ok first of all what kind of person are you belittling a famous person like this? does it make you feel better at the end of the day saying someone is ugly?
what if Gisele just so happened to stumble across this page? (haha, yeah right) but lets just pretend. do you even care that it could really hurt her feelings? do you care that it would be an insult to her beautiful mother (who she looks exactly like) do you feel better at the end of the day? I would like to know?
do you think it proves a point? bc OBVIOUSLY you are in the MINORITY of people who think she is ugly. and OBVIOUSLY the majority thinks she is pretty or she wouldn't be the most richest, most successful, beautiful model of all time!
Gisele has a regal kind of beauty, one that is equisite looking and she can make ANYTHING look expensive! She is like a Queen from another universe! she never looks cheap! it's just impossible with that beautiful face of hers! now some models on the other hand......they cannot make things look expensive if their lives depended on it (and thats probalby why they stick to catalog/lingerie work).
Gisele is a Goddess and nothing more!
I showed a picture of Gisele to my dad one-time and said "dad some people think she is ugly, what do you think"? he looked at me and said, Now how on earth is THAT ugly"? and laughed, he almost looked at me like I was retarded to even ask such a question. I think when ppl put ugly and Gisele in the same sentence, they really need to re-consider what the word UGY REALLY means.
ugly is someone, who has crooked rotton teeth,who has a double or multiple double chins,who has a fat round face, who has a crrooked puggy fat nose,has freckles and frizy hair, has pimples and acne scars.
UGLY is not someone who has beautiful long silky hair, a beautiful straight as an arrow nose with no funny lines or bumps in them,nice prety plump bow lips,sexy exotic perfectly set cat eyes,high as mountain cheekbones, a beautiful chin that extends past the upper lip ( a chin should never recede inward below the upper lip, or one is due for a chin implant to per-fect the profile)Ugly does not equal Gisele, beautiful does. and now one may not think she is that beautiful or "perfect" looking like say as (Holly madison from the girls next door "can you say perfect features but boring yes)
that she may not be, but she CERTAINLY does not LOOK LIKE A MAN!
I get it, this blog is GRACE's fat ass trying to see if she can convince anybody other than herslef that she is prettier than Gisele
haha you failed girl you failed. When i first saw Gisele years ago my jaw driopped to the floor in awe! her face is utterly stunning!
I don't think men have such deep set cat like eyes do they? no men oftne have eyes that just sit on their faces. Gisele's are deep and take you in. that is a feminine trait. and second of all Men if you ask me don't have chiseled face slike gisele's sure they have chiseled faces but not the feminine kind like Gisele has
so grace you are disgusting and you need to bow down to THE Goddess Gisele right now and kiss her beuatiful goddess feet you fat pig
go eat another cake while you read this too! while Gisele makes another 5 million sitting on her pretty little ass!
wow this article is truly disgusting! even putting that nasty fat below averaged faced girl in the same article with Gisele's beautiful envy-sought after worthy bone strucerized exotic face is appauling! LOL
I could not agree more with this statement:
I've been told I run parallel to "Femme" Lesbianism. That stated, I, personally, find Gisele to be sexually enticing to the utmost in criterion; note, Tom Brady seems to concur. Gisele is nothing short of abysmally erotic. Ooooh, I'm getting tingles just mentioning her! In fact, I may as well concede the point she's my primary motive for religiously viewing the annual VS fashion shows.
I believe her sculpted, angular, facial bone-structure looks strikingly beautiful, stunning and exotic. From an artful stand point, it's much more preferable and becoming than a round, flat, non-sculpted bone-structure. Why do you suppose high/prominent cheekbones, for instances, are globally sought after and identified as highly favorable? Globally, a contoured facial appearance of both men AND women is alluring.
A plain ol' "round" or "flat" face is considered aesthetically inferior. Ask any professional, licensed make-up artist and hairstylist. In hair and make-up school, via a plethora of camouflaging methods, they teach how to make a prospective client's face (if "round," "diamond" or "heart-shaped") appear more oval, narrow and thin/angular at the midsection through the jaw-line. Why? Because that's what's considered beautiful, and, yes, even by straight women. Read a professional hairstylist and make-up teaching manual for more info; tons of them written, published and taught by STRAIGHT WOMEN, mind you.
sorry but where I come from and every straight horny man I know they love beautiful faces with bone structure that is actually visible instead of fat round chubby cheeks. uck, and what is so pretty about a fat pudge face on a girl? I should write a blog about that because I hate those kinds of faces wayyy more than angular exotic faces anyday! it looks like they need liposuction of the cheeks and that they are 12! Angular faces and prominant bone structure is a sign of being a woman! only little girls should have fat chubby faces. I have always thought Adriana Lima was pretty but she has one major flaw in her face that makes her boring in photos and makes me want to stop looking after 2 pictues. her unstructuralized face! it's a shame too bc her features are nice (minus the teeth) but that face just ruins it for me. now if only she had chiseled bone structure than you could actually call her perfection! until she gets some cheek lipo and a chin implant than her face is ugly to me.
so you need to get a life and if Gisele is a trnany over that fat disgusting thing above than PLEASE and I mean PLEASE give me the tranny anyday!
also you are basically cutting down the whole LAtin/Spanish race when you talk about this subject almost 99% or latin women (who most men i know go crazy for) have very chiseled good looks! it is the blah American girl who has those blah fat chubby faces so I think you can basically say men prefer trannies than!
also since when did double chins become all the rage in a plastic surgeons office? hmm lets see NEVER! its all about the cheek and chin implants BABY and Gisele was naturally blessed!
I came back to the site while doing research on unhealthy body types and modeling (big surprise there) and read on what a lot of people have said here. I don't necessarily agree that Erik is a racist...and while I don't agree that certain ways of portraying the information isn't exactly what I'd refer to as "nice" but unfortunately when it comes down to the dirty facts about the modelling industry, there is truth. Once again I saw it.
on Janice D.'s show, there is a model by the name of Tracy. Here she is:
Notice that her hips happen to be wider than most models you see. Although there is posing going on, if you watch the show you notice that her face is round and her jawline is smoother. So how the hell is she borderline plus-size, according to Janice Plasticson? How the hell does having wider hips mean you need to lose weight? WTF? SHE DOES NOT NEED TO LOSE WEIGHT.
I just thought you ought to know after considering several options including removing my sorry sack of obviously disgusting "eunchoid" genes (I am obiously a failure of womanhood from birth) from the planet by merciful euthanasia. I have decided to make as much money as I can and have surgeries to sterilize myself. Once that sterilization is done I will consider living a life of reclusiveness and wearing a constant full body veil so no one has to look at my repulsive body and face. If possible I am going to try to get the following surgeries because I am not feminine enough. Humeral resection- to shorten the bones of my arms, Silicone hip implants- to widen my hips, breast fat grafting- to give me breasts more in line with the "feminine ideal", at least two rib resections with corset posture fixation-so that I can have a waist meant to be on a woman , pinky toe removal-, bite narrowing-for a narrower mouth, silicone forehead implant-to produce a more rounded forehead, forehead recontouring- to get rid of my brow bone, zygomatic recontouring-to get rid of my high cheeks, eyelash and eyebrow implants-to give me fuller more feminine lashes, brow lift-to give me the higher eyebrow larger eye effect, eye lift-to give me a larger more foreward eye effect, chin recontouring-to taper my chin and reduce its height, mandibular resection of bone and muscle plus botox-to remove my jaw angle, canine implants lumineers and whitening- because beautiful women have youthful teeth, removing the excess skin between my fingers- to give me longer more feminine fingers, sclerotherapy- to remove the prominent veins in my legs arms hands and to treat colored veins near the surface, rhinoplasty- to give me a more nordic nose, minilipo- to contour my whole body and accentuate curves, Neck bracing- to lengthen my neck, throat cartilege trimming- to give my throat a smaller more feminine look, spironolactone- to block out what little androgens I may be producing, estrogen pills to augment my body's estrogen production, forward cheek implants- to give me nice round apple cheeks, I can't do anything as of yet aout my broad shoulders Perhaps a collar bone resection, If only I had begun taking super doses of estrogen and androgen blockers before I reached menarche. I will also bleach all my body hair and completely remove what I cannot bleach blonde, augment my upper lip with fat to make it fuller, get light permanent makeup around my eyes to bring them more foreward, bleach my skin, get light permannet makeup on my lips to make them fuller and pinker, get light permanent makeup on my nipples and the visible mucous membranes of the vagina to make them pinker, get a labiaplasty because nordic women must have pretty vaginas that are tighter. So a vaginal rejuvination as well. I will try to see of they can't widen my hips wih some sort of internal brace. Also I will have surgery to make my belly button more attractive. I will have needling and laser done to minimize my scars resurface my face and skin, have cellulite maintenance treatments and antioxidant injections (they seem to work for cindy crawford). Also I will be eating a very plant based clean diet.
And obviously since I was born disgusting I will be cutting my tongue out so I can not communicate because I am not worthy to and I will then drop out of work and school and do menial labor for someone like you if possible and when they get tired of my sorry ass they can have me euthanized.
Obviously this is the only answer. All non nordic women should kill themselves or get themselves fixed as soon as possible so no one breeds with them they are all ugly bitches who deserve to die. They should cover themselves and get surgery.
That's all I can think of and the compilation of my research. Please understand I am completely serious and am in no way mocking this site. This has been a good source of research for me and what has made me realize how worthless I am. I dumped my boyfriend so he would not be infected with me. I am a white typical model type looking girl.
Also I am probably dumber than the "feminine ideal" as well so please excuse all my worthless prattle and its many many mistakes.
Erik, if northern europeans have historically had the most intense sexual selection...
What about in modern times with contraception?
In Western Culture a lot of men have a huge number of sex partners and don't comitt till much later in life.
