins but she has an extreme amount of chin compared to the men.
Neanderthals had retreating foreheads and long flat topped skulls with a jutting occuput but it doesn't and the head is way too high.
In Neanderthals the cheekbones and maxillary bone on each side formed a process which pushed the whole nasal region forward the nose was extremely projecting compared to real humans, it has none of this beyond what is observable in many living humans.
It has white skin as do the men, there is no evidence for this at all in Neanderthals
The nose is far smaller and she has fine features compared to the men yes, but the evidence is that the Neanderthal females had far less sexual dimorphism. According to NG they acompanied the males on the hunt this would involve grabbing and stabbing while wrestling the prey to the ground, most of the skeletons have broken bones. The Neanderthal men would probably have some thing like this attractive. That is beside the point this looks like a slightly modified modern human female to me a
I care because it scares the shit out of any straight man when someone claims that all the women he has been attracted to his whole life are "masculine" or manly. Like Cindy Crawford. I always thought she was really hot! Even after you sent me that picture of her supposedly "manly" face, I was still attracted to her! Is something wrong with me? So please understand that I will naturally get very defensive and try to argue with you. It's very hard to argue with you by the way. You are very intelligent and you know how to make a good point. I still don't agree with you 100% on everything. I also still think you should present your work in a little bit of a different manner. I still wonder... why spend so much time on a website like this? Just out of curiousity what does this have to do with you? Is it just a hobby? I mean I go on here because a while ago I accidentally found it, I don't even remember how. Anyways, I looked at it and it scared me because it seems I find the masculine and feminine women very attractive. That made me angry because in an indirect way it seemed to suggest to me that I am attracted to masculinity. That's hard on a guy. Oh, and I appreciate your link to the Disney Land website, but I'm a little too old for it thank you!
like..wow! i never seen anything so intense on a forum b4! i can cut through the tension here because it's sooo thick. i'm with "yawn"
here! all the scientific data in the world can't change my mind on what i constitute as feminine/masculine or not. i'm female who is athletic/slim/muscular yet very feminine in most ways(too me). men enjoy and compliment my muscle tone and outlines abs at the gym. the woman aforementioned in previous posts is not masculine by any means.she has curves. the men/women who came up with that hip/waist ratio gave their opinion too..thats all that is.. most women who are slim will most likely have smaller breast/hips compared to larger women..no science behind it..but u see it continually! some ppl become some brainwashed behind stas/numbers..and old science..decades ago it was considered to be masculine if a woman had any muscle at all...which is nasty (be it skinny or fat) because you have no form or shape withpout muscle...i'm not saying i don't have masculine ways...but i definitely look female! r
there's no scientific data(to my knowledge) that i can run faster than my 5 yr old students, but i know i'm faster...some things you just know...
dontworryaboutit: The point of this site is explained in the FAQ, where it is clearly explained how this site is not doing the same thing as the fashion industry except for having different standards.
I am not defining attractive but explaining what different people find attractive in women, and this is necessary to understand how fashion model norms can be so different from most people’s preferences. Attractiveness and beauty largely capture the same things when applied to human physical appearance, but the beauty term is usually not used for men. Like you, I find the notion of homosexual men in the fashion industry brainwashing straight men absurd, and I have not argued it. And the point of going into some detail about what is attractive is to help promote women – in various mainstream settings – who are closer to what most people find very attractive, not criticize those who lack feminine beauty; read the FAQ for more.
Women are not known for high and well-defined cheekbones as there are plenty of women without this combination and plenty of men with this combination. Masculinization causes a higher placement of the cheekbones on the face, and masculinization and feminization define different parts of the cheekbones. Feminization expands the cheekbones in the cheek area whereas masculinization expands/more powerfully develops the zygomatic arches (part of the cheekbones just beneath the temple). I have cited evidence for these claims whereas you are just giving me your word and citing a German study. Regarding this study, depending on the people used, one can show that higher or lower cheekbones are more attractive in women. The German study also found that more attractive female faces were narrower, whereas another study found that more attractive female faces were wider. Again, you can end up in either direction depending on the participants chosen, but what is the inference? It is well-documented that women’s attractiveness is strongly related to femininity as far as most people are concerned, and hence if you have proper or representative sampling, then female faces of above average attractiveness will be distinguished from less attractive faces by greater femininity on average, i.e., lower cheekbones and wider faces on average. But of course, it would not be difficult to find examples of female faces that are more attractive even though they are narrower or have higher cheekbones. The key here is the overall appearance, and that is what I am considering when I am looking at high-fashion models, not just a single element such as shoulder width.
