Well if you thought Rebecca Romijn didn't look very feminine, you sir have problems!!
Perfect choice compared to this, porn star that you think should have got it. Calling her a glamour model doesn't change the fact that it's just the posh way of saying porn star.
You've got to be kidding me. This is some kind of joke right? You are comparing Tara Conner, Miss USA, to some women from a 3rd rate porn site. Don't get me wrong. There are some very attractive women in the porn industry, but seriously. Seriously. You're joking, right?
Not sure if anyone has made a similar comment yet, but as a bisexual woman I find myself most attracted to extreme femininity, or at least much further along the scale than you (In your first set of pictures, I unanimously prefer the women to the far right). I like women with serious curves, and personally I think that most of the women in your "attractive women" section, while more attractive to me than high fashion models, are still not voluptuous enough. I obviously don't speak for all lesbians and bisexuals, but I feel I'm not alone in my preferences, considering what I've heard from lesbians I've known.
...which concludes that lesbians prefer, overall, a greater proportion of body fat in their partners, with the most voluptuous women being the most attractive. They also seem to share the same WHR preferences as heterosexual men, although there is a tendency to deviate from this norm and rate women with a slender build and high WHR as attractive.
I'm curious: how important is it to you to please groups other than white male heterosexuals? Do the preferences of lesbians (who obviously have a stake in this as well) count, if what we're talking about here is promoting more sexually stimulating high-fashion models and beauty contestants?
I have to say, Erik, that your website is intriguing me more and more each day. I made some derogatory comments in the self-esteem section which I still stand by, but the topic is just too interesting for me to dismiss.
Ok, well I can see how some of the models look like young adolescent boys,however, in their case, it's probably due to low body fat, which tends to make the jawline more angled. Maybe Giselle doesn't have an hourglass waist and hips, but she is in excellent shape and in her photos she can give sensual appeal. The comment of Alessandra looking like a drag queen confuses me. For one, she has real hair; not some shocking coloured wig. Her makeup is minimal but classy. I can't help but notice the picture of the girl next to Alessandra. She looks like a girl too, but her look is more unnatural and plastic. Firstly, she needs to quick plucking her eyebrows. This would make her look more feminine. It's the trannys that over-pluck. Secondly, purchase a bathing suit that would correctly fit and flatter her breasts and hips. The bright pink suit she has on doesn't go well with her skin tone, and makes her waist look wider (thus creating a maculine look). I agree with the yellow staining of her teeth, which is a more mascline quality. She should visit a dentist for that issue. Her body over all needs toning especially upper thighs and buttocks... she has a "double-cheek" thing going. She needs to build up at least an inch on her calves to balance her frame, and her stomach looks a little pudgy. She needs to pose with more confidence. she looks dull and vague. My last comment is really noting the acne on her butt. It looks like a rash or really bad hygiene. Get rid of it!! Besides, the writer of this huge abasement is missing the true meaning of beauty. It's sensuality from deep within the eyes; soft, unblemished skin, unique but impacting personality, which can be found anywhere, if you look for it. Please take some self-esteem classes!
Ugh. Thanks, brenda. Wow, I had no idea that I needed to work on my self esteem!
I'm making the same point you are in your last paragraph, I'm just trying to be optimistic. I hate the way this site made me feel. Of course I have self esteem issues, but things like this simply feed into them. I don't think anyone else deserves to feel the same way I did when I first encountered it, so I think Eric would get a lot less hostility from women if he just made the message of neutrality more clear, possibly by adding it to his main page? Just an idea. I think the organization on this site is pretty awful. It was hard to find this page, and most people are not really going to take the time to read through everything he has to say to locate his tiny, feeble apology. I think there is something cold and calculating in his style and approach that makes him seem like a bit of a nut. That's just what I gather from the many comments people leave him, and from my own gut reaction to this site. If he wants to reach people, he needs to fix that.
About the Dove campaign...I think they are just trying to rectify the self esteem issues which undeniably cause a lot of women to suffer and ultimately to give up entirely on looking presentable and feeling good about themselves (aka healthy and vibrant and not anxious about their looks). I know women will always try to work towards that ultimate goal of femininity, and will inevitably feel disappointed when they can't achieve it, but I think there is definitely an implication in the media that we should be obsessed with appearance...that you cannot rest until your skin, hair, boobs, waist all conform to the ideal. The reasons for this are obvious -- it pays to make women feel bad about themselves. I don't totally respect Dove the way I might respect a nonprofit organization, but at least they are trying to remind the public that perfection is elusive and that although femininity and thinness may be the ultimate or most widely popular form of beauty, it is not the only one and it is not the be-all-end-all of female existence. Women should not feel the need to take drastic measures to alter their appearance, because lasting self-esteem comes from inner peace and self acceptance, and from meaningful relationships. They are trying to bring to light the fact that the perfection and beauty that sells in the advertising industry is an illusion, and if you look carefully at their ads you will notice that they are not saying that ugliness is beauty, they are just saying that in a society with such high beauty standards, we need to be able to just CALM DOWN about it. Eric is not calm -- his goal represents yet another force trying to cattle-prod us into obsession. The Dove fund is called the self esteem fund! What can you possibly criticize about that mission statement?
