Yawn: There is a lot of anatomical evidence cited to back up what I am saying about women’s masculinity-femininity. To say that a woman doesn’t look like a woman doesn’t mean that she looks like a man. Note the reference to a transgendered man with breast implants. The correct term should have been “male-to-female transsexual with breast implants,” who happens to be biological man that has undergone sex reassignment surgery, typically resulting in looks that are neither those of men nor those of women. I would never mistake Elle MacPherson for a man, but based on the photo alone I would question whether she is a biological woman or a male-to-female transsexual.
Yes, some of the women that I have shown in the context of attractive women are somewhat masculinized, and I have often explicitly mentioned this, but this doesn’t prove that it’s a matter of opinion. It shows that femininity is not the be all and end all of attractiveness in women. There are numerous correlates of beauty, and it is certainly possible for somewhat masculinized women to outcompete more feminine women in the attractiveness department.
Richard: Don’t leave the same comment in different places. There is nothing related to eugenics here. The study addressed simulated a selection algorithm, and came up with two outcomes. One outcome, closely approximating natural elimination of the ancestral forms, has been a characteristic of the lineage leading to humanity throughout history. The other outcome, elimination of masculinized women, will not be seen because of a problem known as sexually antagonistic selection. There are no eugenics recommendations related to the study, and there couldn’t be since one outcome is not possible and the other outcome is naturally occurring.
There are plenty of studies cited within this site that address general preferences observed in the public. So don’t waste your time bringing in my own preferences.
Porn models tend to be masculinized women, are uncommonly examples of feminine beauty, and are a poor choice for assessing or illustrating what men optimally prefer in women. I have addressed this topic to some extent previously and have more coming up in a forthcoming publication in a peer-reviewed journal, which I will also reproduce here. So why am I using porn models? In short, the vast majority of the models I have used are not porn models. The use of nude models is explained by the need for scenarios where the woman needs to be minimally dressed, and also because there are few alternatives.
I have expressed nothing against tallness in women or ‘nice cheekbones.’ If ‘nice cheekbones’ happen to be masculinized, then calling them masculinized is not insulting them.
You are approaching eugenics now. Why don't you just publish Nazi ideology on what is racially 'pure' and be done with it?
How can you even countenance having a website that promotes 'feminine beauty' and then try and intellectualise whether someone is beautiful or not? Is beauty only in the eye the beholder, when the beholder is you, and the woman is some soft porn star with wonky teeth?
Also, when you use porn models to slate the 'serious' models of the fashion industry, you mention gay men having something to do with it....delicious irony then, that you repeatedly hold up porn models as your standard of femininity, when almost every porn site is riddled with anal sex.
So, your idea of femininity is imperfect women with questionable morals getting buggered by six Latino men and yet you come down like a ton of bricks and cry 'masculine' for any girl blessed with nice cheekbones and above average height?
You are approaching eugenics now. Why don't you just publish Nazi ideology on what is racially 'pure' and be done with it?
How can you even countenance having a website that promotes 'feminine beauty' and then try and intellectualise whether someone is beautiful or not? Is beauty only in the eye the beholder, when the beholder is you, and the woman is some soft porn star with wonky teeth?
Also, when you use porn models to slate the 'serious' models of the fashion industry, you mention gay men having something to do with it....delicious irony then, that you repeatedly hold up porn models as your standard of femininity, when almost every porn site is riddled with anal sex.
So, your idea of femininity is imperfect women with questionable morals getting buggered by six Latino men and yet you come down like a ton of bricks and cry 'masculine' for any girl blessed with nice cheekbones and above average height?
I just heard that one of the most recent contenders for America's Top Model show was a woman named Isis, who was actually born male. This seems to support your thesis about the preference for masculine-looking women in high fashion. Can anyone deny it anymore?
You don't appear to have any real reasoning behind what constitutes more or less feminine other than your say so, with insulting commentary to back up your opinions. You saying she does not look like a woman doesn't mean she doesn't look like a woman in that photo. Even the most unflattering pictures of Elle MacPherson don't make her look like a man to anyone. Some of the women you cite as beautiful look masculine to me, thus proving it's a matter of opinion.
Smiley Banana: When you are asked to rate the attractiveness of people, the question is how do they look right now. No point in rating their present looks by guessing how they will look in ten years.
Studies that assess attractiveness ratings do not ignore variation or trait distribution. They are documented, and reasons for the variation are sometimes addressed though several evolutionary psychologists seem to be hardly interested in outlier preferences.
There is a difference between seeking a mate to help reduce the likelihood of passing undesirable features to one’s children and seeking a mate that one finds more attractive. For instance, a short man may prefer women who are 1 to 5 inches shorter than him but if he has the choice between a woman taller than him and a shorter woman, and both women are otherwise well-matched, he may go for the tall woman to reduce the likelihood of his sons dealing with height problems. This decision is not based on attractiveness but other considerations that this site is not concerned with, which is not to say that they don’t matter. There are well-known problems associated with selecting a mate for producing desired children, and those falling under the category of sexually antagonistic selection have been discussed within this site.
