Really now, Erik, you don't think Kristin Kreuk is beautiful just because of her nose? And her nose does not even look bad at all! In my opinion, she looks far more attractive than most women in your Attractive Section. Facial beauty-wise, that is.
Master: Most women, like most men, prefer feminine beauty. Hence it cannot be argued that average female fashion models’ looks cater to women’s preferences. The models’ looks lean toward adolescent boys’ rather than adolescent girls’. This would be clearer if you focused on the face since adolescent girls have yet to develop the hips and breasts of adult women. Your hypothesis of many adult women aspiring to an adolescent state isn’t very plausible, especially since many people do not have fond memories of their adolescence.
Women tend to have relatively longer legs than men, and hence the obvious reason why many wear heels is to make their legs appear longer and thereby more feminine. Your explanation of why high fashion models are so tall is not very plausible. Women will generally tend to maximize the number of men that are attracted to them so that they can be as selective as possible. Providing an appearance of having longer legs for their height helps them achieve this by increasing the pool of men attracted to them. If women want men taller than them, then tall women have fewer men to choose from. Why would the general female population then want to be tall?
You are ignoring the simplest, most obvious and most powerful explanation of high-fashion models’ general looks.
Zonneschijn: How many times do I have to tell you that I mostly avoid porn stars? I have explained very well why this site has to at present largely rely on nude models, the vast majority of whom are not porn stars. You can verify this reason for yourself by trying to come up with 50 women comparable to the women shown in the attractive women section (except pages 5 and 6, which feature somewhat masculinized women) but from a mainstream setting (no nude modeling on their part). I have no doubt that you will be able to come up with a few women, like Jayne Wisener (you again got her name wrong), and this is because I am not into movies and the kind of movies I like usually do not feature feminine beauty. But you will have a very difficult time finding a large number of women similar to those in the attractive women section from mainstream settings unless you were to spend a huge amount of time digging them up. If you are able to do this, you will help me make this site more mainstream.
I don’t like lolitas. The women in the attractive women section are all young adults and look it.
You posted a bunch of pictures of Amy Adams. She looks like a mature adult and is an attractive women, but isn’t feminine enough to be a suitable example of feminine beauty.
I don’t especially like the looks of Scarlett Johansson (e.g., not very European profile view of face in relation to this site’s context) or the Swedish contestant (e.g., broad nose; unimpressive physique (clearer in other pictures)) or the black-haired mixed-ancestry woman (e.g., broad nose). I would not put the nude model shown by you in the attractive women section. You have my preferences wrong. And the woman whom you have called pale is not pale; she is pink. Find something better to do than browsing this site and insulting white women.
You must also understand that this website has little to no relevance for non-European societies and is targeting people of European ancestry. This is the reason why there is a focus on white women.
I certainly agree with the author's observation because a lower placement of the medial canthus by relative comparison will make the lateral canthus appear "higher" in such a way that the viewer's eye of the eye being viewed is lead along an upward diagonal line.
According to Farkas, the medial canthus does not displace itself with aging where the lateral canthus displaces itself more medially with aging relative to it's distance from the lateral orbital rim. It's also one of those things for all intents and purposes is not changed via plastic surgery. However, also according to Farkas (who did extensive anthropometrical measures of palpebral fissure horizontal distance to the youthful eye), the average measure for European females is about 32mm. Aging along with some canthopexy procedures, although they increase the angle of inclination the lateral canthus, has with the horizontal also decrease the horizontal 'length' of the palpebral fissue.
Within mathematical aesthetic theory, (which can get pretty obtuse or esoteric as it's kind of a "lost art"), we often look at the angle of inclination of something and relate that back to 'golden angles' or angles derived from golden ratio type mathematics. That is to say if one were to 'design' a face for "beauty" as to appeal to the subjectivity of the person evaluating the work, one would use what the master artists used themselves which involve manipulating ratios and angles in such a way to relate back to golden ratio geometry.
However, a lot of the time, the art of "cracking" what they did (as in "How did Leonardo do that?") is a pretty esoteric study, mostly indulged in by 'art critics', connoisseurs, academic art historians etc as the great artists tended to be on the secretive side as to what their tricks were.
That said, my explanation of why the eye in your morphed photo looks better than the original would arise from a form of aesthetic analysis which does have some mathematical relationships at the heart of it.
For example 36 degrees relates to a 'golden angle'. 6 degree angle of inclination would be an even multiple of that. You have the value of the angle of palpebral fissure inclination as 5.76707. This is pretty close to 6 degrees of inclination.