You mention my bringing up Cindy Crawford’s broad shoulders. This is the not the only thing I have addressed in her. I mentioned Cindy’s muscularity, voluptuousness by the standards of the fashion industry and skeletal masculinization also. Broad shoulders by themselves are of little relevance, and shoulder breadth is of little relevance to supporting large breasts. You cited a picture of her where it is difficult to judge how feminine she is, and if that were the only picture I saw of Cindy Crawford them my first impression would be that she is a sexy woman and I need to get to see more of her. But a quick search would reveal excessive masculinization (example, the face of Cindy Crawford) and it appears that in pictures where she looks more feminine we are looking at some combination of posing tricks/concealment and airbrushing/digital editing.
You think I am telling women how they should look? If so, why should you or anyone care? Who am I for anyone to care? And, what is the point of my telling women how they should look? If I am saying this is how your backside should be, what are women who don’t have this backside – and most won’t – going to do about it? This website does address some ways of enhancing attractiveness, but it is for those who are interested; there are no obligations.
Discussing the nature’s of women’s attractiveness or what different groups of people find attractive is not the same as specifying how one should look. If you are sickened by the grossness of this site, please go here and stay away from this site.
WOah, whoever hosts this site..thank you for all the pictures and info!
I'm not actually interested in feminine beauty at all, however I got to this site googling for resources on human anatomy.
And I must say, as a drawing student myself I find this website quite useful.
Please don't claim that this website is not about telling women how they should look. You may not realize it, but honestly look at your website! If you are just trying to show everyone that healthy is attractive and fashion models are thin, unhealthy, and therefore unattractive, you are not accomplishing your goal! You are going about it the wrong way. It's just a gross website. It makes me sick.
some of your "feminine" glamour models on here are just nasty by the way.
Oh and you mention Cindy Crawford's broad shoulders on your website. Well, I love a woman with an athletic figure, and no that does not make me gay. That makes me look for a STRONG mate. Now I agree that a woman should never have extremely broad shoulders or look as athletic as a man. I like women that are soft and feminine, but at the same time athletic. This is the ideal woman for me. Cindy Crawford has amazing shoulders. Besides, full breasts need to be supported by a larger upper body. Full breasts are an extremely feminine characteristic and uh... generally the shoulders are broader as the breasts are bigger. Big breasts need to be supported. They don't just pop out of someone's chest. Full breasts with little support are called saggy breasts. Cindy Crawford has full perky breasts. Men will go for a woman with generally feminine features, however, athletic features are very desirable in a woman. Maybe you are just intimidated by beautiful,feminine,smart, and athletic women who have all these features in one.
http://www.lacoctelera.com/myfiles/antares/Cindy-Crawford-un-exemplu-de-lacomie-2.jpg
If you're not attracted to that there is something wrong with you.
I mean I agree. I think healthy is attractive and that fat is not healthy and therefore not attractive. I don't think too thin or too fat is attractive. I think a healthy weight is the ideal attractive weight.
By the way Eric, women are known for high and well defined cheekbones. Not men. This is due to the fact that they tend to go towards the brachycephalic end of the cephalic index. In any race the average woman will generally be more brachycephalic than the average man. Therefore high cheekbones and well defined cheekbones are a well known characteristic of women. Also, this is something that is attractive to men. Yes, the cheekbones of high fashion models stick out too much and are too well defined. However, this is only because they are soo thin. In general though well defined cheekbones are attractive.
Here is the study:http://www.uni-regensburg.de/Fakultaeten/phil_Fak_II/Psychologie/Psy_II/...