Some researchers showed the nude line-ups shown above plus others like it to judges in a study and then analyzed how women’s shape alters with increasing attractiveness. I have addressed this study in an article on women’s attractiveness as shape. If you look at the study, it should be obvious that #7 among the 12 women shown in the article comes closest to the most attractive physique shape, as rated by the judges in general. #8 has an edge on #7 by having more upright breasts, according to the study results, but #7 has larger breasts and has an edge on #8 on this count, and so breasts would be an issue of debate among those who debate the physiques of these two women, but the study results show that I wasn’t mistaken about which of the physiques shown in the article will be found most appealing by most people.
Again, I would like to emphasize that no conclusions about general preferences can be drawn from the comments left by people because most people that have browsed this page have not left a comment. This article has been online for about two and a half years. I don’t have a count of how many times it has been viewed, but since moving this site to a new system, the number of times each page within this site has been viewed is being kept track of. So from July 1, 2008 to Sept 2, 2008 (around 12:46 AM) this article has been viewed 5238 times. Even if half this number represents unique visitors, the number of comments left in 2.5 years is a small fraction of the unique individuals that have browsed the article in just two months.
I made a mistake by posting the pictures of the women in full. I should have cut out the faces.
Rick: The studies don’t mention a definitive cure for acne. They document treatments that help improve acne, to varying degrees depending on the individual, and given their relative lack of side effects and cost effectiveness, afflicted individuals would generally be well-advised to try them out.
The study using azelaic acid cites the effectiveness of the drug when it is used alone, not in combination with antibiotics, though antibiotics could be added if needed.
Yawn: Your criticism doesn’t address any science pointed out by me and hence you have not validated your accusation of pseudo-science.
Regarding my agenda, if you like a woman’s looks and I have something unflattering to say about her appearance, then will you change your opinion of her looks or will anyone else? Your opinion of a woman’s looks is based on your preferences, which I cannot affect by writing something about her looks. I can only affect your opinion by showing pictures of the woman that more clearly reveal her shape and by contrasting her pictures with those of other women, but if this alters your opinion, then the alteration will still be along the lines of your preferences. So you got my agenda wrong.
I have no interest in attacking people with different preferences. The reason this site addresses the preferences of homosexual/bisexual fashion designers is not to attack their preferences, which by itself is a waste of time, but because their preferences are responsible for the problems that have prompted the creation of this site. The homosexuals can pick their models as long as they leave alone venues where feminine beauty is more appropriate, but they won’t leave these venues alone, and I am not letting them get away with it.
If anyone believes that my description of Elle MacPherson quoted above is biased, they need only look at the picture of Elle MacPherson (larger version) that the comment is meant for. Sorry, but she does not look like a woman in this picture.
I don't want you to believe that the fashion industry had duped you. The citations from controlled studies show that most people's aesthetic preferences have been unaltered by the promotion of thin and masculinized women.
"I am addressing variation within women. In other words, some women are on the masculine side of average among women and others on the feminine side of average. Whereas Rebecca Romijn would be cross-culturally recognized as a woman without the need to examine her genitals or breasts, and is clearly feminine compared to the typical man, she is overall on the masculine side of average among women of her ethnic group, notwithstanding her reported WHR being slightly below average and hence on the feminine side of average. Rebecca Romijn looks like a female, but not a feminine one among women."
A pity you make comments such as these then:
"In the picture below, Elle MacPherson could be easily mistaken for a transgendered male with breast implants."
I'm sorry, but you reveal your agenda here. A scientific assessment is one thing, but you are clearly intent on trying to bully people round to your point of view by unsubtly attacking their attraction to women you have decided are "masculine", by picking particular pictures of them. And before you attack me for liking women like RRS, I would point out that I am also a fan of Jelena Jensen and Tera Patrick. I've not been duped by the fashion industry as you might like me to believe, and I've also not been duped by your bs.
As a Rosacea sufferer, I can tell you that the condition is 100% systemic. You cannot treat it with only topical medications. Many times you see studies done where they "prove" that the new topical helps rosacea, but they always combine it with oral antibiotics. The antibiotics are what help the rosacea, end of story. They do not reduce bacteria, but inhibit the synthesis of certain proteins in the skin, reducing the flushing and swelling that causes Rosacea.
Diet is a HUGE component of Rosacea. Caffeine is the #1 problem with most sufferers. Remove caffeine from your diet and the condition improves dramatically. Also many food additives in meats and dairy are very bad for the skin. One interesting side effect of vegetarianism is acne rosacea disappears, assuming you stay away from large amounts of cheeses.
I've tried azelaic acid, laser therapy, topicals, sulfur, and many others and none have had the effect of diet and antibiotic therapy.