As you can see, mathematical analysis (the act of your measuring the angle of inclination) is a very powerful tool when making observations about beauty. I'm just relating back your observation to mathematical aesthetic theory which I feel fits well into. As we sometimes say: "Beauty is in the PHI of the beholder". Phi being the golden ratio or derivatives thereof.
Erik : if u really wanted to promote white beauty? it's stupid to u porn star models. after a long time I tried to figure out what style of the women u like? the mixturing betwen Tschapperl, Hascherl, and Patsherl. here the pictures of women that erik is very fond of.
I hope u'll like the pictures I posted? stupid innocent blondy, unreality princess in the fairytale, as u wish.
HERE THEY ARE..
Screaming baby
I know now she is names jane wisener
With the baby face she has cooperating with hugable booby.
I sure u'll likeher erik.........
Lolita.........
I sure you wish she'd exsist in real, enchanted 2007.
hyperactive.
dream world
Silly
unresponcible.
Oh, any males who falling in love with her, he'd be really childish.
I would like you to consider an alternate view regarding your article "Why are fashion models so skinny?" As you correctly pointed out, the women in the men's magazines have hour-glass figures because they are specifically selected to appeal to men. However, I believe you are asserting a non sequitur by stating that the women in women's magazines (high fashion models) are tall and skinny because they are selected by gay men rather than the obvious conclusion that they are specifically selected to appeal to women. I wonder whether the "adolescent boy" observation is a spurious similarity and what we are really observing are remarkably skinny women being selected because they approximate adolescent girls. The model as adolescent girl appeals to certain aspects of a women's psychological desires; to be loved and protected as a child. Certainly, we observe many aspects wherein women attempt to achieve an adolescent look both through make-up, hair-style, and fashion. Women routinely exhibit a desire for maintaining adolescent or girlishness in behavior and appearance throughout adulthood. Studies of adult anorexic women show that a primary drive is to retain their child or "little girl" status relative to their parents and society in general. Rather than being imposed on them from an external source (gay male designers, advertising media, etc.) the desire to emulate adolescent girls and attempt to be an adolescent continually through adulthood is a fundamentally part of women's psychology. Emotionally, women want to be little girls because it frees them of adult responsibilities and confers a special protected "innocent, helpless, and vulnerable" status that elicits help, concern, and assistance from others. Being an adolescent girl means others care for you, protect you, and help you.
Likewise, the appeal of very tall women as models is easily explained within women's psychology of how they assert superiority and personally define an unworthy of excluded class of men. Women view men who are shorter than they as unworthy and consequently themselves as superior and dominate. The taller a woman the greater the relative number of unworthy-status men and the greater the feeling of superiority when in a group. This is also the true function of high-heels for women. Rather than the oft cited reason that the taller shoes help to visually elongate the legs (to appeal to men) the deeper psychological desire for women is to increase their height and thereby create a greater number of unworthy-excluded men. The psychological benefit of excluding results in a feeling of superiority and self-worth; for a women, this is more emotionally rewarding than any concern that they may be filtering-out possible mate selections.
she looks cute very much and pretty thought, in my openion, but she is not that extreamly glamour beautifull like dark hair women, they are more powerfull and elegrant, but I also abbie's look. it's mystery, sophisicate, delicate, artificial and dollish.
I have to say that Abbie is not one of the best models. She hasnt got the face or body...and what is up with the boy pictures?
Lets just say she needs somework..stick to your day job!!
aaronimpact : I think the same to u also, awhile reading this websit I find it quite funny, both FAQ and also the comments, lol it quite relax when u have the hard work and spend sometime reading on here, one of the most amoucing websit I have known.
To erik : I know your intenion and I wish u'd be more brave to write it straight way from your mind? perhape people are understand u more? I find it's nice what u are trying to attribute, but please do not ridicul to anyone. I do not like how u compare pictures of supermodel to the glamour models, they are both beautifull on their way.
All you have to do is read the FAQ and you'll realise that this website is a joke.
And I laughed while reading the page entitled "Improve your looks", "addresses some steps women can take to make themselves more physically attractive".
This website is just a silly gimmick to promote your adult websites, links provided!
Jodith, my dear, I do not know if you have been living under a rock. Apparently, you have not noticed that there are a lot of women who wear makeup not because they are pressured to or men force them, but because they LOVE wearing makeup and they want to look more attractive. And they actually WANT to look attractive for the men, too. Nobody's telling them that they're going to burn in hell if they do not wear makeup.
You guys are a bunch of jerks! The women you think are cute are absoloutly horrible. That is because her faces have not been well developed. Since when square jaws and high cheek bones are a men feature: never. Square jaws mean good face and oral development, you can see that in here" http://www.fasttraxortho.com/when_to_begin_treatment.htm. You can also learn about what is true beauty in this site: http://www.westonaprice.org/healthissues/facial-development.html. And there is also a site where you can see the importance of facial development is here: womenlargejaw.com
Yeah...that’s why Donald Trump and Bill Gates are so terribly unsuccessful, because they are unattractive.