Attractive women get used and tossed out, not getting a chance to fulfill their ambition to have kids.
I have seen many attractive women in the 30's who have not found 'The one', that is because contraception has allowed their potential husbands to sleep around and these men fulfill this desire. Contraception skews the natural balance of partnering and reproduction.
'Attractive' men no longer want to settle down, they want to 'have fun' and screw women around and contraception gives them the power. If contraception is abolished then you will see that attractive women start marrying more and having more kids.
The myth that casual sex is 'liberating' for women and an 'equal opportunity pleasure' for women, needs to be stamped out.
In Australia, the birth rate is at 1.7 babies per woman, I have seen no evidence that attractive women have more babies.
In fact there really isn't a lot of dating in teens and adolescence, even in a woman's 20's.
These days there are more hookup's and fuckbuddies. Marriage rates and comitted relationships continue to decline. A lot of children tend to come out of marriages. However, if you are a university educated female, as I am, your chances of every marrying are already a lot lower than woman who have no university education :S
Erik, as for the effect of globalization and mass migration on various native populations, have you seen the following website?
Leave this site alone. If this site is pointless, there is no need for you to be commenting here. I do not wish to entertain comments by people like you, and let me explain why further.
Yes, there is a need to stand up for adult, elegant and feminine women, and to stand up for heterosexual men, who are being told what to find feminine and attractive by someone who uses statistics and science to try to prove what is feminine or not, when this is not up to you to decide, nor can it be proven by statistics.
The fact that many people find your examples of adolescent girls to be less than attractive, and in many cases revolting, is proof that this is not working for you.
You may like to surf porn sites, and you may prefer those girls to beautiful, elegant and adult women, but not everyone does. In fact, you are in a minority. Most men prefer most elegant, adult fashion models to vulgar porn models. The case of number 1 and 7 shows that.
Again, you refuse to address the note about statistical inference, namely the comments left vs. the number of people
I refuse to turn this into a quasi-scientific debate, that is correct. You continue to use such methods to "prove" that your subjective standard of femininity is the only valid one, and that the rest of us are not true heterosexual males since we find femininity and beauty in lots of different types of women. One might wonder who is straight and who is not. I will not allow you to do that with me.
that have browsed this page, and other issues that I explained in my previous comments such as comments left by malicious individuals or nonheterosexuals. In response to the statistical note and the study involving the photos, your response has been, “And obviously people did not agree, and neither do I.” But no one left a comment on this page about these two specific issues after the comment where they appear, and saying I disagree is meaningless. You must challenge the statistical inference issues and show why the study’s results are not in agreement with my
If things could be proven using only statistics and science the bumblebee wouldn't have been able to fly...did you know that? Since he isn't aware of this he does it anyway. ;)
I "must" do nothing of the sort. I am free to have my own opinion. It so happens that it is shared by the majority of sane, normal men browsing this site, evidently. I have read many of the comments here. We refuse to be labeled as anything other than true heterosexuals just because we might not find the horrible examples you have in your "attractive women" section and elsewhere here feminine and attractive. You see, many don't find vulgarity attractive or feminine.
Many don't find adolescent, immature, non defined girly-faces, without any fine or defined facial features like you say they have, to be feminine and attractive. I would say that most of those girls, not women, are laughable as any kind of standard of beauty of women. They are not even the slightest attractive in many cases!
The girls you show are out of shape, semi fat, have short ugly legs, round faces without anything interesting to them. This has been said here over and over by others too, so to continue to select ugly, adolescent slavic girls as examples of supreme beauty and femininity serves absolutely no purpose.
People just don't take you seriously. A piece of advice, pick an adult woman with a fit, SLIM body as an example of femininity if you want credibility. Sagging behinds and oversized breasts won't do. Not on the level you try to put them on. Those girls have their place, for sure. And it seems obvious by browsing the links where you found their pictures on what level these poor girls belong.
I will leave you alone as you wish, and I will leave you to your narrow, strict and highly subjective ideal that is no longer valid, or even interesting to most people. Also, keep in mind one very important thing, Erik. To prove your point, that some high-fashion models are not feminine, which is true for some people, don't go too far on the other end of the scale. You went overboard in the other direction. Find a good middle-ground if you wish to be taken seriously, and find a realistic, genuine standard (which you seem to be so fond of) that appeals to men of today, not of those who lived 100 years ago. :)
The girl that is called number 1 is the one coming closest to that ideal, in my view. However, I highly doubt you will see that any time soon. Also, your ideal here would by most men be defined as exclusively a wanking-ideal, not as a beauty-ideal. Please, try to see and grasp the difference.
You wrote that fashion models are lovely in a different way, to different people. What have I been saying since this site was set up? Of course, they are appealing to some powerful people in the fashion industry, and the question is who are these people and why do they prefer the adolescent-boy look in female models? It is necessary to answer these questions to fulfill some of the goals of this site. Belittling the looks of high-fashion models does nothing toward realizing these goals, and I am not indulging in it; I recommend reading about this topic on a page discussing self-esteem issues.
Mark: Leave this site alone. If this site is pointless, there is no need for you to be commenting here. I do not wish to entertain comments by people like you, and let me explain why further.
Again, you refuse to address the note about statistical inference, namely the comments left vs. the number of people that have browsed this page, and other issues that I explained in my previous comments such as comments left by malicious individuals or nonheterosexuals. In response to the statistical note and the study involving the photos, your response has been, “And obviously people did not agree, and neither do I.” But no one left a comment on this page about these two specific issues after the comment where they appear, and saying I disagree is meaningless. You must challenge the statistical inference issues and show why the study’s results are not in agreement with my expectation. Also, I did not try to tell people to choose #7. Neither did I say that people must find #7 the most feminine and attractive nor that she is my ideal. I said that the majority will find her physique most appealing among the women shown. You must not bring up these two issues again unless you are willing to address the statistical inference issue and the follow-up study in a manner that befits reasoned debate.
You portray fashion models as “elegant adult women,” and “elegant, mature, refined women, who are slim, tall and fit, have long legs, and refined and well-defined facial features and oval-shaped faces.” You address the glamour models as “horribly looking, cheap, sloppy, prostitute-like very young girls,” “stupid look” and other insults. Such terminology is useless for debate, whereas how masculine these groups are is an objective assessment. What the general public finds more appealing is an objective assessment also. Adjectives are not up for debate.
You have also described glamour models as “fat and ugly, pasty, have short, stumpy legs, fat backsides, and look like young teens apart from having large breasts.” What is all this? All women in the attractive women section are within a subset of the healthy weight range, above average height on average, several are long-legged and several have small breasts. I have very few pictures showing pasty skin, but whites are naturally pasty without enough sun exposure. Have you not seen plenty of pasty white high-fashion models? Don’t waste my time with childish insults.
Again, I have never said that men not attracted to large breasts are gay. For instance, I am largely indifferent to breast size, but am very particular about the waist-hip-buttocks region. Heterosexual men who don’t care about a woman’s breast size will usually be into feminine waist-hip proportions or a feminine backside, not indifferent to femininity everywhere.
You want me to understand my own statement, “non-masculine facial features are not the same as undefined immature girlish faces,” but why would I write this if I didn’t understand it?
You have ignored literature that I cited showing that men generally do not prefer tall to short women; over a broad range of height, men don’t care how tall a woman is.
The women that I have been showing are 18-plus and you keep calling them adolescent. You can’t even come up with consistent insults. You accuse me of focusing on adolescent types but also focusing on extreme hourglass types. How adolescent is an extreme hourglass figure? On the other hand, the fashion industry is known to have a preference for adolescent girl models. The industry recruits girls in their early- to mid-teens and stops using most of them when they reach their twenties. The industry would primarily use girls in their early teens if it were not for the public image or public pressure issues.
You must not bring up accusations of ridiculous intolerance and lack of understanding of [physical] femininity on my part unless you refute or point out the shortcomings of the anthropological literature that I have cited.
You replied “They are not” to my comment that your relevant arguments are pointless, but your relevant arguments are indeed pointless. You think I am naïve enough to believe that if I don’t find a woman to be attractive then she is unattractive to others also? Similarly, I have never portrayed attractiveness as having a 1-to-1 correspondence with femininity and hence it does not follow that I have argued or believe that women who are unattractive to me are unfeminine.
Where have I said that men who prefer less feminine women than I do are not true lifetime-exclusive heterosexuals? Here is a relevant passage addressing top-ranked sexy models:
“Even if we lump all men who are not lifetime-exclusive heterosexuals with men who have narrowly escaped nonheterosexuality, this group will constitute a minority of men, and allowing for the fact that a small minority of the other group, the majority group, will have a preference for somewhat masculinized women and that a number of men belonging to the minority group will have a preference for feminine women, the weight of the preferences of men will at most result in only 3 of the 15 women above making it to a top-25 list of sexy women...”
The majority group in the passage is a reference to lifetime-exclusive heterosexual men (see context: http://www.femininebeauty.info/sexy-fashion-models ), and it is clear that I have no problems with the concept of a small minority of them having a preference for somewhat masculinized women. On the same page, I have mentioned slight masculinization as a correlate of the sexiness of women to heterosexual men.
Your comment also does not readily distinguish my writing from your response. You should have used quotation marks.
Don’t repeat childish insults, ignore scientific literature or engage in foul debating techniques. Do something better with your time than browsing this site.
Actually, these women who many of you complain of are natural beauties. If they had the type of money Nicole Kidman had they would look better than her.
The tendency that people here prefer other types of women than you do..
You tried to tell people to choose number 7, and most of them did not agree.
I left a clear note about problems with statistical inference based on the comments left, and cited a study based on the nude images where it was noted that the most attractive shape was overall closer to #7 than #1.