Notice that the more attractive woman has um... HIGHER CHEEKBONES!
This was a scientific study, not just made up opinions.
Honestly, what is the point of this website? You try to tell women how they should look? I agree the fashion industry is messed up. Fashion models are too thin, they look frail and unhealthy and that is very unattractive. However, you are doing the exact same thing as the fashion industry by trying to define what beauty is by posting on this website. In all honesty you have no idea what beauty is. The fashion industry doesn't capture the idea of beauty, but you don't have a clue about it either. This whole website is aimed at trying to define what is ATTRACTIVE. However, beauty and attraction are two different things. Any dumb animal knows what it is attracted to. What we are attracted to is generally hard wired into our brains. Male and female brains are wired differently, therefore they are attracted to different things. Anyways, if a dumb animal knows what it is attracted to, then why do I need you to tell me what I should be attracted to? I know what I am attracted to! I don't need the fashion industry or you to tell me what I should find attractive in a woman. Now beauty is totally different. Like I said, it takes logic and an evolved mind to understand the concept of beauty, which is entirely different than the concept of attraction. So stop using the word "beauty" anywhere on this website because it has nothing to do with beauty. This website is based on the primitive concept of attraction. If you want to learn about beauty go study some philosiphy, art, etc. Then you can make references to it and use the word on your website. If you think feminine characteristics are beautiful that's great. However, don't criticize and analyze every part of a woman's body and find fault with something that is against your idea of an "ideal woman". This is disturbing and unhealthy. Women come in all shapes and sizes and are beautiful. Some are taller, thinner, more masculine, or more feminine. So what? If men are attracted to Victoria's Secret models what is the problem? They know what they are attracted to. If you are suggesting that homosexual men in the industry are brainwashing straight men... well... just listen to how that sounds? Yes images in the fashion industry affect us. However, I like Victoria's secret models because they are curvy, tall, lean, and leggy all at the same time. I am not attracted to high fashion models. Also, I am not particularly attracted to one race or the other. If a woman is attractive she is attractive period. Nothing to do with race. I have seen attractive women of all races. I still don't get the point of this website. To tell me what is feminine and that I should like feminine women? Well, I know what I like and why I like it and I don't see why so much effort goes into something that takes little brain activity to understand. Like I said what we are attracted to is hardwired into are brains!
I do not see the point in promoting fatness. Being too fat is no better for your health than being too thin. This is just the same thing as promoting thinness; it's the other extreme. It makes no sense.
This video does not say anything about why fashion models are so thin, and does not address the slimming problem. Was it supposed to?
She looks like a boy wearing lipstick!
Re: the Give me Sexy pic:
My god, this does not look sexy at all. It's gross.
Gisele's figure is entirely straight, and she's not pretty. I thought my figure was straight but I'm curvier than her - now I feel better. Thanks, Gisele!
That woman in the white frilly underwear from the back looks like an old lady. Ugh, what an ass. Yuck.
But Erik,
Surely if women generally have thinner eyebrows it would follow that thinner eyebrows are more feminine and attractive than thicker ones? I pluck mine, not too thin, but I think less facial hair, that is, thinner eyebrows make me look younger and prettier.
I mean look at Brooke Shields - an attractive woman, yes, but those eyebrows!! I'm so glad she did something about that.
Jesus! It's so ugly :O
It looks primitive, fat and repulsive and the way they reconstruct the hair so dishevelled and scruffy and with dirt all over it's face does not help at all. Lucky we don't all look like that nowadays. However, the female neanderthal kind of looks Asian because of it's robust features, wide nose, flattened face and small squinty eyes.
dontworryaboutit: Have you bothered to read enough of this site before leaving your comment? Where have I said that a woman is a man if she has “a little more testosterone”? Have I said anything implying that masculinized women are incapable of giving birth? I have mentioned slight masculinization in women as a correlate of their sexiness to men, and hence have not implied that men have no interest in masculinization in women, period.
If you think I am using the worst pictures of fashion models then come up with better pictures that reveal their face and body shape in a clear manner. “Worst pictures” on my part had better not be pictures doing a good job at revealing shape.