Are you serious in using Donald Trump and Bill Gates as examples to attempt to substantiate your claim?
Firstly, the social success these two men have had (especially Trump with his serial mariages and most likely mistresses on the side) is attributable to their high socio-economic status. Bill Gates is the wealthiest person in the world. That these men have women is consistent with the hypergamic mating strategy of women.
Secondly, neither Donald Trump nor Bill Gates have ever had to climb a corporate ladder. Donald Trump inherited his wealth from his father Fred Trump and began his career at his father's company. Bill Gates is self-made (even though he came from a wealthy family), he has never been an employee. He founded Micro-soft -- as it was called back then -- when he was 20 years old. Bill Gates is extradordinarily intelligent and has entrepreneurial talent. Neither of these qualities are widely possessed in the general population let alone amongst physically unattractive men.
Donald Trump was quite handsome in his youth so in any event I don't think he is a good example to attempt to substantiate your point by any measure.
Bill Gates has succeeded despite his looks due to his extraordinary intellect and business acumen. I hazard a guess that prior to his financial success no woman would have even taken a second look at Bill Gates.
Your examples actually work against your own argument. Bill Gates and Donald Trump both demonstrate that (a) women pursue a hypergamic mating strategy; and (b) women will trade off social status against physical appearance and vice-versa.
Furthermore, I'm not contending that ugly men can't succeed in the corporate world. They can and they have (but Bill Gates and Donald Trump don't serve as examples of that because they never had to climb a corporate ladder) but they have done so against the odds and with great difficulty. The point is that ugly men have to contend against all of the adverse factors that ugly women also contend with plus they have to contend with the hypergamy of women. Thus ugly men have it generally more difficult than ugly women.
You wrote,
Quote:
And to tell you the truth, I read almost no feminist and Dianic tradition literature.
This is a disingenuous remark. To say that you read "almost" no such literature implies that you actually do read such literature. It takes some time for academic results to filter down to laymen (via popular books and the mass media) but I'll give you a head start. The central pillars of radical feminist thought, i.e. those regarding human nature and relying on social constructivism (the radical feminist critique of essentialism), have been discredited. The account of history that the Dianic tradition relies upon has also been discredited as pseudohistory. There never have been matriarchal socities. Do yourself and me a favour and don't just quote me some partisan source or minority scholarly opinion or even worse some screed on the WWW. If you are genuinely interested in the truth -- as opposed to adopting some self-serving ideology -- you will seek out the consensus opinion from scholars on these topics.
You wrote,
Quote:
I’m just smart enouth to be able to observe society and learn from it.
Declaring your intelligence doesn't render your arguments valid or substantial. Your intelligence should be apparent from the content of your posts.
You aren't observing society nor learning from it. This is evinced by your ill-chosen examples in Bill Gates and Donald Trump (as is if their biographies bear any resemblance to the majority of men) and by your attribution of female make-up use to patriarchy. You are an ideologue, a simple part-time idelogue but an ideologue nevertheless. You have an ideology which is misandric in essence, pseudoscientific, pseudohistorical and conspiratorial and you perceive and evaluate everything through this ideological filter. That is why you can cite Bill Gates and Donald Trump as counter-examples and react with self-righteous moral indignation to a scientific article on make-up use without any hint of dissonance. Only ideology can spawn this sort of self-certitude and tunnel vision. Re-read your original post. Notice that you aren't actually addressing the (published and peer-reviewed) journal article nor are you presenting an argument or any contradictory evidence. You are merely posting some tired radical feminist ideological ramblings about patriarchy (which have been reduce to slogans) and are buttressing this ideological spiel with a personal anecdote about your interview experience (as if that establishes your point beyond question). This suggests that you haven't actually read the paper, that you have but didn't understand its significance or that you don't actually think about these matter at all but instead have a personal script that you resort to when your ideological preconceptions are challenged.
So you have decided to scoot with your tail between your legs you pathetic racist bigoted , xenophobic, homicidal paedophile.
And I was just starting to enjoy this.
You are such a pathetic LOSER that you are coming back with my words and insults. Can't you be original?
Next time watch the crap that comes out of your fetid mouth because you will just be slammed right back with ten times more.
Now go to hell and rot there till eternal damnation.