And obviously people did not agree, and neither do I.
No where have I claimed that men prefer small, out of shape Lolita girls with immature faces lacking definition and with extreme hourglass figures.
Give me a break. That's the sole purpose of this site. To pick on elegant and adult women, and to promote those whose looks clearly are inferior in most people's minds. The example of number one and seven is telling.
This site is literally full of horribly looking, cheap, sloppy, prostitute-like very young girls, and we are told to prefer them to elegant, mature, refined women, who are slim, tall and fit, have long legs, and refined and well-defined facial features and oval-shaped faces. You don't succeed, and most comments here show that.
I haven’t generally been showing women with extreme hourglass figures, and some of the women I have described as
That is your ideal, and yes you do show them and promote them, and they are fat and ugly, pasty, have short, stumpy legs, fat backsides, and look like young teens apart from having large breasts. You are a breast man. That is ok. Not everyone is, and that doesn't make us gay.
attractive do not have hourglass figures. I cited literature showing that over a very broad range of height men generally do not have a height preference in women (http://www.femininebeauty.info/height-and-appeal-of-women ). And, non-masculine facial features are not the same as undefined immature girlish faces.
I agree. Try to understand that yourself. You continue to confuse that concept. Stop promoting adolescent girls with immature, poorly defined facial features lacking any refinement which comes with adulthood. Round girly-faces and puppy fat on the cheeks are not a feminine ideal to strive for. See beauty and femininity in adult women for a change. Those over 25 are suitable as examples.
Regarding height most men prefer tall women to short women with short, stumpy legs, like the ones you like to promote.
I haven’t been passing off semi-fat women as attractive;
Ha ha, that's a good one. Everyone has seen your cheap, pornograpic-type "models", and they are not in shape, not fit, have excess body fat by modern standards, lolita faces and stupid looks, and they are even downright disgusting in many instances.
I have featured numerous slender women in the context of attractive and/or feminine women
Slender..well, slender to you means to have a lot of body fat. The women you consistently choose have lots of baby/body fat. That is an OLD, Victorian ideal. That is exactly why no one takes you seriously, and why people are often appalled or amused when they see this site.
You refuse to understand that this is not the ideal anymore. People, men and women, prefer toned bodies, a healthy fit body with some body fat, but not like a vulgar model suitable for a pornographic publication. Men typically would not choose them over Nicole Kidman, for example. They would masturbate to their pictures, or visit them at the local brothel, and that's all. They would not choose them over an adult, slim, fit and elegant woman as dating- or wife material, and they don't view elegant women as any less feminine if they don't have huge breasts and backsides, only less cheap than the others. That is the truth.
(http://www.femininebeauty.info/taxonomy/term/14 ). I have shown few pasty women, but whites are naturally pasty without enough sun exposure. If by my standards all women by the age of 25-30 are semi-masculine, then why would I
add 33-year-old Luciana Vendramini and similar-aged Maria Sheriff to the attractive women section? And why would I show a picture of a 52-year-old woman to make the case that feminine women retain feminine faces as old women also (http://www.femininebeauty.info/maria-mcbane )?
You can always pick a few examples to prove your point. The general message of this site remains the same, however. Immature, poorly defined, adolescent faces lacking refined facial features and any sign of adult womanhood are the most feminine, according to you. Adult, well-defined and refined faces without the baby fat on the cheeks are masculine, or more masculine than the round puppy faces of the slavic 18-year-olds. This is a dangerous path to walk. What is next? A sweet, childlike 15-year-old who has those innocent blue puppy eyes? She must surely be even more feminine by your standards..
"Nicole Kidman is not feminine but I find her attractive though she appears to have undergone numerous cosmetic surgery procedures and is thereby not a good example for discussion."
Of course she is not feminine (rolls eyes). She is an adult, she is elegant, tall, in shape and is gorgeous but not like someone who is still little more than a teen. She is classy. She doesn't look like her IQ is under 50, and she has refined facial features, a classic, beautiful nordic face I would say, and long, absolutely gorgeous legs. She is extremely feminine. You don't even see femininity unless it meets your own narrow, intolerant definition.
The irony is that you are so extremely gay in this ridiculous intolerance and lack of understanding of what femininity means that you are exactly the same as the very people you condemn here (gays). You have your narrow standard, and they have theirs. That is the ONLY difference, and that makes you alike. A heterosexual male sees femininity in many types of women. You don't and that's sad.
If beauty is opinion and personal preference, then most people have the same opinion and similar personal preference, which you apparently don’t share
The point is that you don't share most heterosexual men's view of what is feminine. You still mistakenly said that we must find number 7 the most feminine and attractive and people here disagree, and so do I. It seems you are in the minority. Conclusion, you don't speak for most people. Most people would think your ideal woman (7) is over-weight and out of shape. Number one was not and she was the favorite.
You don't seem to understand that more body fat and larger breasts and a sagging and big backside (7) is not more feminine and attractive. More is not always better. It could be argued that a more slender and fit woman evokes romantic feelings whereas the semi-fat one suggests sexual intercourse and not much more. To many men femininity is also linked to romantic, tender feelings, not to vulgarity.
and hence shouldn’t be wasting your time browsing this site. I have not said that men are gay if they like athletic women. Feminine and attractive are definable; example: http://www.femininebeauty.info/beauty-as-shape (the shape
You suggestvariables can be described as points in n-dimensional space, and it is not possible to describe this as a prejudiced or warped view of femininity/attractiveness). Women who do not fit my physical type are indeed unattractive to me, but this of course does not mean that they are necessarily unattractive to others or necessarily unfeminine (so your relevant statements are pointless).
They are not. Your site is pointless, however, since you don't promote the message that you are giving here. You instead try to sell your own subjective opinion on femininity as the only one which is valid, and you say straight out that men who prefer less feminine women (according to YOUR standard) are not true, lifetime exclusive heterosexuals. Do you even understand how ridiculous you are?
Smiley banana: “Present looks” means as seen currently.
Mark: What tendency is clear? I left a clear note about problems with statistical inference based on the comments left, and cited a study based on the nude images where it was noted that the most attractive shape was overall closer to #7 than #1. No where have I claimed that men prefer small, out of shape Lolita girls with immature faces lacking definition and with extreme hourglass figures. I haven’t generally been showing women with extreme hourglass figures, and some of the women I have described as attractive do not have hourglass figures. I cited literature showing that over a very broad range of height men generally do not have a height preference in women (http://www.femininebeauty.info/height-and-appeal-of-women ). And, non-masculine facial features are not the same as undefined immature girlish faces.
I haven’t been passing off semi-fat women as attractive; I have featured numerous slender women in the context of attractive and/or feminine women (http://www.femininebeauty.info/taxonomy/term/14 ). I have shown few pasty women, but whites are naturally pasty without enough sun exposure. If by my standards all women by the age of 25-30 are semi-masculine, then why would I add 33-year-old Luciana Vendramini and similar-aged Maria Sheriff to the attractive women section? And why would I show a picture of a 52-year-old woman to make the case that feminine women retain feminine faces as old women also (http://www.femininebeauty.info/maria-mcbane )?
Nicole Kidman is not feminine but I find her attractive though she appears to have undergone numerous cosmetic surgery procedures and is thereby not a good example for discussion.
If beauty is opinion and personal preference, then most people have the same opinion and similar personal preference, which you apparently don’t share and hence shouldn’t be wasting your time browsing this site. I have not said that men are gay if they like athletic women. Feminine and attractive are definable; example: http://www.femininebeauty.info/beauty-as-shape (the shape variables can be described as points in n-dimensional space, and it is not possible to describe this as a prejudiced or warped view of femininity/attractiveness). Women who do not fit my physical type are indeed unattractive to me, but this of course does not mean that they are necessarily unattractive to others or necessarily unfeminine (so your relevant statements are pointless).
If a lifetime-exclusive heterosexual is one who finds beauty and femininity in all women then either no such man exists or he would be a very rare find. You are the one who is ranting here, not me. You have nothing to say about the scientific literature cited in the article, bring in the pseudo-science of projection in psychoanalysis, and have resorted to insults/ad hominem. What misogynist would come up with a site like this? Begone!
"Kyle Morgan is right. Beauty is opinion and personal preference. Just because a man likes athletic women does not make him gay or anything near it.
On top of that, 'feminine and attractive" is not definable. And just because women don't fit your specific type doesn't make them unnattractive. It sure as hell doesn't make them un-feminine either, cuz they're WOMEN. That's what women look like."
Now, THAT is an example of a true "lifetime exclusive heterosexual" male. He finds beauty and femininity in all women, and love and desire them. Shape, size, torso shape..who the hell cares? No heterosexual male, anyway. THAT is a true heterosexual, warmblooded male.
Erik is probably nothing more than a misogynist who is afraid of women and likes to view them alla Victoriana. That what it seems like. Anyone reading the rantings here would doubt Erik's heterosexuality..or rather...they would doubt that he is a very sexual person.
Gays have an intolerant, narrow-minded beauty ideal, and do not have a straight man's generosity and versatility when it comes to beauty and attraction in women. Are you sure you are even heterosexual, Erik?
Maybe you are projecting. You show a "gay" intolerance, and a prejudiced and warped view of what constitutes femininity.
The tendency is clear. People do NOT agree with Erik, and do not find number 7 to be the most attractive woman since she is NOT physically FIT. Many prefer number 1 since she is more slim and toned. Number 7 has a sagging and too large backside and she lacks the overall grace of number 1. Funnily enough number 1 is also the one who looks more like a model!
I am sure that this trend would be the same had there been a real, large poll. This disproves this site's own claim that men prefer small, out of shape lolita girls with immature faces without any definition to them, and with an extreme hourglass figure. A type of looks that fade by the age of 25-30. Men in general want feminine, tall, fit, slim, feline, graceful women, preferably blonde- or reddish-blonde haired. This poll would have continued to prove that, I'm sure.