As far as body goes, Number 8 looks pretty hot to me and Number 1 seems overall most desirable (okay, so I can't help looking at her face as well; I'm only human).
Their breasts are not so full, but one has to be naive to imagine that big breasts will contain more milk than small ones. Okay, so there are lots of naive people in the world, is that my fault?
Number 7 is a bit saggy und baggy in several places. What will she be like in another ten years? One has to think about these things, you know...
Anyway, keep up the good work, Erik.
But you know, everyone is deficient in some aspect or other of their genetic make-up; so even though we might judge someone as beautiful by the standards of the greater group of humans in which we live and rub shoulders with, when it comes down to the personal level of whom should we mate with, we often look to those who complement our deficiencies to some extent. For example, some men have lower than average levels of masculine genes and may be attracted to women with a bit extra masculine genes to make up the difference, just in case their DNA should mix and produce offspring. Conversely, we may want to preserve in our offspring a particular desirable trait which we have in abundance and are of proud of (tallness, intelligence, facial beauty, etc); we might in that case seek a mate with similar characteristics in those areas. All of this can take place consciously and unconsciously and also physiologically, when people check each other out and then get the hots for each other, as it were. Evidence of this interesting process of genetic augmentation and complementation tends to get averaged out and ignored when average data for preferences of beauty and attractivenes are considered, yet it may be fundamental to understanding peoples preferences. Just my $2 worth.
Erik: But what sort of literature has led to your conclusions in regards to that? Are you familiar with the works of Peter Frost, such as his book on that very topic? He argues that light skin color on females is near-universally regarded as more attractive on average in most populations.
I'm honestly not sure what to think of the whole issue though. Many non-western societies have a depraved, fetishistic preference for light skinned females, yet I've rarely seen anything approaching this among western whites. Most whites, and people in general that I know don't have many clear-cut preferences in regards to that. And in my opinion, the only skin colors I'm not that attracted to on females are truly dark skin colors that you typically see among Sudanese or some west african populations. I'm pretty indifferent for most other colors.
"Several thousand people have read this article and the vast majority of them have not left a comment. Hence it doesn’t follow that most disagree that #7 has the best looking physique."
whats wrong with you, btw i prefer 1. the most clearly, wouldnt have bothered to comment, if not reading the above,
ps pathetic site
Angelina is not only very beautiful, and very feminine, but also has two of the very finest breasts that I have ever seen in my life! It's just a shame that there are almost no videos of her to found on the internet. Plenty still pictures, but such beauty should be seen in motion. I have only ever seen one video of her, called "karina b fabuloso", or something like that.
I can't believe I read the whole thing, including the comments. Your "theory" is at least interesting, if at times off. While I fully realize that one of the true motivations behind this site may be to get click-throughs, I nonetheless will play, and offer some observations on the alleged theory (not critiques that you must respond to, but instead observations):
First, I understand the author's frustration with some of the comments - he's saying in a very specific case - Sports Illustrated - ideal feminine beauty is not being used even though you'd think that would be the exact place where they would use ideal feminine beauty - huge circulation targed to men. I think that at this point it is not quite so simple - S.I. has taken some hits over the years and as a mainstream magazine cares more about being P.C. than other publications might, so if they thought that the feminine ideal that men most desired was not P.C. they may depart from that ideal a little. For instance, all things being equal, babes with otherwise similar builds but with giant natural tits probably wouldn't play well with the decision makers. That factor plays against many men's and definitely your) feminine ideal. The same pressures tend to make the S.I. photos less seductive, and more about the overall scene - more artsy and location-driven and "classy" and less about the entire focus being on making a woman look drop-dead hard-on sexy.
Your use of Luciana whoever in figure 9 is not nec'y a good example - I don't know if her ass is really that three-dimensional - it's a Playboy pose, truly marketed to men, they have no qualms about her making sure she sticks her ass out by arching her back a lot. That's what she is doing here, and perhaps without her doing so her ass looks much more flat.
Some of these models are not good examples because S.I., at least in this case, seems to be kind of having a "legends revisited" kind of theme. Thus they're using models well advanced in years compared to when they were totally the "it" girls. Of course, time affects their facial appearance. Also, since they're older and/or since they're no longer full-time models, some of them have put on a little weight through the middle, and therefore according to you they have "masculinized." By definition then, it seems that a woman can become more masculine just by gaining weight through the middle. I would submit that their structure with even 7 to 10 pounds less bodyweight (or more in some cases) would show them to have very feminine waist-to-hip ratios. I think that small-boned light women do not have to possess "big" hips for that to be the case - many petite "skinny" women have have great waist-to-hip ratios because their waists are tiny.
One of the factors for SI and fashion in general which is odd and goes against the real world is that the models are so tall. In order for them not to be considered amazon women then they have to be very light, for if they weren't, at 6 foot, they could easily weigh 160 to 170. The fact that they're very light/skinny and so tall means they're less shapely for their weight than a short woman. Even more so because most models don't have an athletic background. For me, I'd much prefer looking at a 5'3" model who, even with more shape and musculature, is still only 120 pounds or so.