Patriarchy has nothing to do with it. Ugly men get a rougher deal than ugly women. Not only do ugly men have to contend with the halo effect, the high valuation of facial beauty in mate selection, the general preference for beauty over ugliness, the heuristic that ugly things are bad things—just like ugly women do—but men are also subjected to the hypergamic mating strategy of women. Further, ugly men also have to put up with the bullshit from misguided people like you crapping endlessly and at the slightest provocation about patriarchy and its evils and how hard women have it.
My reply:
Yeah...that's why Donald Trump and Bill Gates are so terribly unsuccessful, because they are unattractive.
And to tell you the truth, I read almost no feminist and Dianic tradition literature. I'm just smart enouth to be able to observe society and learn from it.
Scientists explain this by saying that it could be hormones that are secreted from fats that could be damaging the cerebral cells and decreasing brain functions or that the brain arteries could be thickening and preventing blood from reaching the brain in time.
1. Just because women do something, it does not imply that women have that innate character in them. You have apparently not lived as a woman since childhood to understand the social influences on women that result in the choices that women make as adults. In the absence of that social programming, the choices that women make are different.
My argument doesn't rest on anecdote. I can cite published and peer-reviewed material on the short-term and longterm mating strategie of women. See here and here.
Your argument is solipsistic and self-defeating . Given that you haven't lived as anything but a women (and your argument rests on your authority qua woman) on what grounds can you assert that in "the absence of that social programming, the choices that women make are different". How do you know this?
You wrote,
Quote:
2. Your statement “there never has been a matriarchal society in all of human history and no such thing is possible” is completely false. Even today, several matriarchial societies exist. For example - the Mosuo in China, the Spanish speaking areas of the Sahara, the state of Kerala in India, etc. In fact, these matriarchial societies tend to be the most progressive in the respective areas. In India, where the average literacy rate is 60%, the matriarchial society of Kerala has a 100% literacy rate.
That is a load of bollocks. The consensus view amongst anthropologists and historians is that there never have been and aren't any purely matriarchal human societies. I suspect that you are confusing matrifocal societies with matriarchal societies. Please note that I am reporting the consensus view amongst specialists on this matter. There are some scholars that diagree but they are in the minority. The Encyclopedia Brittanica entry on "Matriarchy" summarises the state of scholarship on this topic and it reads
Quote:
The view of matriarchy as constituting a stage of cultural development is now generally discredited. Furthermore, the consensus among modern anthropologists and sociologists is that a strictly matriarchal society never existed.
You wrote,
Quote:
You do not need to look at elephant seals. Look at your primate cousins - bonobos. Bonobos have a matriarchial society. They live a peaceful life. Chimpanzees are strictly patriarchial. The female chimpanzees are abused and raped every day, babies are killed, and chimpanzee society is several times more violent than human society.
The point seems to have been lost upon you. I don't contend that there are no non-human matriarchal societies. Your bonobo example actually works against you in that bonobo females aren't hypergamic. Sex occurs throughout bonobo societies hence their is no need for the competition seen amongst male elephant seals. Also it's a myth that bonobos live peacefully, they are aggressive and violent only less so than their other primates (see here).
The point -- which I will re-iterate -- is that human females are hypergamic and any society that doesn't check, or worse encourages,this hypergamic tendency (whether it be matriarchal or otherwise) would soon come to ruin. It is hypothetically possible to construct a human matriarchal society in which womens hypergamic mating strategy is restrained but the biological basis of the hypergamic imperative makes such a society unlikely.
You wrote,
Quote:
My points have nothing to do with feminist writings. I am trying to tell you, and other readers (assuming you do not delete my post) that your post has a very narrow world view.
Your points have everything to do with feminist writings. In response to a scientific paper on the use of make-up by women you saw fit to spew feminist ideology. You are regurgitating feminist propaganda that has no basis in social or biological science nor even in the lived experience of average and "ugly" men.
You wrote,
Quote:
In human society, men and women are supposed to work together to make progress.
How did you arrive at this teleological conception of life? Is this a religious view?
Quote:
As evidenced by the progress of societies in which women have a greater role (eg. western societies) and the lack of progress in societies in which women are subjugated (eg. many Islamic coutnries), the role of women is important.
Using your own logic the advanced position of western societies has nothing to do with women. Some of the most significant advances in human knowledge and capacity came when women were "subjugated" as you put it. By your own lights all progress prior to first wave feminism should be attributed to men.
If the subjugation of women causes societies to fail to advance culturally and economically then how do you account for the ancient Greek and Roman Empires, ancient and modern China and Japan?
In any event, I'm not advocating the "subjugation" of women. Women should be allowed to gain an education and skills, work, vote, drive cars etc. What needs to be subjugated is the hypergamic behaviour of women.