You must try to understand that people in 2008 do not appreciate the Victorian ideal of a sloppy, pasty, semi-fat and short figure, with stumpy and short legs and a very immature and adolescent face, no matter what hip- and breast size she has. Hourglass figure is EASILY outmatched by physical fitness! People like a feminine face BUT with character and defined features, and that comes with adulthood and maturity. You continue to confuse that with masculinity.
By your standards virtually all women by the age of 25-30 are semi-masculine!
Grown men who find immature, adolescent girls sexy are NOT in the majority, whether you like it or not. They are the ones getting arrested for possession of pornographic images of under-age girls. lol
A woman, not adolescent girl like you prefer, but WOMAN, should be fit. That is now the most important criteria.
If she is not fit people prefer her to be slim, not over-weight, or with too much bodyfat. The pictures you choose show young girls who are out of shape, not fit. Therefore they are not so attractive to most men. Most men today prefer a tall, fit and slender woman with refined and graceful features, long legs, breasts that are not too big nor too small, a rounded, not too protruding backside, and an oval face, NOT a round and broad one, as in many slavic women who are too robust, which you seem to prefer. The forehead should not be too tiny, which is something you miss sometimes when you choose pictures. A large forehead has been a sign of beauty since the beginning of time.
This picture shows a great example of a modern and feminine woman who is universally admired for her great beauty and grace. She is the opposite of Erik's ideal. The look on that man's face says it all. She is Nicole Kidman.
Here is a great example of an ADULT, feminine, sexy and CLASSY woman. She doesn't have lots of body fat, not big breasts, not short legs, not a round, basketball-shaped and adolescent, undefined puppy face, not a very small waist, and thus she is not an example of your personal ideal, yet she is a MILLION times more desirable, sexier and attractive to most men than ANY of the examples you have here.
She is slim, in shape, feline, gracious, has refined features, very long slender legs, long arms, pale skin without looking pasty since she is not out of shape, and she is known as one of the most desirable and beautiful women on earth.
The look on that man's face says it all! SHE is what most men prefer today in 2008. Sorry, but you are in the minority with your Victorian ideal of an out-of-shape, semi-fat, short, Lolita girl with stumpy, fat legs and huge milk sacs which will start to sag when she turns 30. We are all different and we are allowed to have different tastes.
What makes most people angry about this quasi-scientific page you have is that you press YOUR ideal without considering that it is NOT universally shared by most men today, like you say. On the contrary, most men don't even find these cheap girls attractive! You even insult us and question our sexuality. That only makes you not credible to most observers, so I suggest you push your subjective ideal with less arrogance and more humility.
The women you are using as examples of god knows what are really revolting. It is NOT feminine to be out of shape and ugly, and the hourglass figure is NOT the only criteria for femininity. A more slender girl with less body fat, who is in shape, can be a thousand times more feminine than these poor, pathetic examples. You live in the past. We have healthier bodies now than in Victorian times lol. So do women.
The ones you like are the ones who need to pull all that pasty fat into corsets by the time they hit 30. Slender, feminine, slim, feline women who work out and take care of their bodies don't meet your ideal perhaps, but I can guarantee you that you are in a minority of men who don't appreciate that in a woman.
Your ideal women on this site often look like prostitutes in a sleazy brothel somewhere in Eastern Europe. That is not feminine. Feminine women don't make you want to throw up. You don't like ADULT, elegant, classy and refined women. That is very evident by your consistent choice of pictures purporting to show femininity.
You also seem to believe that VERY young, immature-looking girls are the same thing as femininity. It is NOT. Real, adult women usually don't have the puppy look you find attractive. They have more elegant, mature and refined features. This is something you continue to confuse with masculinity.
You seem to believe that adolescence equals femininity!
The hourglass shape is feminine, but can also easily turn into vulgarity. Many men prefer more slender and elegant body shapes, and I guarantee you that we are not in any way less heterosexual than you are. Your arrogant attitude is not something that makes you credible. You should understand that men have different tastes. We are NOT the same, and not everyone prefers big breasts, small waist, big butt, very short legs, adolescent, very round faces and overall immature and somewhat stupid looking women, like you do.
Jenny: Super super feminine women look less attractive to me also. I haven't been showing any of them. The woman contrasted with Rebecca Romijn is herself not that feminine (see previous comments). And who is deluded that Rebecca is appropriate for lingerie modeling? I don't need to state it. You have done so using a non-PC term.
I can't believe this website. You are a psychopath. The women you choose as attractive all look like inbreds to me. Yes, I do fing Rabecca masculine in the face but I actualy think it is UGLY for a girl to be super super feminine, after all testosterone is what gives women a high sex drive....... same with men, we all like feminine men! you want him to have a nic e strong body yes... but u still want a pretty face. Also this model here, here bones just look underdeveloped compared to Rabeccas.......... ugh you deluded faggot.
"But what is the reason why the skinny, masculine look in girls is a central element of this art?"
Because some forms of art (modern, usually) involve exaggerations and extremes. A "masculinized" woman is a striking woman, whether or not you find her to your taste. This is what Picasso attempted to do in many of his more renowned works. He reduced subjects to simpler, more striking forms and shapes. Do I need to find pictures to demonstrate this to you? I think words in this case are actually pretty sufficient.
"So come up with pictures/art where there is no need for thin women (e.g., advertising a weight-gain product) or masculine women (e.g., advertising an athletic product) and explain how substituting the models with feminine women having a healthy body weight will diminish the artistic value."
Advertising is not something I spend my time thinking about...I don't don't have any justifications for the point you brought up regarding that. I merely wanted to tell you why your biological evaluation of feminine beauty does not invalidate the beauty of the models you have criticized on your site. There is beauty in MANY things, and there are so many forms of it, that to limit the valid female beauty to biological formulas and proportions is to diminish and cheapen the value of human imagination. I do not think you are wrong for preferring the women you do, the pictures you posted of "attractive women" were lovely. But why are you so volatile in your opinions about high fashion models? They are lovely in a different way, for different people. What do you benefit by belittling one woman and promoting another?
About industrialized societies and beauty standards-- I acknowledged it was a theory, whether or not I believe it or not, I am not sure of that yet. Once again it is not something I've thought a great deal about. Just wanted to mention it as a possibility.
Marr: The feminine women that I have been showing mostly have similar facial fat as high-fashion models. The major face difference you are looking at is not more of bones showing but a difference in bone shape.
I have posted numerous pictures of tall women that look feminine overall or look more feminine on multiple counts. There is no shortage of tall, feminine and attractive women, especially for people with the resources of the big modeling agencies. The fashion model look is not explained by the necessity of selecting tall women such that other characteristic elements of their looks are artifacts of their tallness.
So fashion models “do not necessarily represent the ideal aesthetic for the modern woman”? Fashion bigwigs do not see it this way –
“Women have to understand that the models on the catwalk or in the magazines are aspirational models of beauty and youth, who give us an incentive to take care of ourselves, to better ourselves - but not examples to copy.” – Stefano Gabbana – http://www.femininebeauty.info/claudia-schiffer-stefano-gabbana
“Since we are in the business of fashion, we create aspirational images and it’s important that we project health as a part of beauty,” Von Furstenberg said at a discussion on the issue held during New York’s fashion week. – Diane von Furstenberg – http://www.femininebeauty.info/cfda-liars
I don’t doubt that women are often judgmental about other women’s looks; I have plenty of experience with this. But how does this translate to the preferred use of very thin, masculine teenage girls as fashion models?
I would be surprised if the majority of people working for Victoria’s Secret weren’t women. But the person who has been selecting Victoria’s Secret models for 15-plus years is Ed Razek, a man carrying much weight, and one who appears to be a homosexual (you can make this inference by contrasting a choice of his with a feminine woman: http://www.femininebeauty.info/becoming-a-supermodel )
Tyra Banks seems to have had breast implants at some point. The pictures I posted earlier in this comments thread (first page) make a good arguments. I will post some more pictures in another thread where this issue has also come up.
Kelli: Fashion shows and fashion photos are definitely about art, no doubt about it. But what is the reason why the skinny, masculine look in girls is a central element of this art? If you bring in your own preferences then your argument doesn’t counter mine since I am saying that the preferences of a minority are responsible for this central element, and this minority predominantly comprises of male homosexual fashion designers. If you avoid personal preferences regarding body weight and femininity, and bring in an artistic predilection that I and most people lack, then you must attempt to explain what exactly do you see, independent of your preferences, that I don’t. Since we are dealing with art, of course words wouldn’t describe well what I am failing to see, but pictures will. So come up with pictures/art where there is no need for thin women (e.g., advertising a weight-gain product) or masculine women (e.g., advertising an athletic product) and explain how substituting the models with feminine women having a healthy body weight will diminish the artistic value. You can email these pictures to me, upload them to imageshack.us and post the links here or I might set up forums at this site and then you can post pictures there. I will come up with my own pictures/art to counter yours.
I am not pinning the blame for body image issues entirely on the fashion industry. After all, what this website is promoting isn’t helping the body image of many women either. And what I am promoting is something that most people have a preference for. So you are looking at many instances of body image dissatisfaction that stem from people failing to meet their own intrinsic beauty standards.