I have not said anything about the necessity of having large breasts. Plenty of attractive women shown within this site have small breasts.
There is a need to discuss what people find attractive in women in some detail. This is necessary or else it would be one’s personal preference vs. another’s and subjective arguments throughout. If most people share a similar notion of attractiveness, then it is worth it to discuss what it is and what makes people differ in their preferences.
I have long argued that it is not possible to objectively compare the attractiveness of people from different geographic populations. So fullness of lips and of buttocks, for instance, should be judged within groups, and there is plenty of variation within groups on these counts. Hence, your points about ethnicity are completely irrelevant and mostly absurd. Those attracted to blond hair in women are not attracted to it because it suggests child-like youth. Seriously, people are not foolish enough to attempt to judge fertility and youth by looking at hair color rather than the other readily assessed and informative features such as skin texture/wrinkles and body shape variables. Speaking of thick hair, Northern Europeans (except redheads) have more individual hairs on their scalp than other populations, on average, and so even if the hairs are finer, the amount of hair is plentiful. A raised nose bridge is not more masculine unless masculinization is responsible for why it is raised. If you believe that brown eyes look less youthful or brighter, this is your own opinion. Brighter means reflecting more light, and lighter colors reflect more light. Even the sclera (white region of the eye) is lighter in Europeans than in many populations, especially several African ones.
Intelligence and personality are long-standing criteria for mate selection.
You must make an effort to read enough of this site before leaving criticism, and address the arguments not assumed characteristics of mine. I am neither a woman (hence not a lonely fat girl) nor a middle-aged man or a man with any other feature you have mentioned.
Please bear in mind that the theory revolves around hoe farming which hugely increased the reproductive fitness of men with higher Testosterone (and prenatal testosteronisation). The African Pygmy today is closer to representing the original (ancestral of black Africans) population before the advent of hoe farming made poligmy practicable and led to an increase in stature among other things. It is surprising to me that you should bring forward evidence of the surviving Bambuti and San not being poligamous to contradict his theory; this is what Frost's theory predicts. I have already posted a link to information on the Irish Y-chromosome (Swedish women comment) The Irish are generally acepted to be closely related to Basques so the data are not out of line with my argument and in fact less than the Irish Y-chromosome data which I linked to in the above-mentioned comment. Refresh your memory and look at the maps on the older part of Dr. Frost's site (not the blog the other part) then if you bear in mind the time and place that this selection is theorised to have taken place I beleive a rethink of objections will be in order. Populations on in the Franco-Cantabrian area did not experience the full steppe-tundra conditions. Where would we expect to find a population that did, well
http://scienceblogs.com/gnxp/2008/10/are-blacks-exceptionally-homop.php
The issue of high prenatal testosteronisation, viz low and extremely low finger ratios in Swedish and Finnish men respectively is now addressed. The two populations a rather different, both in appearance and genetical data, though they live next to one another Finns are sometimes described as a good example of a certain "subrace", and it is not the Nordic, they are Slavs. I believe Sweden is an extremely cold place, and Finland is an even more extremely cold place. The finger ratios agree with the coldness of the country therefore I concude that the low finger ratios of Swedish men have been brought about by the conditions the have adapted to since leaving the steppe-tundra area several thousand years ago. If prenatal testosteronisation reduces immunity as Prof. Manning says lack of infectious disease may have played a part, number or ofspring is said to be higher for low finger ratios so pressure to decrease them may have become stronger in Sweden far to the North of where the relaxed sexual selection of men and several thousands of years is plenty of time for ratios change to take place for whatever the reason.
True what you say about African American male models, this may be because West African norms, including very black skin, are excessively masculine and percieved negatively as I cited on face shape. However it is my impression that black men are more attractive to white women than black women are to white men. In fact half of cohabiting black men in the UK were doing so with a white woman according to the census of several years ago.
Men emphisize looks for mate selection far more than women tend to. Men with high T. have other ways of getting what they want, which may often make female choice irrelevant.
Pages