Quote:
That is not to say that the role of men is unimportant. This is not a battle (unlike what some silly people refer to as the battle of the sexes). It is meant to be a collaborative effort. Without a collaborative effort by parents, human babies would have significantly reduced chance of survival.
Re-heated platitudes served up as profound insights into the human condition.
Quote:
Chimpanzees rarely live up to age 40 in the wild. Humans only reach the half way point by age 40.
Due to the hypergamic mating strategy of women there are many men that have never had a female partner and never will raise a family.
Really now, Erik, you don't think Kristin Kreuk is beautiful just because of her nose? And her nose does not even look bad at all! In my opinion, she looks far more attractive than most women in your Attractive Section. Facial beauty-wise, that is.
Master: Most women, like most men, prefer feminine beauty. Hence it cannot be argued that average female fashion models’ looks cater to women’s preferences. The models’ looks lean toward adolescent boys’ rather than adolescent girls’. This would be clearer if you focused on the face since adolescent girls have yet to develop the hips and breasts of adult women. Your hypothesis of many adult women aspiring to an adolescent state isn’t very plausible, especially since many people do not have fond memories of their adolescence.
There is plenty of evidence that anorexic females are often influenced by the thin fashion ideal.
Women tend to have relatively longer legs than men, and hence the obvious reason why many wear heels is to make their legs appear longer and thereby more feminine. Your explanation of why high fashion models are so tall is not very plausible. Women will generally tend to maximize the number of men that are attracted to them so that they can be as selective as possible. Providing an appearance of having longer legs for their height helps them achieve this by increasing the pool of men attracted to them. If women want men taller than them, then tall women have fewer men to choose from. Why would the general female population then want to be tall?
You are ignoring the simplest, most obvious and most powerful explanation of high-fashion models’ general looks.
Zonneschijn: How many times do I have to tell you that I mostly avoid porn stars? I have explained very well why this site has to at present largely rely on nude models, the vast majority of whom are not porn stars. You can verify this reason for yourself by trying to come up with 50 women comparable to the women shown in the attractive women section (except pages 5 and 6, which feature somewhat masculinized women) but from a mainstream setting (no nude modeling on their part). I have no doubt that you will be able to come up with a few women, like Jayne Wisener (you again got her name wrong), and this is because I am not into movies and the kind of movies I like usually do not feature feminine beauty. But you will have a very difficult time finding a large number of women similar to those in the attractive women section from mainstream settings unless you were to spend a huge amount of time digging them up. If you are able to do this, you will help me make this site more mainstream.
I don’t like lolitas. The women in the attractive women section are all young adults and look it.
You posted a bunch of pictures of Amy Adams. She looks like a mature adult and is an attractive women, but isn’t feminine enough to be a suitable example of feminine beauty.
I don’t especially like the looks of Scarlett Johansson (e.g., not very European profile view of face in relation to this site’s context) or the Swedish contestant (e.g., broad nose; unimpressive physique (clearer in other pictures)) or the black-haired mixed-ancestry woman (e.g., broad nose). I would not put the nude model shown by you in the attractive women section. You have my preferences wrong. And the woman whom you have called pale is not pale; she is pink. Find something better to do than browsing this site and insulting white women.
You must also understand that this website has little to no relevance for non-European societies and is targeting people of European ancestry. This is the reason why there is a focus on white women.
Woah... that was pretty defamatory , wasn't it ?
Call The Anti-Defamation League of W'hitey B'rits immediately !
I certainly agree with the author's observation because a lower placement of the medial canthus by relative comparison will make the lateral canthus appear "higher" in such a way that the viewer's eye of the eye being viewed is lead along an upward diagonal line.
According to Farkas, the medial canthus does not displace itself with aging where the lateral canthus displaces itself more medially with aging relative to it's distance from the lateral orbital rim. It's also one of those things for all intents and purposes is not changed via plastic surgery. However, also according to Farkas (who did extensive anthropometrical measures of palpebral fissure horizontal distance to the youthful eye), the average measure for European females is about 32mm. Aging along with some canthopexy procedures, although they increase the angle of inclination the lateral canthus, has with the horizontal also decrease the horizontal 'length' of the palpebral fissue.
Within mathematical aesthetic theory, (which can get pretty obtuse or esoteric as it's kind of a "lost art"), we often look at the angle of inclination of something and relate that back to 'golden angles' or angles derived from golden ratio type mathematics. That is to say if one were to 'design' a face for "beauty" as to appeal to the subjectivity of the person evaluating the work, one would use what the master artists used themselves which involve manipulating ratios and angles in such a way to relate back to golden ratio geometry.