I have heard of the notion that “as societies become more industrialized, and childbearing becomes secondary, the ultra thin frame naturally is more idealized” but haven’t come across convincing evidence that supports this notion. Contemporary studies in Western societies show a strong preference for a subset of physiques with a healthy body weight on the part of the great majority, not a preference for ultra thin women. You will still need to explain the typical masculinization of high-fashion models.
ok first of all what kind of person are you belittling a famous person like this? does it make you feel better at the end of the day saying someone is ugly?
what if Gisele just so happened to stumble across this page? (haha, yeah right) but lets just pretend. do you even care that it could really hurt her feelings? do you care that it would be an insult to her beautiful mother (who she looks exactly like) do you feel better at the end of the day? I would like to know?
do you think it proves a point? bc OBVIOUSLY you are in the MINORITY of people who think she is ugly. and OBVIOUSLY the majority thinks she is pretty or she wouldn't be the most richest, most successful, beautiful model of all time!
Gisele has a regal kind of beauty, one that is equisite looking and she can make ANYTHING look expensive! She is like a Queen from another universe! she never looks cheap! it's just impossible with that beautiful face of hers! now some models on the other hand......they cannot make things look expensive if their lives depended on it (and thats probalby why they stick to catalog/lingerie work).
Gisele is a Goddess and nothing more!
I showed a picture of Gisele to my dad one-time and said "dad some people think she is ugly, what do you think"? he looked at me and said, Now how on earth is THAT ugly"? and laughed, he almost looked at me like I was retarded to even ask such a question. I think when ppl put ugly and Gisele in the same sentence, they really need to re-consider what the word UGY REALLY means.
ugly is someone, who has crooked rotton teeth,who has a double or multiple double chins,who has a fat round face, who has a crrooked puggy fat nose,has freckles and frizy hair, has pimples and acne scars.
UGLY is not someone who has beautiful long silky hair, a beautiful straight as an arrow nose with no funny lines or bumps in them,nice prety plump bow lips,sexy exotic perfectly set cat eyes,high as mountain cheekbones, a beautiful chin that extends past the upper lip ( a chin should never recede inward below the upper lip, or one is due for a chin implant to per-fect the profile)Ugly does not equal Gisele, beautiful does. and now one may not think she is that beautiful or "perfect" looking like say as (Holly madison from the girls next door "can you say perfect features but boring yes)
that she may not be, but she CERTAINLY does not LOOK LIKE A MAN!
I get it, this blog is GRACE's fat ass trying to see if she can convince anybody other than herslef that she is prettier than Gisele
haha you failed girl you failed. When i first saw Gisele years ago my jaw driopped to the floor in awe! her face is utterly stunning!
I don't think men have such deep set cat like eyes do they? no men oftne have eyes that just sit on their faces. Gisele's are deep and take you in. that is a feminine trait. and second of all Men if you ask me don't have chiseled face slike gisele's sure they have chiseled faces but not the feminine kind like Gisele has
so grace you are disgusting and you need to bow down to THE Goddess Gisele right now and kiss her beuatiful goddess feet you fat pig
go eat another cake while you read this too! while Gisele makes another 5 million sitting on her pretty little ass!
wow this article is truly disgusting! even putting that nasty fat below averaged faced girl in the same article with Gisele's beautiful envy-sought after worthy bone strucerized exotic face is appauling! LOL
I could not agree more with this statement:
I've been told I run parallel to "Femme" Lesbianism. That stated, I, personally, find Gisele to be sexually enticing to the utmost in criterion; note, Tom Brady seems to concur. Gisele is nothing short of abysmally erotic. Ooooh, I'm getting tingles just mentioning her! In fact, I may as well concede the point she's my primary motive for religiously viewing the annual VS fashion shows.
I believe her sculpted, angular, facial bone-structure looks strikingly beautiful, stunning and exotic. From an artful stand point, it's much more preferable and becoming than a round, flat, non-sculpted bone-structure. Why do you suppose high/prominent cheekbones, for instances, are globally sought after and identified as highly favorable? Globally, a contoured facial appearance of both men AND women is alluring.
A plain ol' "round" or "flat" face is considered aesthetically inferior. Ask any professional, licensed make-up artist and hairstylist. In hair and make-up school, via a plethora of camouflaging methods, they teach how to make a prospective client's face (if "round," "diamond" or "heart-shaped") appear more oval, narrow and thin/angular at the midsection through the jaw-line. Why? Because that's what's considered beautiful, and, yes, even by straight women. Read a professional hairstylist and make-up teaching manual for more info; tons of them written, published and taught by STRAIGHT WOMEN, mind you.
sorry but where I come from and every straight horny man I know they love beautiful faces with bone structure that is actually visible instead of fat round chubby cheeks. uck, and what is so pretty about a fat pudge face on a girl? I should write a blog about that because I hate those kinds of faces wayyy more than angular exotic faces anyday! it looks like they need liposuction of the cheeks and that they are 12! Angular faces and prominant bone structure is a sign of being a woman! only little girls should have fat chubby faces. I have always thought Adriana Lima was pretty but she has one major flaw in her face that makes her boring in photos and makes me want to stop looking after 2 pictues. her unstructuralized face! it's a shame too bc her features are nice (minus the teeth) but that face just ruins it for me. now if only she had chiseled bone structure than you could actually call her perfection! until she gets some cheek lipo and a chin implant than her face is ugly to me.
so you need to get a life and if Gisele is a trnany over that fat disgusting thing above than PLEASE and I mean PLEASE give me the tranny anyday!
also you are basically cutting down the whole LAtin/Spanish race when you talk about this subject almost 99% or latin women (who most men i know go crazy for) have very chiseled good looks! it is the blah American girl who has those blah fat chubby faces so I think you can basically say men prefer trannies than!
also since when did double chins become all the rage in a plastic surgeons office? hmm lets see NEVER! its all about the cheek and chin implants BABY and Gisele was naturally blessed!
You're telling her to see a shrink?? Hahahahahaha.
Mother of… Honey, see a shrink ASAP!!! Please take my advice seriously and don't dismiss it as a joke.
I came back to the site while doing research on unhealthy body types and modeling (big surprise there) and read on what a lot of people have said here. I don't necessarily agree that Erik is a racist...and while I don't agree that certain ways of portraying the information isn't exactly what I'd refer to as "nice" but unfortunately when it comes down to the dirty facts about the modelling industry, there is truth. Once again I saw it.
on Janice D.'s show, there is a model by the name of Tracy. Here she is:
http://www.oxygen.com/janice/gallery/modelpics_traci.aspx?model=traci
Notice that her hips happen to be wider than most models you see. Although there is posing going on, if you watch the show you notice that her face is round and her jawline is smoother. So how the hell is she borderline plus-size, according to Janice Plasticson? How the hell does having wider hips mean you need to lose weight? WTF? SHE DOES NOT NEED TO LOSE WEIGHT.
The modelling industry is wack.
I just thought you ought to know after considering several options including removing my sorry sack of obviously disgusting "eunchoid" genes (I am obiously a failure of womanhood from birth) from the planet by merciful euthanasia. I have decided to make as much money as I can and have surgeries to sterilize myself. Once that sterilization is done I will consider living a life of reclusiveness and wearing a constant full body veil so no one has to look at my repulsive body and face. If possible I am going to try to get the following surgeries because I am not feminine enough. Humeral resection- to shorten the bones of my arms, Silicone hip implants- to widen my hips, breast fat grafting- to give me breasts more in line with the "feminine ideal", at least two rib resections with corset posture fixation-so that I can have a waist meant to be on a woman , pinky toe removal-, bite narrowing-for a narrower mouth, silicone forehead implant-to produce a more rounded forehead, forehead recontouring- to get rid of my brow bone, zygomatic recontouring-to get rid of my high cheeks, eyelash and eyebrow implants-to give me fuller more feminine lashes, brow lift-to give me the higher eyebrow larger eye effect, eye lift-to give me a larger more foreward eye effect, chin recontouring-to taper my chin and reduce its height, mandibular resection of bone and muscle plus botox-to remove my jaw angle, canine implants lumineers and whitening- because beautiful women have youthful teeth, removing the excess skin between my fingers- to give me longer more feminine fingers, sclerotherapy- to remove the prominent veins in my legs arms hands and to treat colored veins near the surface, rhinoplasty- to give me a more nordic nose, minilipo- to contour my whole body and accentuate curves, Neck bracing- to lengthen my neck, throat cartilege trimming- to give my throat a smaller more feminine look, spironolactone- to block out what little androgens I may be producing, estrogen pills to augment my body's estrogen production, forward cheek implants- to give me nice round apple cheeks, I can't do anything as of yet aout my broad shoulders Perhaps a collar bone resection, If only I had begun taking super doses of estrogen and androgen blockers before I reached menarche. I will also bleach all my body hair and completely remove what I cannot bleach blonde, augment my upper lip with fat to make it fuller, get light permanent makeup around my eyes to bring them more foreward, bleach my skin, get light permannet makeup on my lips to make them fuller and pinker, get light permanent makeup on my nipples and the visible mucous membranes of the vagina to make them pinker, get a labiaplasty because nordic women must have pretty vaginas that are tighter. So a vaginal rejuvination as well. I will try to see of they can't widen my hips wih some sort of internal brace. Also I will have surgery to make my belly button more attractive. I will have needling and laser done to minimize my scars resurface my face and skin, have cellulite maintenance treatments and antioxidant injections (they seem to work for cindy crawford). Also I will be eating a very plant based clean diet.
And obviously since I was born disgusting I will be cutting my tongue out so I can not communicate because I am not worthy to and I will then drop out of work and school and do menial labor for someone like you if possible and when they get tired of my sorry ass they can have me euthanized.
Obviously this is the only answer. All non nordic women should kill themselves or get themselves fixed as soon as possible so no one breeds with them they are all ugly bitches who deserve to die. They should cover themselves and get surgery.
That's all I can think of and the compilation of my research. Please understand I am completely serious and am in no way mocking this site. This has been a good source of research for me and what has made me realize how worthless I am. I dumped my boyfriend so he would not be infected with me. I am a white typical model type looking girl.
Also I am probably dumber than the "feminine ideal" as well so please excuse all my worthless prattle and its many many mistakes.