I think something you're missing out on is scale. Some of these women may look "masculine" to you in the poses, but if you put an S.I. model next to a guy of the same height, there'd be a lot better sense of her delicateness, even for the older models. I think that relative delicateness is something that men find attractive. I am a lightly built man, but I recall a girlfriend and I looking in the mirror together with her standing in front of me, and the differences in scale and shape of our shoulders, torso, neck, and heads were striking, even though she had some extra pounds on her. "Wide" shoulders and "thick" middles on these women do not nec'y look that way compared to men, or even average women, and that fact I think would make them look much more feminine in real life or in a picture that showed such a comparison.
Similarly, I've gotten the impression (I'm not going up to review to be sure at this point) that a defined jawline is suspect to categorizations of "masculinity". I think scale, again, is key to this. A defined jawline I find VERY attractive on a woman. I think that in the best cases defined does not mean masculine because a woman's defined jawline can still be a delicate jawline. As you point out, a very small distance from lip to tip of chin is a much more feminine feature, and that holds even if the chin is part of a defined jawline. My jawline is quite defined, but it looks like I could take a punch from an MMA fighter. Winona Ryder's is quite defined, but delicate enough that you imagine it wouldn't survive such an encounter.
I can't tell for sure, but I think you may just think big lips and a wide mouth are "masculine". I think that much of the population thinks the exact opposite, as the popularity of injections and augmentation attest. Liv Tyler has a broad mouth, and I think that the general consensus is that she's a gorgeous lady. I'm not sure it is despite her mouth and lips. Same thing to a lesser extent for Sandra Bullock and Anne Hathaway. And the popularity of South American models, many of which have full lips or wide mouths, backs this up. Never mind that there are gorgeous black women in every nook and cranny of the world, and obviously they overwhelmingly have full lips and usually wide mouths. Small lips and a narrow mouth may be quite striking on some women, but I don't believe the opposite characteristic is considered masculine in any way. Aesthetically, I think that a wide mouth helps because it makes the rest of the jawline and the chin look relatively smaller.
There are better example of non-pornographic publications featuring feminine beauty that are truly marketed to men. FHM and Maxim come to mind. The girls there, while probably representing a decent range of physiques and facial structure, are much more representative of what the average man finds incredibly attractive, and I think you'll find that your concerns raised by the S.I. models don't hold for those publications. Unlike the swimsuit edition, they are not skewed by photos having come almost exclusively from women with a fashion background, with that inherent uniform body type.
Don't get me wrong - other women may catch my attention just as much or more, but the SI models are a pretty decent sample of feminine gorgeousness. And anyone who thinks Rebecca Romjin(?)-Stamos doesn't look feminine needs to revisit the X-men trilogy armed with the pause button of their DVD remote.
I agree totally with Justin's commentary on the use of the term "life-exclusive heterosexual male." What a strange term for someone to coin, and certainly to repeat ad nauseum. You could just use the term "straight" perhaps with the caveat of explaining early in the article that you mean men who have not been with a man, nor have any desire to be with a man. The fact that you didn't do that makes straight guys suspicious.
Marquartd's mask looks most masculine to me in profile because of the jaw mainly. Of the photos of Rebecca Romijn the one in profile was mosy revealing, especialy of her deep jaw.
What do you think of Michelle Marsh?
Thanks for re-explaining how facial narrowing is compatible with mid-facial region shape broadening.
As for gracilization of Steppe Tundra hunters; your expertise in pointing out that the additional bone, muscle, cartilage and presumably ligaments in lower body would more than compensate for any extra mass in walking extreme distances over broken ground is good enough for me, thanks for taking it seriously enough to give a critique.
Picking up on something you used in the critique is poor commenting ettiquette, however your example of Homo heidelbergenus' replacement by Homo neanderthalenis as showing no adaptation to hunting by gracilization cannot be accepted. Boxgrove men were indeed massively strong, carrying 700 kilo woolly rhinos home. That proves they didn't have to go far to hunt, how far would you carry a rhino? Neanderthals lived in caves and seemed to stay put rather than stomping across the steppe tundra, they seem to have attacked by getting close or even jumping on the backs of prey to stab them rather than throwing a spear. The numerous broken bones their remains exibit support this hypothesis. Morever the physique was really adapted to extreme cold including, according to Peter Frost, a coat of fur.
Yawn: There is a lot of anatomical evidence cited to back up what I am saying about women’s masculinity-femininity. To say that a woman doesn’t look like a woman doesn’t mean that she looks like a man. Note the reference to a transgendered man with breast implants. The correct term should have been “male-to-female transsexual with breast implants,” who happens to be biological man that has undergone sex reassignment surgery, typically resulting in looks that are neither those of men nor those of women. I would never mistake Elle MacPherson for a man, but based on the photo alone I would question whether she is a biological woman or a male-to-female transsexual.