However, a lot of the time, the art of "cracking" what they did (as in "How did Leonardo do that?") is a pretty esoteric study, mostly indulged in by 'art critics', connoisseurs, academic art historians etc as the great artists tended to be on the secretive side as to what their tricks were.
That said, my explanation of why the eye in your morphed photo looks better than the original would arise from a form of aesthetic analysis which does have some mathematical relationships at the heart of it.
For example 36 degrees relates to a 'golden angle'. 6 degree angle of inclination would be an even multiple of that. You have the value of the angle of palpebral fissure inclination as 5.76707. This is pretty close to 6 degrees of inclination.
As you can see, mathematical analysis (the act of your measuring the angle of inclination) is a very powerful tool when making observations about beauty. I'm just relating back your observation to mathematical aesthetic theory which I feel fits well into. As we sometimes say: "Beauty is in the PHI of the beholder". Phi being the golden ratio or derivatives thereof.
Erik : if u really wanted to promote white beauty? it's stupid to u porn star models. after a long time I tried to figure out what style of the women u like? the mixturing betwen Tschapperl, Hascherl, and Patsherl. here the pictures of women that erik is very fond of.
I hope u'll like the pictures I posted? stupid innocent blondy, unreality princess in the fairytale, as u wish.
HERE THEY ARE..
Screaming baby
I know now she is names jane wisener
With the baby face she has cooperating with hugable booby.
I sure u'll likeher erik.........
Lolita.........
I sure you wish she'd exsist in real, enchanted 2007.
hyperactive.
dream world
Silly
unresponcible.
Oh, any males who falling in love with her, he'd be really childish.
No brains......
childdish...
helpless.
DReam like.
Make believe.......
Lean.
paedofielic...
babydoll.
afraid of everything.
Always easily to get aggressive.
Bellisima.
booby
innocent.
like to show nude.
Pale and unattaction.
Boring's look.
I would like you to consider an alternate view regarding your article "Why are fashion models so skinny?" As you correctly pointed out, the women in the men's magazines have hour-glass figures because they are specifically selected to appeal to men. However, I believe you are asserting a non sequitur by stating that the women in women's magazines (high fashion models) are tall and skinny because they are selected by gay men rather than the obvious conclusion that they are specifically selected to appeal to women. I wonder whether the "adolescent boy" observation is a spurious similarity and what we are really observing are remarkably skinny women being selected because they approximate adolescent girls. The model as adolescent girl appeals to certain aspects of a women's psychological desires; to be loved and protected as a child. Certainly, we observe many aspects wherein women attempt to achieve an adolescent look both through make-up, hair-style, and fashion. Women routinely exhibit a desire for maintaining adolescent or girlishness in behavior and appearance throughout adulthood. Studies of adult anorexic women show that a primary drive is to retain their child or "little girl" status relative to their parents and society in general. Rather than being imposed on them from an external source (gay male designers, advertising media, etc.) the desire to emulate adolescent girls and attempt to be an adolescent continually through adulthood is a fundamentally part of women's psychology. Emotionally, women want to be little girls because it frees them of adult responsibilities and confers a special protected "innocent, helpless, and vulnerable" status that elicits help, concern, and assistance from others. Being an adolescent girl means others care for you, protect you, and help you.
Likewise, the appeal of very tall women as models is easily explained within women's psychology of how they assert superiority and personally define an unworthy of excluded class of men. Women view men who are shorter than they as unworthy and consequently themselves as superior and dominate. The taller a woman the greater the relative number of unworthy-status men and the greater the feeling of superiority when in a group. This is also the true function of high-heels for women. Rather than the oft cited reason that the taller shoes help to visually elongate the legs (to appeal to men) the deeper psychological desire for women is to increase their height and thereby create a greater number of unworthy-excluded men. The psychological benefit of excluding results in a feeling of superiority and self-worth; for a women, this is more emotionally rewarding than any concern that they may be filtering-out possible mate selections.
she looks cute very much and pretty thought, in my openion, but she is not that extreamly glamour beautifull like dark hair women, they are more powerfull and elegrant, but I also abbie's look. it's mystery, sophisicate, delicate, artificial and dollish.
I have to say that Abbie is not one of the best models. She hasnt got the face or body...and what is up with the boy pictures?
Lets just say she needs somework..stick to your day job!!
aaronimpact : I think the same to u also, awhile reading this websit I find it quite funny, both FAQ and also the comments, lol it quite relax when u have the hard work and spend sometime reading on here, one of the most amoucing websit I have known.
To erik : I know your intenion and I wish u'd be more brave to write it straight way from your mind? perhape people are understand u more? I find it's nice what u are trying to attribute, but please do not ridicul to anyone. I do not like how u compare pictures of supermodel to the glamour models, they are both beautifull on their way.