Erik, if northern europeans have historically had the most intense sexual selection...
What about in modern times with contraception?
In Western Culture a lot of men have a huge number of sex partners and don't comitt till much later in life.
Attractive women get used and tossed out, not getting a chance to fulfill their ambition to have kids.
I have seen many attractive women in the 30's who have not found 'The one', that is because contraception has allowed their potential husbands to sleep around and these men fulfill this desire. Contraception skews the natural balance of partnering and reproduction.
'Attractive' men no longer want to settle down, they want to 'have fun' and screw women around and contraception gives them the power. If contraception is abolished then you will see that attractive women start marrying more and having more kids.
The myth that casual sex is 'liberating' for women and an 'equal opportunity pleasure' for women, needs to be stamped out.
In Australia, the birth rate is at 1.7 babies per woman, I have seen no evidence that attractive women have more babies.
In fact there really isn't a lot of dating in teens and adolescence, even in a woman's 20's.
These days there are more hookup's and fuckbuddies. Marriage rates and comitted relationships continue to decline. A lot of children tend to come out of marriages. However, if you are a university educated female, as I am, your chances of every marrying are already a lot lower than woman who have no university education :S
Erik, as for the effect of globalization and mass migration on various native populations, have you seen the following website?
http://www.faceoftomorrow.com/
It's interesting how the face of Bondi, Sydney turns out a lot more British looking than the face of London, England!
Leave this site alone. If this site is pointless, there is no need for you to be commenting here. I do not wish to entertain comments by people like you, and let me explain why further.
Yes, there is a need to stand up for adult, elegant and feminine women, and to stand up for heterosexual men, who are being told what to find feminine and attractive by someone who uses statistics and science to try to prove what is feminine or not, when this is not up to you to decide, nor can it be proven by statistics.
The fact that many people find your examples of adolescent girls to be less than attractive, and in many cases revolting, is proof that this is not working for you.
You may like to surf porn sites, and you may prefer those girls to beautiful, elegant and adult women, but not everyone does. In fact, you are in a minority. Most men prefer most elegant, adult fashion models to vulgar porn models. The case of number 1 and 7 shows that.
Again, you refuse to address the note about statistical inference, namely the comments left vs. the number of people
I refuse to turn this into a quasi-scientific debate, that is correct. You continue to use such methods to "prove" that your subjective standard of femininity is the only valid one, and that the rest of us are not true heterosexual males since we find femininity and beauty in lots of different types of women. One might wonder who is straight and who is not. I will not allow you to do that with me.
that have browsed this page, and other issues that I explained in my previous comments such as comments left by malicious individuals or nonheterosexuals. In response to the statistical note and the study involving the photos, your response has been, “And obviously people did not agree, and neither do I.” But no one left a comment on this page about these two specific issues after the comment where they appear, and saying I disagree is meaningless. You must challenge the statistical inference issues and show why the study’s results are not in agreement with my
If things could be proven using only statistics and science the bumblebee wouldn't have been able to fly...did you know that? Since he isn't aware of this he does it anyway. ;)
I "must" do nothing of the sort. I am free to have my own opinion. It so happens that it is shared by the majority of sane, normal men browsing this site, evidently. I have read many of the comments here. We refuse to be labeled as anything other than true heterosexuals just because we might not find the horrible examples you have in your "attractive women" section and elsewhere here feminine and attractive. You see, many don't find vulgarity attractive or feminine.
Many don't find adolescent, immature, non defined girly-faces, without any fine or defined facial features like you say they have, to be feminine and attractive. I would say that most of those girls, not women, are laughable as any kind of standard of beauty of women. They are not even the slightest attractive in many cases!
The girls you show are out of shape, semi fat, have short ugly legs, round faces without anything interesting to them. This has been said here over and over by others too, so to continue to select ugly, adolescent slavic girls as examples of supreme beauty and femininity serves absolutely no purpose.
People just don't take you seriously. A piece of advice, pick an adult woman with a fit, SLIM body as an example of femininity if you want credibility. Sagging behinds and oversized breasts won't do. Not on the level you try to put them on. Those girls have their place, for sure. And it seems obvious by browsing the links where you found their pictures on what level these poor girls belong.
I will leave you alone as you wish, and I will leave you to your narrow, strict and highly subjective ideal that is no longer valid, or even interesting to most people. Also, keep in mind one very important thing, Erik. To prove your point, that some high-fashion models are not feminine, which is true for some people, don't go too far on the other end of the scale. You went overboard in the other direction. Find a good middle-ground if you wish to be taken seriously, and find a realistic, genuine standard (which you seem to be so fond of) that appeals to men of today, not of those who lived 100 years ago. :)
The girl that is called number 1 is the one coming closest to that ideal, in my view. However, I highly doubt you will see that any time soon. Also, your ideal here would by most men be defined as exclusively a wanking-ideal, not as a beauty-ideal. Please, try to see and grasp the difference.
Kelli: If masculinized female models are being selected because they look more striking, here is an example of body masculinization in a woman that is much more striking than what you observe in high-fashion models. My question is why don’t you observe this striking form in fashion imagery? Why is the striking female form generally an adolescent-boy look?
You wrote that fashion models are lovely in a different way, to different people. What have I been saying since this site was set up? Of course, they are appealing to some powerful people in the fashion industry, and the question is who are these people and why do they prefer the adolescent-boy look in female models? It is necessary to answer these questions to fulfill some of the goals of this site. Belittling the looks of high-fashion models does nothing toward realizing these goals, and I am not indulging in it; I recommend reading about this topic on a page discussing self-esteem issues.
Mark: Leave this site alone. If this site is pointless, there is no need for you to be commenting here. I do not wish to entertain comments by people like you, and let me explain why further.
Again, you refuse to address the note about statistical inference, namely the comments left vs. the number of people that have browsed this page, and other issues that I explained in my previous comments such as comments left by malicious individuals or nonheterosexuals. In response to the statistical note and the study involving the photos, your response has been, “And obviously people did not agree, and neither do I.” But no one left a comment on this page about these two specific issues after the comment where they appear, and saying I disagree is meaningless. You must challenge the statistical inference issues and show why the study’s results are not in agreement with my expectation. Also, I did not try to tell people to choose #7. Neither did I say that people must find #7 the most feminine and attractive nor that she is my ideal. I said that the majority will find her physique most appealing among the women shown. You must not bring up these two issues again unless you are willing to address the statistical inference issue and the follow-up study in a manner that befits reasoned debate.
You portray fashion models as “elegant adult women,” and “elegant, mature, refined women, who are slim, tall and fit, have long legs, and refined and well-defined facial features and oval-shaped faces.” You address the glamour models as “horribly looking, cheap, sloppy, prostitute-like very young girls,” “stupid look” and other insults. Such terminology is useless for debate, whereas how masculine these groups are is an objective assessment. What the general public finds more appealing is an objective assessment also. Adjectives are not up for debate.
You have also described glamour models as “fat and ugly, pasty, have short, stumpy legs, fat backsides, and look like young teens apart from having large breasts.” What is all this? All women in the attractive women section are within a subset of the healthy weight range, above average height on average, several are long-legged and several have small breasts. I have very few pictures showing pasty skin, but whites are naturally pasty without enough sun exposure. Have you not seen plenty of pasty white high-fashion models? Don’t waste my time with childish insults.
Again, I have never said that men not attracted to large breasts are gay. For instance, I am largely indifferent to breast size, but am very particular about the waist-hip-buttocks region. Heterosexual men who don’t care about a woman’s breast size will usually be into feminine waist-hip proportions or a feminine backside, not indifferent to femininity everywhere.
You want me to understand my own statement, “non-masculine facial features are not the same as undefined immature girlish faces,” but why would I write this if I didn’t understand it?
You have ignored literature that I cited showing that men generally do not prefer tall to short women; over a broad range of height, men don’t care how tall a woman is.
The women that I have been showing are 18-plus and you keep calling them adolescent. You can’t even come up with consistent insults. You accuse me of focusing on adolescent types but also focusing on extreme hourglass types. How adolescent is an extreme hourglass figure? On the other hand, the fashion industry is known to have a preference for adolescent girl models. The industry recruits girls in their early- to mid-teens and stops using most of them when they reach their twenties. The industry would primarily use girls in their early teens if it were not for the public image or public pressure issues.
You must not bring up accusations of ridiculous intolerance and lack of understanding of [physical] femininity on my part unless you refute or point out the shortcomings of the anthropological literature that I have cited.
You replied “They are not” to my comment that your relevant arguments are pointless, but your relevant arguments are indeed pointless. You think I am naïve enough to believe that if I don’t find a woman to be attractive then she is unattractive to others also? Similarly, I have never portrayed attractiveness as having a 1-to-1 correspondence with femininity and hence it does not follow that I have argued or believe that women who are unattractive to me are unfeminine.
Where have I said that men who prefer less feminine women than I do are not true lifetime-exclusive heterosexuals? Here is a relevant passage addressing top-ranked sexy models:
The majority group in the passage is a reference to lifetime-exclusive heterosexual men (see context: http://www.femininebeauty.info/sexy-fashion-models ), and it is clear that I have no problems with the concept of a small minority of them having a preference for somewhat masculinized women. On the same page, I have mentioned slight masculinization as a correlate of the sexiness of women to heterosexual men.
Your comment also does not readily distinguish my writing from your response. You should have used quotation marks.
Don’t repeat childish insults, ignore scientific literature or engage in foul debating techniques. Do something better with your time than browsing this site.
Actually, these women who many of you complain of are natural beauties. If they had the type of money Nicole Kidman had they would look better than her.
Mark: What tendency is clear?
The tendency that people here prefer other types of women than you do..
You tried to tell people to choose number 7, and most of them did not agree.