Yes, some of the women that I have shown in the context of attractive women are somewhat masculinized, and I have often explicitly mentioned this, but this doesn’t prove that it’s a matter of opinion. It shows that femininity is not the be all and end all of attractiveness in women. There are numerous correlates of beauty, and it is certainly possible for somewhat masculinized women to outcompete more feminine women in the attractiveness department.
Richard: Don’t leave the same comment in different places. My reply is posted where you left your first comment.
I will be back to reply to other comments.
Richard: Don’t leave the same comment in different places. There is nothing related to eugenics here. The study addressed simulated a selection algorithm, and came up with two outcomes. One outcome, closely approximating natural elimination of the ancestral forms, has been a characteristic of the lineage leading to humanity throughout history. The other outcome, elimination of masculinized women, will not be seen because of a problem known as sexually antagonistic selection. There are no eugenics recommendations related to the study, and there couldn’t be since one outcome is not possible and the other outcome is naturally occurring.
There are plenty of studies cited within this site that address general preferences observed in the public. So don’t waste your time bringing in my own preferences.
Porn models tend to be masculinized women, are uncommonly examples of feminine beauty, and are a poor choice for assessing or illustrating what men optimally prefer in women. I have addressed this topic to some extent previously and have more coming up in a forthcoming publication in a peer-reviewed journal, which I will also reproduce here. So why am I using porn models? In short, the vast majority of the models I have used are not porn models. The use of nude models is explained by the need for scenarios where the woman needs to be minimally dressed, and also because there are few alternatives.
I have expressed nothing against tallness in women or ‘nice cheekbones.’ If ‘nice cheekbones’ happen to be masculinized, then calling them masculinized is not insulting them.
Ella Tse: The woman looks good to me.
Hilarious. And damned right.
You are approaching eugenics now. Why don't you just publish Nazi ideology on what is racially 'pure' and be done with it?
How can you even countenance having a website that promotes 'feminine beauty' and then try and intellectualise whether someone is beautiful or not? Is beauty only in the eye the beholder, when the beholder is you, and the woman is some soft porn star with wonky teeth?
Also, when you use porn models to slate the 'serious' models of the fashion industry, you mention gay men having something to do with it....delicious irony then, that you repeatedly hold up porn models as your standard of femininity, when almost every porn site is riddled with anal sex.
So, your idea of femininity is imperfect women with questionable morals getting buggered by six Latino men and yet you come down like a ton of bricks and cry 'masculine' for any girl blessed with nice cheekbones and above average height?
You total care case. Seek help.
You are approaching eugenics now. Why don't you just publish Nazi ideology on what is racially 'pure' and be done with it?
How can you even countenance having a website that promotes 'feminine beauty' and then try and intellectualise whether someone is beautiful or not? Is beauty only in the eye the beholder, when the beholder is you, and the woman is some soft porn star with wonky teeth?
Also, when you use porn models to slate the 'serious' models of the fashion industry, you mention gay men having something to do with it....delicious irony then, that you repeatedly hold up porn models as your standard of femininity, when almost every porn site is riddled with anal sex.
So, your idea of femininity is imperfect women with questionable morals getting buggered by six Latino men and yet you come down like a ton of bricks and cry 'masculine' for any girl blessed with nice cheekbones and above average height?
You total care case. Seek help.
I just heard that one of the most recent contenders for America's Top Model show was a woman named Isis, who was actually born male. This seems to support your thesis about the preference for masculine-looking women in high fashion. Can anyone deny it anymore?
You don't appear to have any real reasoning behind what constitutes more or less feminine other than your say so, with insulting commentary to back up your opinions. You saying she does not look like a woman doesn't mean she doesn't look like a woman in that photo. Even the most unflattering pictures of Elle MacPherson don't make her look like a man to anyone. Some of the women you cite as beautiful look masculine to me, thus proving it's a matter of opinion.
Smiley Banana: When you are asked to rate the attractiveness of people, the question is how do they look right now. No point in rating their present looks by guessing how they will look in ten years.
Studies that assess attractiveness ratings do not ignore variation or trait distribution. They are documented, and reasons for the variation are sometimes addressed though several evolutionary psychologists seem to be hardly interested in outlier preferences.
There is a difference between seeking a mate to help reduce the likelihood of passing undesirable features to one’s children and seeking a mate that one finds more attractive. For instance, a short man may prefer women who are 1 to 5 inches shorter than him but if he has the choice between a woman taller than him and a shorter woman, and both women are otherwise well-matched, he may go for the tall woman to reduce the likelihood of his sons dealing with height problems. This decision is not based on attractiveness but other considerations that this site is not concerned with, which is not to say that they don’t matter. There are well-known problems associated with selecting a mate for producing desired children, and those falling under the category of sexually antagonistic selection have been discussed within this site.