All you have to do is read the FAQ and you'll realise that this website is a joke.
And I laughed while reading the page entitled "Improve your looks", "addresses some steps women can take to make themselves more physically attractive".
This website is just a silly gimmick to promote your adult websites, links provided!
Jodith, my dear, I do not know if you have been living under a rock. Apparently, you have not noticed that there are a lot of women who wear makeup not because they are pressured to or men force them, but because they LOVE wearing makeup and they want to look more attractive. And they actually WANT to look attractive for the men, too. Nobody's telling them that they're going to burn in hell if they do not wear makeup.
The people who have developed this site are racist, ignorant, retarded, and have no idea of what beauty is.
You guys are a bunch of jerks! The women you think are cute are absoloutly horrible. That is because her faces have not been well developed. Since when square jaws and high cheek bones are a men feature: never. Square jaws mean good face and oral development, you can see that in here" http://www.fasttraxortho.com/when_to_begin_treatment.htm. You can also learn about what is true beauty in this site: http://www.westonaprice.org/healthissues/facial-development.html. And there is also a site where you can see the importance of facial development is here: womenlargejaw.com
its their androgynous traits that account for their versatility and success
Jodith: You wrote,
Quote:
Are you serious in using Donald Trump and Bill Gates as examples to attempt to substantiate your claim?
Firstly, the social success these two men have had (especially Trump with his serial mariages and most likely mistresses on the side) is attributable to their high socio-economic status. Bill Gates is the wealthiest person in the world. That these men have women is consistent with the hypergamic mating strategy of women.
Secondly, neither Donald Trump nor Bill Gates have ever had to climb a corporate ladder. Donald Trump inherited his wealth from his father Fred Trump and began his career at his father's company. Bill Gates is self-made (even though he came from a wealthy family), he has never been an employee. He founded Micro-soft -- as it was called back then -- when he was 20 years old. Bill Gates is extradordinarily intelligent and has entrepreneurial talent. Neither of these qualities are widely possessed in the general population let alone amongst physically unattractive men.
Donald Trump was quite handsome in his youth so in any event I don't think he is a good example to attempt to substantiate your point by any measure.
Bill Gates has succeeded despite his looks due to his extraordinary intellect and business acumen. I hazard a guess that prior to his financial success no woman would have even taken a second look at Bill Gates.
Your examples actually work against your own argument. Bill Gates and Donald Trump both demonstrate that (a) women pursue a hypergamic mating strategy; and (b) women will trade off social status against physical appearance and vice-versa.
Furthermore, I'm not contending that ugly men can't succeed in the corporate world. They can and they have (but Bill Gates and Donald Trump don't serve as examples of that because they never had to climb a corporate ladder) but they have done so against the odds and with great difficulty. The point is that ugly men have to contend against all of the adverse factors that ugly women also contend with plus they have to contend with the hypergamy of women. Thus ugly men have it generally more difficult than ugly women.
You wrote,
Quote:
This is a disingenuous remark. To say that you read "almost" no such literature implies that you actually do read such literature. It takes some time for academic results to filter down to laymen (via popular books and the mass media) but I'll give you a head start. The central pillars of radical feminist thought, i.e. those regarding human nature and relying on social constructivism (the radical feminist critique of essentialism), have been discredited. The account of history that the Dianic tradition relies upon has also been discredited as pseudohistory. There never have been matriarchal socities. Do yourself and me a favour and don't just quote me some partisan source or minority scholarly opinion or even worse some screed on the WWW. If you are genuinely interested in the truth -- as opposed to adopting some self-serving ideology -- you will seek out the consensus opinion from scholars on these topics.
You wrote,
Quote:
Declaring your intelligence doesn't render your arguments valid or substantial. Your intelligence should be apparent from the content of your posts.
You aren't observing society nor learning from it. This is evinced by your ill-chosen examples in Bill Gates and Donald Trump (as is if their biographies bear any resemblance to the majority of men) and by your attribution of female make-up use to patriarchy. You are an ideologue, a simple part-time idelogue but an ideologue nevertheless. You have an ideology which is misandric in essence, pseudoscientific, pseudohistorical and conspiratorial and you perceive and evaluate everything through this ideological filter. That is why you can cite Bill Gates and Donald Trump as counter-examples and react with self-righteous moral indignation to a scientific article on make-up use without any hint of dissonance. Only ideology can spawn this sort of self-certitude and tunnel vision. Re-read your original post. Notice that you aren't actually addressing the (published and peer-reviewed) journal article nor are you presenting an argument or any contradictory evidence. You are merely posting some tired radical feminist ideological ramblings about patriarchy (which have been reduce to slogans) and are buttressing this ideological spiel with a personal anecdote about your interview experience (as if that establishes your point beyond question). This suggests that you haven't actually read the paper, that you have but didn't understand its significance or that you don't actually think about these matter at all but instead have a personal script that you resort to when your ideological preconceptions are challenged.