I left a clear note about problems with statistical inference based on the comments left, and cited a study based on the nude images where it was noted that the most attractive shape was overall closer to #7 than #1.
And obviously people did not agree, and neither do I.
No where have I claimed that men prefer small, out of shape Lolita girls with immature faces lacking definition and with extreme hourglass figures.
Give me a break. That's the sole purpose of this site. To pick on elegant and adult women, and to promote those whose looks clearly are inferior in most people's minds. The example of number one and seven is telling.
This site is literally full of horribly looking, cheap, sloppy, prostitute-like very young girls, and we are told to prefer them to elegant, mature, refined women, who are slim, tall and fit, have long legs, and refined and well-defined facial features and oval-shaped faces. You don't succeed, and most comments here show that.
I haven’t generally been showing women with extreme hourglass figures, and some of the women I have described as
That is your ideal, and yes you do show them and promote them, and they are fat and ugly, pasty, have short, stumpy legs, fat backsides, and look like young teens apart from having large breasts. You are a breast man. That is ok. Not everyone is, and that doesn't make us gay.
attractive do not have hourglass figures. I cited literature showing that over a very broad range of height men generally do not have a height preference in women (http://www.femininebeauty.info/height-and-appeal-of-women ). And, non-masculine facial features are not the same as undefined immature girlish faces.
I agree. Try to understand that yourself. You continue to confuse that concept. Stop promoting adolescent girls with immature, poorly defined facial features lacking any refinement which comes with adulthood. Round girly-faces and puppy fat on the cheeks are not a feminine ideal to strive for. See beauty and femininity in adult women for a change. Those over 25 are suitable as examples.
Regarding height most men prefer tall women to short women with short, stumpy legs, like the ones you like to promote.
I haven’t been passing off semi-fat women as attractive;
Ha ha, that's a good one. Everyone has seen your cheap, pornograpic-type "models", and they are not in shape, not fit, have excess body fat by modern standards, lolita faces and stupid looks, and they are even downright disgusting in many instances.
I have featured numerous slender women in the context of attractive and/or feminine women
Slender..well, slender to you means to have a lot of body fat. The women you consistently choose have lots of baby/body fat. That is an OLD, Victorian ideal. That is exactly why no one takes you seriously, and why people are often appalled or amused when they see this site.
You refuse to understand that this is not the ideal anymore. People, men and women, prefer toned bodies, a healthy fit body with some body fat, but not like a vulgar model suitable for a pornographic publication. Men typically would not choose them over Nicole Kidman, for example. They would masturbate to their pictures, or visit them at the local brothel, and that's all. They would not choose them over an adult, slim, fit and elegant woman as dating- or wife material, and they don't view elegant women as any less feminine if they don't have huge breasts and backsides, only less cheap than the others. That is the truth.
(http://www.femininebeauty.info/taxonomy/term/14 ). I have shown few pasty women, but whites are naturally pasty without enough sun exposure. If by my standards all women by the age of 25-30 are semi-masculine, then why would I
add 33-year-old Luciana Vendramini and similar-aged Maria Sheriff to the attractive women section? And why would I show a picture of a 52-year-old woman to make the case that feminine women retain feminine faces as old women also (http://www.femininebeauty.info/maria-mcbane )?
You can always pick a few examples to prove your point. The general message of this site remains the same, however. Immature, poorly defined, adolescent faces lacking refined facial features and any sign of adult womanhood are the most feminine, according to you. Adult, well-defined and refined faces without the baby fat on the cheeks are masculine, or more masculine than the round puppy faces of the slavic 18-year-olds. This is a dangerous path to walk. What is next? A sweet, childlike 15-year-old who has those innocent blue puppy eyes? She must surely be even more feminine by your standards..
"Nicole Kidman is not feminine but I find her attractive though she appears to have undergone numerous cosmetic surgery procedures and is thereby not a good example for discussion."
Of course she is not feminine (rolls eyes). She is an adult, she is elegant, tall, in shape and is gorgeous but not like someone who is still little more than a teen. She is classy. She doesn't look like her IQ is under 50, and she has refined facial features, a classic, beautiful nordic face I would say, and long, absolutely gorgeous legs. She is extremely feminine. You don't even see femininity unless it meets your own narrow, intolerant definition.
The irony is that you are so extremely gay in this ridiculous intolerance and lack of understanding of what femininity means that you are exactly the same as the very people you condemn here (gays). You have your narrow standard, and they have theirs. That is the ONLY difference, and that makes you alike. A heterosexual male sees femininity in many types of women. You don't and that's sad.
If beauty is opinion and personal preference, then most people have the same opinion and similar personal preference, which you apparently don’t share
The point is that you don't share most heterosexual men's view of what is feminine. You still mistakenly said that we must find number 7 the most feminine and attractive and people here disagree, and so do I. It seems you are in the minority. Conclusion, you don't speak for most people. Most people would think your ideal woman (7) is over-weight and out of shape. Number one was not and she was the favorite.
You don't seem to understand that more body fat and larger breasts and a sagging and big backside (7) is not more feminine and attractive. More is not always better. It could be argued that a more slender and fit woman evokes romantic feelings whereas the semi-fat one suggests sexual intercourse and not much more. To many men femininity is also linked to romantic, tender feelings, not to vulgarity.
and hence shouldn’t be wasting your time browsing this site. I have not said that men are gay if they like athletic women. Feminine and attractive are definable; example: http://www.femininebeauty.info/beauty-as-shape (the shape
You suggestvariables can be described as points in n-dimensional space, and it is not possible to describe this as a prejudiced or warped view of femininity/attractiveness). Women who do not fit my physical type are indeed unattractive to me, but this of course does not mean that they are necessarily unattractive to others or necessarily unfeminine (so your relevant statements are pointless).
They are not. Your site is pointless, however, since you don't promote the message that you are giving here. You instead try to sell your own subjective opinion on femininity as the only one which is valid, and you say straight out that men who prefer less feminine women (according to YOUR standard) are not true, lifetime exclusive heterosexuals. Do you even understand how ridiculous you are?
Smiley banana: “Present looks” means as seen currently.
Mark: What tendency is clear? I left a clear note about problems with statistical inference based on the comments left, and cited a study based on the nude images where it was noted that the most attractive shape was overall closer to #7 than #1. No where have I claimed that men prefer small, out of shape Lolita girls with immature faces lacking definition and with extreme hourglass figures. I haven’t generally been showing women with extreme hourglass figures, and some of the women I have described as attractive do not have hourglass figures. I cited literature showing that over a very broad range of height men generally do not have a height preference in women (http://www.femininebeauty.info/height-and-appeal-of-women ). And, non-masculine facial features are not the same as undefined immature girlish faces.
I haven’t been passing off semi-fat women as attractive; I have featured numerous slender women in the context of attractive and/or feminine women (http://www.femininebeauty.info/taxonomy/term/14 ). I have shown few pasty women, but whites are naturally pasty without enough sun exposure. If by my standards all women by the age of 25-30 are semi-masculine, then why would I add 33-year-old Luciana Vendramini and similar-aged Maria Sheriff to the attractive women section? And why would I show a picture of a 52-year-old woman to make the case that feminine women retain feminine faces as old women also (http://www.femininebeauty.info/maria-mcbane )?
Nicole Kidman is not feminine but I find her attractive though she appears to have undergone numerous cosmetic surgery procedures and is thereby not a good example for discussion.
If beauty is opinion and personal preference, then most people have the same opinion and similar personal preference, which you apparently don’t share and hence shouldn’t be wasting your time browsing this site. I have not said that men are gay if they like athletic women. Feminine and attractive are definable; example: http://www.femininebeauty.info/beauty-as-shape (the shape variables can be described as points in n-dimensional space, and it is not possible to describe this as a prejudiced or warped view of femininity/attractiveness). Women who do not fit my physical type are indeed unattractive to me, but this of course does not mean that they are necessarily unattractive to others or necessarily unfeminine (so your relevant statements are pointless).
If a lifetime-exclusive heterosexual is one who finds beauty and femininity in all women then either no such man exists or he would be a very rare find. You are the one who is ranting here, not me. You have nothing to say about the scientific literature cited in the article, bring in the pseudo-science of projection in psychoanalysis, and have resorted to insults/ad hominem. What misogynist would come up with a site like this? Begone!
"Kyle Morgan is right. Beauty is opinion and personal preference. Just because a man likes athletic women does not make him gay or anything near it.
On top of that, 'feminine and attractive" is not definable. And just because women don't fit your specific type doesn't make them unnattractive. It sure as hell doesn't make them un-feminine either, cuz they're WOMEN. That's what women look like."
Now, THAT is an example of a true "lifetime exclusive heterosexual" male. He finds beauty and femininity in all women, and love and desire them. Shape, size, torso shape..who the hell cares? No heterosexual male, anyway. THAT is a true heterosexual, warmblooded male.
Erik is probably nothing more than a misogynist who is afraid of women and likes to view them alla Victoriana. That what it seems like. Anyone reading the rantings here would doubt Erik's heterosexuality..or rather...they would doubt that he is a very sexual person.
Gays have an intolerant, narrow-minded beauty ideal, and do not have a straight man's generosity and versatility when it comes to beauty and attraction in women. Are you sure you are even heterosexual, Erik?
Maybe you are projecting. You show a "gay" intolerance, and a prejudiced and warped view of what constitutes femininity.
The tendency is clear. People do NOT agree with Erik, and do not find number 7 to be the most attractive woman since she is NOT physically FIT. Many prefer number 1 since she is more slim and toned. Number 7 has a sagging and too large backside and she lacks the overall grace of number 1. Funnily enough number 1 is also the one who looks more like a model!