General comment for individuals mentioning which of the physiques they prefer most
Some researchers showed the nude line-ups shown above plus others like it to judges in a study and then analyzed how women’s shape alters with increasing attractiveness. I have addressed this study in an article on women’s attractiveness as shape. If you look at the study, it should be obvious that #7 among the 12 women shown in the article comes closest to the most attractive physique shape, as rated by the judges in general. #8 has an edge on #7 by having more upright breasts, according to the study results, but #7 has larger breasts and has an edge on #8 on this count, and so breasts would be an issue of debate among those who debate the physiques of these two women, but the study results show that I wasn’t mistaken about which of the physiques shown in the article will be found most appealing by most people.
Again, I would like to emphasize that no conclusions about general preferences can be drawn from the comments left by people because most people that have browsed this page have not left a comment. This article has been online for about two and a half years. I don’t have a count of how many times it has been viewed, but since moving this site to a new system, the number of times each page within this site has been viewed is being kept track of. So from July 1, 2008 to Sept 2, 2008 (around 12:46 AM) this article has been viewed 5238 times. Even if half this number represents unique visitors, the number of comments left in 2.5 years is a small fraction of the unique individuals that have browsed the article in just two months.
I made a mistake by posting the pictures of the women in full. I should have cut out the faces.
Rick: The studies don’t mention a definitive cure for acne. They document treatments that help improve acne, to varying degrees depending on the individual, and given their relative lack of side effects and cost effectiveness, afflicted individuals would generally be well-advised to try them out.
The study using azelaic acid cites the effectiveness of the drug when it is used alone, not in combination with antibiotics, though antibiotics could be added if needed.
Yawn: Your criticism doesn’t address any science pointed out by me and hence you have not validated your accusation of pseudo-science.
Regarding my agenda, if you like a woman’s looks and I have something unflattering to say about her appearance, then will you change your opinion of her looks or will anyone else? Your opinion of a woman’s looks is based on your preferences, which I cannot affect by writing something about her looks. I can only affect your opinion by showing pictures of the woman that more clearly reveal her shape and by contrasting her pictures with those of other women, but if this alters your opinion, then the alteration will still be along the lines of your preferences. So you got my agenda wrong.
I have no interest in attacking people with different preferences. The reason this site addresses the preferences of homosexual/bisexual fashion designers is not to attack their preferences, which by itself is a waste of time, but because their preferences are responsible for the problems that have prompted the creation of this site. The homosexuals can pick their models as long as they leave alone venues where feminine beauty is more appropriate, but they won’t leave these venues alone, and I am not letting them get away with it.
If anyone believes that my description of Elle MacPherson quoted above is biased, they need only look at the picture of Elle MacPherson (larger version) that the comment is meant for. Sorry, but she does not look like a woman in this picture.
I don't want you to believe that the fashion industry had duped you. The citations from controlled studies show that most people's aesthetic preferences have been unaltered by the promotion of thin and masculinized women.
"I am addressing variation within women. In other words, some women are on the masculine side of average among women and others on the feminine side of average. Whereas Rebecca Romijn would be cross-culturally recognized as a woman without the need to examine her genitals or breasts, and is clearly feminine compared to the typical man, she is overall on the masculine side of average among women of her ethnic group, notwithstanding her reported WHR being slightly below average and hence on the feminine side of average. Rebecca Romijn looks like a female, but not a feminine one among women."
A pity you make comments such as these then:
"In the picture below, Elle MacPherson could be easily mistaken for a transgendered male with breast implants."
I'm sorry, but you reveal your agenda here. A scientific assessment is one thing, but you are clearly intent on trying to bully people round to your point of view by unsubtly attacking their attraction to women you have decided are "masculine", by picking particular pictures of them. And before you attack me for liking women like RRS, I would point out that I am also a fan of Jelena Jensen and Tera Patrick. I've not been duped by the fashion industry as you might like me to believe, and I've also not been duped by your bs.
As a Rosacea sufferer, I can tell you that the condition is 100% systemic. You cannot treat it with only topical medications. Many times you see studies done where they "prove" that the new topical helps rosacea, but they always combine it with oral antibiotics. The antibiotics are what help the rosacea, end of story. They do not reduce bacteria, but inhibit the synthesis of certain proteins in the skin, reducing the flushing and swelling that causes Rosacea.
Diet is a HUGE component of Rosacea. Caffeine is the #1 problem with most sufferers. Remove caffeine from your diet and the condition improves dramatically. Also many food additives in meats and dairy are very bad for the skin. One interesting side effect of vegetarianism is acne rosacea disappears, assuming you stay away from large amounts of cheeses.
I've tried azelaic acid, laser therapy, topicals, sulfur, and many others and none have had the effect of diet and antibiotic therapy.