-Peter Z
Bron,
So you have decided to scoot with your tail between your legs you pathetic racist bigoted , xenophobic, homicidal paedophile.
And I was just starting to enjoy this.
You are such a pathetic LOSER that you are coming back with my words and insults. Can't you be original?
Next time watch the crap that comes out of your fetid mouth because you will just be slammed right back with ten times more.
Now go to hell and rot there till eternal damnation.
You said:
Patriarchy has nothing to do with it. Ugly men get a rougher deal than ugly women. Not only do ugly men have to contend with the halo effect, the high valuation of facial beauty in mate selection, the general preference for beauty over ugliness, the heuristic that ugly things are bad things—just like ugly women do—but men are also subjected to the hypergamic mating strategy of women. Further, ugly men also have to put up with the bullshit from misguided people like you crapping endlessly and at the slightest provocation about patriarchy and its evils and how hard women have it.
My reply:
Yeah...that's why Donald Trump and Bill Gates are so terribly unsuccessful, because they are unattractive.
And to tell you the truth, I read almost no feminist and Dianic tradition literature. I'm just smart enouth to be able to observe society and learn from it.
Very beautifull thai woman. ( south easth asia)
Scientists explain this by saying that it could be hormones that are secreted from fats that could be damaging the cerebral cells and decreasing brain functions or that the brain arteries could be thickening and preventing blood from reaching the brain in time.
Megan: You wrote,
Quote:
My argument doesn't rest on anecdote. I can cite published and peer-reviewed material on the short-term and longterm mating strategie of women. See here and here.
Your argument is solipsistic and self-defeating . Given that you haven't lived as anything but a women (and your argument rests on your authority qua woman) on what grounds can you assert that in "the absence of that social programming, the choices that women make are different". How do you know this?
You wrote,
Quote:
That is a load of bollocks. The consensus view amongst anthropologists and historians is that there never have been and aren't any purely matriarchal human societies. I suspect that you are confusing matrifocal societies with matriarchal societies. Please note that I am reporting the consensus view amongst specialists on this matter. There are some scholars that diagree but they are in the minority. The Encyclopedia Brittanica entry on "Matriarchy" summarises the state of scholarship on this topic and it reads
Quote:
You wrote,
Quote:
The point seems to have been lost upon you. I don't contend that there are no non-human matriarchal societies. Your bonobo example actually works against you in that bonobo females aren't hypergamic. Sex occurs throughout bonobo societies hence their is no need for the competition seen amongst male elephant seals. Also it's a myth that bonobos live peacefully, they are aggressive and violent only less so than their other primates (see here).
The point -- which I will re-iterate -- is that human females are hypergamic and any society that doesn't check, or worse encourages,this hypergamic tendency (whether it be matriarchal or otherwise) would soon come to ruin. It is hypothetically possible to construct a human matriarchal society in which womens hypergamic mating strategy is restrained but the biological basis of the hypergamic imperative makes such a society unlikely.
You wrote,
Quote:
Your points have everything to do with feminist writings. In response to a scientific paper on the use of make-up by women you saw fit to spew feminist ideology. You are regurgitating feminist propaganda that has no basis in social or biological science nor even in the lived experience of average and "ugly" men.
You wrote,
Quote:
How did you arrive at this teleological conception of life? Is this a religious view?
Quote:
Using your own logic the advanced position of western societies has nothing to do with women. Some of the most significant advances in human knowledge and capacity came when women were "subjugated" as you put it. By your own lights all progress prior to first wave feminism should be attributed to men.
If the subjugation of women causes societies to fail to advance culturally and economically then how do you account for the ancient Greek and Roman Empires, ancient and modern China and Japan?
In any event, I'm not advocating the "subjugation" of women. Women should be allowed to gain an education and skills, work, vote, drive cars etc. What needs to be subjugated is the hypergamic behaviour of women.
Quote:
Re-heated platitudes served up as profound insights into the human condition.
Quote:
Due to the hypergamic mating strategy of women there are many men that have never had a female partner and never will raise a family.
-Peter Z
Feminine enough?
or India half south east asia also can be feminine.
Indian actress
Afghan
Afghan
Pakistani
Or u like blonde?
Or chubby cheeks..
Small body?
Or Iranian girl who looks like jennifer aniston?
This Iranian women are feminine enough? I hope
Pages