I am sure that this trend would be the same had there been a real, large poll. This disproves this site's own claim that men prefer small, out of shape lolita girls with immature faces without any definition to them, and with an extreme hourglass figure. A type of looks that fade by the age of 25-30. Men in general want feminine, tall, fit, slim, feline, graceful women, preferably blonde- or reddish-blonde haired. This poll would have continued to prove that, I'm sure.
You must try to understand that people in 2008 do not appreciate the Victorian ideal of a sloppy, pasty, semi-fat and short figure, with stumpy and short legs and a very immature and adolescent face, no matter what hip- and breast size she has. Hourglass figure is EASILY outmatched by physical fitness! People like a feminine face BUT with character and defined features, and that comes with adulthood and maturity. You continue to confuse that with masculinity.
By your standards virtually all women by the age of 25-30 are semi-masculine!
Grown men who find immature, adolescent girls sexy are NOT in the majority, whether you like it or not. They are the ones getting arrested for possession of pornographic images of under-age girls. lol
A woman, not adolescent girl like you prefer, but WOMAN, should be fit. That is now the most important criteria.
If she is not fit people prefer her to be slim, not over-weight, or with too much bodyfat. The pictures you choose show young girls who are out of shape, not fit. Therefore they are not so attractive to most men. Most men today prefer a tall, fit and slender woman with refined and graceful features, long legs, breasts that are not too big nor too small, a rounded, not too protruding backside, and an oval face, NOT a round and broad one, as in many slavic women who are too robust, which you seem to prefer. The forehead should not be too tiny, which is something you miss sometimes when you choose pictures. A large forehead has been a sign of beauty since the beginning of time.
This picture shows a great example of a modern and feminine woman who is universally admired for her great beauty and grace. She is the opposite of Erik's ideal. The look on that man's face says it all. She is Nicole Kidman.
http://s411.photobucket.com/albums/pp197/pictalbum/?action=view¤t=NK1.jpg
http://s411.photobucket.com/albums/pp197/pictalbum/?action=view¤t=NK1.jpg
Here is a great example of an ADULT, feminine, sexy and CLASSY woman. She doesn't have lots of body fat, not big breasts, not short legs, not a round, basketball-shaped and adolescent, undefined puppy face, not a very small waist, and thus she is not an example of your personal ideal, yet she is a MILLION times more desirable, sexier and attractive to most men than ANY of the examples you have here.
She is slim, in shape, feline, gracious, has refined features, very long slender legs, long arms, pale skin without looking pasty since she is not out of shape, and she is known as one of the most desirable and beautiful women on earth.
The look on that man's face says it all! SHE is what most men prefer today in 2008. Sorry, but you are in the minority with your Victorian ideal of an out-of-shape, semi-fat, short, Lolita girl with stumpy, fat legs and huge milk sacs which will start to sag when she turns 30. We are all different and we are allowed to have different tastes.
What makes most people angry about this quasi-scientific page you have is that you press YOUR ideal without considering that it is NOT universally shared by most men today, like you say. On the contrary, most men don't even find these cheap girls attractive! You even insult us and question our sexuality. That only makes you not credible to most observers, so I suggest you push your subjective ideal with less arrogance and more humility.
The women you are using as examples of god knows what are really revolting. It is NOT feminine to be out of shape and ugly, and the hourglass figure is NOT the only criteria for femininity. A more slender girl with less body fat, who is in shape, can be a thousand times more feminine than these poor, pathetic examples. You live in the past. We have healthier bodies now than in Victorian times lol. So do women.
The ones you like are the ones who need to pull all that pasty fat into corsets by the time they hit 30. Slender, feminine, slim, feline women who work out and take care of their bodies don't meet your ideal perhaps, but I can guarantee you that you are in a minority of men who don't appreciate that in a woman.
Your ideal women on this site often look like prostitutes in a sleazy brothel somewhere in Eastern Europe. That is not feminine. Feminine women don't make you want to throw up. You don't like ADULT, elegant, classy and refined women. That is very evident by your consistent choice of pictures purporting to show femininity.
You also seem to believe that VERY young, immature-looking girls are the same thing as femininity. It is NOT. Real, adult women usually don't have the puppy look you find attractive. They have more elegant, mature and refined features. This is something you continue to confuse with masculinity.
You seem to believe that adolescence equals femininity!
The hourglass shape is feminine, but can also easily turn into vulgarity. Many men prefer more slender and elegant body shapes, and I guarantee you that we are not in any way less heterosexual than you are. Your arrogant attitude is not something that makes you credible. You should understand that men have different tastes. We are NOT the same, and not everyone prefers big breasts, small waist, big butt, very short legs, adolescent, very round faces and overall immature and somewhat stupid looking women, like you do.
Vive la difference..
Ugh, this site is majorly creepy. Do you just wank off to amateur porn sites all day? Freak.
Jenny: Super super feminine women look less attractive to me also. I haven't been showing any of them. The woman contrasted with Rebecca Romijn is herself not that feminine (see previous comments). And who is deluded that Rebecca is appropriate for lingerie modeling? I don't need to state it. You have done so using a non-PC term.
I have a masculine body and a masculine face and I am considered very sexy.
Both women watch their weight and excercise.
They are beautiful.
I can't believe this website. You are a psychopath. The women you choose as attractive all look like inbreds to me. Yes, I do fing Rabecca masculine in the face but I actualy think it is UGLY for a girl to be super super feminine, after all testosterone is what gives women a high sex drive....... same with men, we all like feminine men! you want him to have a nic e strong body yes... but u still want a pretty face. Also this model here, here bones just look underdeveloped compared to Rabeccas.......... ugh you deluded faggot.
"But what is the reason why the skinny, masculine look in girls is a central element of this art?"
Because some forms of art (modern, usually) involve exaggerations and extremes. A "masculinized" woman is a striking woman, whether or not you find her to your taste. This is what Picasso attempted to do in many of his more renowned works. He reduced subjects to simpler, more striking forms and shapes. Do I need to find pictures to demonstrate this to you? I think words in this case are actually pretty sufficient.
"So come up with pictures/art where there is no need for thin women (e.g., advertising a weight-gain product) or masculine women (e.g., advertising an athletic product) and explain how substituting the models with feminine women having a healthy body weight will diminish the artistic value."
Advertising is not something I spend my time thinking about...I don't don't have any justifications for the point you brought up regarding that. I merely wanted to tell you why your biological evaluation of feminine beauty does not invalidate the beauty of the models you have criticized on your site. There is beauty in MANY things, and there are so many forms of it, that to limit the valid female beauty to biological formulas and proportions is to diminish and cheapen the value of human imagination. I do not think you are wrong for preferring the women you do, the pictures you posted of "attractive women" were lovely. But why are you so volatile in your opinions about high fashion models? They are lovely in a different way, for different people. What do you benefit by belittling one woman and promoting another?
About industrialized societies and beauty standards-- I acknowledged it was a theory, whether or not I believe it or not, I am not sure of that yet. Once again it is not something I've thought a great deal about. Just wanted to mention it as a possibility.
Marr: The feminine women that I have been showing mostly have similar facial fat as high-fashion models. The major face difference you are looking at is not more of bones showing but a difference in bone shape.
I have posted numerous pictures of tall women that look feminine overall or look more feminine on multiple counts. There is no shortage of tall, feminine and attractive women, especially for people with the resources of the big modeling agencies. The fashion model look is not explained by the necessity of selecting tall women such that other characteristic elements of their looks are artifacts of their tallness.
So fashion models “do not necessarily represent the ideal aesthetic for the modern woman”? Fashion bigwigs do not see it this way –
I don’t doubt that women are often judgmental about other women’s looks; I have plenty of experience with this. But how does this translate to the preferred use of very thin, masculine teenage girls as fashion models?
I would be surprised if the majority of people working for Victoria’s Secret weren’t women. But the person who has been selecting Victoria’s Secret models for 15-plus years is Ed Razek, a man carrying much weight, and one who appears to be a homosexual (you can make this inference by contrasting a choice of his with a feminine woman: http://www.femininebeauty.info/becoming-a-supermodel )
Tyra Banks seems to have had breast implants at some point. The pictures I posted earlier in this comments thread (first page) make a good arguments. I will post some more pictures in another thread where this issue has also come up.
Kelli: Fashion shows and fashion photos are definitely about art, no doubt about it. But what is the reason why the skinny, masculine look in girls is a central element of this art? If you bring in your own preferences then your argument doesn’t counter mine since I am saying that the preferences of a minority are responsible for this central element, and this minority predominantly comprises of male homosexual fashion designers. If you avoid personal preferences regarding body weight and femininity, and bring in an artistic predilection that I and most people lack, then you must attempt to explain what exactly do you see, independent of your preferences, that I don’t. Since we are dealing with art, of course words wouldn’t describe well what I am failing to see, but pictures will. So come up with pictures/art where there is no need for thin women (e.g., advertising a weight-gain product) or masculine women (e.g., advertising an athletic product) and explain how substituting the models with feminine women having a healthy body weight will diminish the artistic value. You can email these pictures to me, upload them to imageshack.us and post the links here or I might set up forums at this site and then you can post pictures there. I will come up with my own pictures/art to counter yours.
I am not pinning the blame for body image issues entirely on the fashion industry. After all, what this website is promoting isn’t helping the body image of many women either. And what I am promoting is something that most people have a preference for. So you are looking at many instances of body image dissatisfaction that stem from people failing to meet their own intrinsic beauty standards.
I have heard of the notion that “as societies become more industrialized, and childbearing becomes secondary, the ultra thin frame naturally is more idealized” but haven’t come across convincing evidence that supports this notion. Contemporary studies in Western societies show a strong preference for a subset of physiques with a healthy body weight on the part of the great majority, not a preference for ultra thin women. You will still need to explain the typical masculinization of high-fashion models.
Pages