As far as body goes, Number 8 looks pretty hot to me and Number 1 seems overall most desirable (okay, so I can't help looking at her face as well; I'm only human).
Their breasts are not so full, but one has to be naive to imagine that big breasts will contain more milk than small ones. Okay, so there are lots of naive people in the world, is that my fault?
Number 7 is a bit saggy und baggy in several places. What will she be like in another ten years? One has to think about these things, you know...
Anyway, keep up the good work, Erik.
But you know, everyone is deficient in some aspect or other of their genetic make-up; so even though we might judge someone as beautiful by the standards of the greater group of humans in which we live and rub shoulders with, when it comes down to the personal level of whom should we mate with, we often look to those who complement our deficiencies to some extent. For example, some men have lower than average levels of masculine genes and may be attracted to women with a bit extra masculine genes to make up the difference, just in case their DNA should mix and produce offspring. Conversely, we may want to preserve in our offspring a particular desirable trait which we have in abundance and are of proud of (tallness, intelligence, facial beauty, etc); we might in that case seek a mate with similar characteristics in those areas. All of this can take place consciously and unconsciously and also physiologically, when people check each other out and then get the hots for each other, as it were. Evidence of this interesting process of genetic augmentation and complementation tends to get averaged out and ignored when average data for preferences of beauty and attractivenes are considered, yet it may be fundamental to understanding peoples preferences. Just my $2 worth.
Erik: But what sort of literature has led to your conclusions in regards to that? Are you familiar with the works of Peter Frost, such as his book on that very topic? He argues that light skin color on females is near-universally regarded as more attractive on average in most populations.
I'm honestly not sure what to think of the whole issue though. Many non-western societies have a depraved, fetishistic preference for light skinned females, yet I've rarely seen anything approaching this among western whites. Most whites, and people in general that I know don't have many clear-cut preferences in regards to that. And in my opinion, the only skin colors I'm not that attracted to on females are truly dark skin colors that you typically see among Sudanese or some west african populations. I'm pretty indifferent for most other colors.
"Several thousand people have read this article and the vast majority of them have not left a comment. Hence it doesn’t follow that most disagree that #7 has the best looking physique."
whats wrong with you, btw i prefer 1. the most clearly, wouldnt have bothered to comment, if not reading the above,
ps pathetic site
Angelina is not only very beautiful, and very feminine, but also has two of the very finest breasts that I have ever seen in my life! It's just a shame that there are almost no videos of her to found on the internet. Plenty still pictures, but such beauty should be seen in motion. I have only ever seen one video of her, called "karina b fabuloso", or something like that.
Erik,
THis is kind of off topic for this article
but what do you think of abbie cornish in relation to how feminine her face is
http://www.abbie-cornish.org/gallery/displayimage.php?album=38&pos=152
I can't believe I read the whole thing, including the comments. Your "theory" is at least interesting, if at times off. While I fully realize that one of the true motivations behind this site may be to get click-throughs, I nonetheless will play, and offer some observations on the alleged theory (not critiques that you must respond to, but instead observations):
First, I understand the author's frustration with some of the comments - he's saying in a very specific case - Sports Illustrated - ideal feminine beauty is not being used even though you'd think that would be the exact place where they would use ideal feminine beauty - huge circulation targed to men. I think that at this point it is not quite so simple - S.I. has taken some hits over the years and as a mainstream magazine cares more about being P.C. than other publications might, so if they thought that the feminine ideal that men most desired was not P.C. they may depart from that ideal a little. For instance, all things being equal, babes with otherwise similar builds but with giant natural tits probably wouldn't play well with the decision makers. That factor plays against many men's and definitely your) feminine ideal. The same pressures tend to make the S.I. photos less seductive, and more about the overall scene - more artsy and location-driven and "classy" and less about the entire focus being on making a woman look drop-dead hard-on sexy.
Your use of Luciana whoever in figure 9 is not nec'y a good example - I don't know if her ass is really that three-dimensional - it's a Playboy pose, truly marketed to men, they have no qualms about her making sure she sticks her ass out by arching her back a lot. That's what she is doing here, and perhaps without her doing so her ass looks much more flat.
Some of these models are not good examples because S.I., at least in this case, seems to be kind of having a "legends revisited" kind of theme. Thus they're using models well advanced in years compared to when they were totally the "it" girls. Of course, time affects their facial appearance. Also, since they're older and/or since they're no longer full-time models, some of them have put on a little weight through the middle, and therefore according to you they have "masculinized." By definition then, it seems that a woman can become more masculine just by gaining weight through the middle. I would submit that their structure with even 7 to 10 pounds less bodyweight (or more in some cases) would show them to have very feminine waist-to-hip ratios. I think that small-boned light women do not have to possess "big" hips for that to be the case - many petite "skinny" women have have great waist-to-hip ratios because their waists are tiny.
One of the factors for SI and fashion in general which is odd and goes against the real world is that the models are so tall. In order for them not to be considered amazon women then they have to be very light, for if they weren't, at 6 foot, they could easily weigh 160 to 170. The fact that they're very light/skinny and so tall means they're less shapely for their weight than a short woman. Even more so because most models don't have an athletic background. For me, I'd much prefer looking at a 5'3" model who, even with more shape and musculature, is still only 120 pounds or so.
I think something you're missing out on is scale. Some of these women may look "masculine" to you in the poses, but if you put an S.I. model next to a guy of the same height, there'd be a lot better sense of her delicateness, even for the older models. I think that relative delicateness is something that men find attractive. I am a lightly built man, but I recall a girlfriend and I looking in the mirror together with her standing in front of me, and the differences in scale and shape of our shoulders, torso, neck, and heads were striking, even though she had some extra pounds on her. "Wide" shoulders and "thick" middles on these women do not nec'y look that way compared to men, or even average women, and that fact I think would make them look much more feminine in real life or in a picture that showed such a comparison.
Similarly, I've gotten the impression (I'm not going up to review to be sure at this point) that a defined jawline is suspect to categorizations of "masculinity". I think scale, again, is key to this. A defined jawline I find VERY attractive on a woman. I think that in the best cases defined does not mean masculine because a woman's defined jawline can still be a delicate jawline. As you point out, a very small distance from lip to tip of chin is a much more feminine feature, and that holds even if the chin is part of a defined jawline. My jawline is quite defined, but it looks like I could take a punch from an MMA fighter. Winona Ryder's is quite defined, but delicate enough that you imagine it wouldn't survive such an encounter.
I can't tell for sure, but I think you may just think big lips and a wide mouth are "masculine". I think that much of the population thinks the exact opposite, as the popularity of injections and augmentation attest. Liv Tyler has a broad mouth, and I think that the general consensus is that she's a gorgeous lady. I'm not sure it is despite her mouth and lips. Same thing to a lesser extent for Sandra Bullock and Anne Hathaway. And the popularity of South American models, many of which have full lips or wide mouths, backs this up. Never mind that there are gorgeous black women in every nook and cranny of the world, and obviously they overwhelmingly have full lips and usually wide mouths. Small lips and a narrow mouth may be quite striking on some women, but I don't believe the opposite characteristic is considered masculine in any way. Aesthetically, I think that a wide mouth helps because it makes the rest of the jawline and the chin look relatively smaller.
There are better example of non-pornographic publications featuring feminine beauty that are truly marketed to men. FHM and Maxim come to mind. The girls there, while probably representing a decent range of physiques and facial structure, are much more representative of what the average man finds incredibly attractive, and I think you'll find that your concerns raised by the S.I. models don't hold for those publications. Unlike the swimsuit edition, they are not skewed by photos having come almost exclusively from women with a fashion background, with that inherent uniform body type.
Don't get me wrong - other women may catch my attention just as much or more, but the SI models are a pretty decent sample of feminine gorgeousness. And anyone who thinks Rebecca Romjin(?)-Stamos doesn't look feminine needs to revisit the X-men trilogy armed with the pause button of their DVD remote.
I agree totally with Justin's commentary on the use of the term "life-exclusive heterosexual male." What a strange term for someone to coin, and certainly to repeat ad nauseum. You could just use the term "straight" perhaps with the caveat of explaining early in the article that you mean men who have not been with a man, nor have any desire to be with a man. The fact that you didn't do that makes straight guys suspicious.
The latest consensus recommendations on using botox and hyaluronic acid fillers for improving the appearance of aged skin.
A report on using sandpaper as an abrasive agent to get rid of various skin scars. Lots of before and after examples.
Marquartd's mask looks most masculine to me in profile because of the jaw mainly. Of the photos of Rebecca Romijn the one in profile was mosy revealing, especialy of her deep jaw.
What do you think of Michelle Marsh?
Thanks for re-explaining how facial narrowing is compatible with mid-facial region shape broadening.
As for gracilization of Steppe Tundra hunters; your expertise in pointing out that the additional bone, muscle, cartilage and presumably ligaments in lower body would more than compensate for any extra mass in walking extreme distances over broken ground is good enough for me, thanks for taking it seriously enough to give a critique.
Picking up on something you used in the critique is poor commenting ettiquette, however your example of Homo heidelbergenus' replacement by Homo neanderthalenis as showing no adaptation to hunting by gracilization cannot be accepted. Boxgrove men were indeed massively strong, carrying 700 kilo woolly rhinos home. That proves they didn't have to go far to hunt, how far would you carry a rhino? Neanderthals lived in caves and seemed to stay put rather than stomping across the steppe tundra, they seem to have attacked by getting close or even jumping on the backs of prey to stab them rather than throwing a spear. The numerous broken bones their remains exibit support this hypothesis. Morever the physique was really adapted to extreme cold including, according to Peter Frost, a coat of fur.
Pages