I think most visitors to this site will agree that Eric's presentation of the "facts" is sketchy, and that he often replaces hard data with his own personal preferences and labels them the "consensus" when that is really not the case. He is excruciatingly picky -- I think most men would LOVE to get in bed with Miranda Kerr, and yet he specifically targets her and points out what he calls a "deformity" in her nose, calling her beauty and perfection into question because of it. I think this kind of scrutiny is harmful, and if you disagree, then there's nothing I can do.
Why can't Eric just appreciate beautiful women he sees on the street and in glamour ads? I am bisexual, and I appreciate them. I like to look at them. I'm glad they're out there. I guess if you could immediately replace all stick-thin masculinized women in the media with feminine ones, I would be just fine with it. Happy, even. But he has no method to his madness, he just has some crackpot site that he's put probably hundreds of hours of effort into, that causes many people to feel hostile and insulted with their first impression. I guess I can see why he would see his ultimate mission as unharmful and possibly even helpful to women (after all, most women do look more feminine than masculine, and it helps to be reminded that you're not a freak and that curves are normal), but he needs to do a better job presenting his case. Eric, every time an argument pops up in my head, I suspect there is an answer to it somewhere on this site, and being an obsessive person, I seek it out. However, your explanations somehow seem cold and impersonal, and beyond that, they are not very easily accessible. Your mission seems all over the place to me. That is just my opinion. This site was really hurtful to me, partly because I didn't take 20 hours to read through EVERYTHING you had to say, to be able to really understand you. After reading a lot (not all), I think I feel less badly about it, but it still gives me that repulsed gut reaction. I think there may be many others who haven't commented but who have felt the same way, to a lesser extent. Don't you feel bad about that?
LOL! I think I love you! I despise those "dirty party spots" as well. Why am I visualizing a young eastern european model sitting at her computer with a scowl on her face as she types?
Women who do not fit the definition of feminine appearance presented in this website always think that Erik is giving us another standard to conform to when in reality he is only presenting facts. The fact is that both men and women in general find Erik's definition of a feminine woman as attractive, and they find masculinized women generally attractive. A masculinized woman is still a woman, but her looks are nearer to the masculine norm than to the feminine norm.
Erik is not telling us to try to achieve these standards. It is our innate vanity and desire to look good that makes us want to be the ultimate attractive feminine woman. And we are hurt by this site because, though we try hard to deny it, we do realize that this site speaks the truth; and that if we look masculinized, we are more or less unattractive according to almost everybody. And if we steer clear of cosmetic surgery, there is very little we can do because this standard of feminine beauty is hardwired in the human brain. There are a lot of scientific studies that support this.
We should not hate Erik for presenting us these facts. Yes, they hurt, but it's the truth and the truth hurts. What can we do?
And the Dove campaign? I think it's silly and futile. If you know you look unattractive and you try to convince yourself otherwise, who are you kidding? Just because Dove started this campaign doesn't mean we can change our hardwiring in just a snap. I think that we should just focus on improving our inner beauty instead of trying to convince everybody that all women are beautiful physically. I think we all have noticed that at least once in our life we have fallen for or at least liked a person who is not really physically attractive just because of that person's character. Inner beauty has just as much weight as physical beauty. Do not discount its importance.
Marie, if there are men who like the way you look, then I don't see what your problem is. Be grateful and work on your self-esteem.
I just realized that you are not in fact promoting cosmetic surgery. I apologize for reading through this section so hastily. I was eager to voice my opinion because the rest of your website made me feel...well, horrible. I realize that you're trying to offer an "out" for women who don't want to feel pressured to alter themselves to look like high fashion models, but I still disagree with you on many points.
In particular, I take issue with one statement on this page: "good luck trying to get every girl to feel beautiful." Why give up on that goal? Isn't that the goal in life, to feel self satisfied and happy? And isn't women's happiness more important than YOUR satisfaction in seeing more and more "perfect" women saturate our media? The standard you are promoting is not much easier to achieve than the high-fashion standard. At least not for me, and I'm sure many, many, many other women would agree. I know you will not agree with me here, but I think the Dove beauty campaign is exactly what women need to be exposed to, considering that media will not subside anytime son. In the times before magazine ads, billboards, etc., women didn't necessarily have any other standard to look up to besides what they saw within their own communities. They could shield themselves from self esteem issues by simply not paying attention to their own beauty status. Not so today.
I undeniably agree with you that there are intrinsic ideas about feminine beauty, and you attempt to address these in excruciating detail. But it is not much help to women to introduce yet another impossible-to-achieve standard. Take someone like me, for example. I have been told that my face is a little flat. I also have a scar on my chest from early sun damage. Both of these "problems" have come up when I have obsessively probed boyfriends about what features they dislike about me. In order to feel better about the way I look, I have begun a series of steroid injections for the scar, free of charge through insurance, which should clear it up in a few months. My face, on the other hand? It would take potentially massive reconstructive surgery for me to correct that "deformity" as you call it. This wounds me deeply, to think that I am to have less acceptance from men because of something so completely out of my control. Should I go through life feeling like a freak? Should I stop feeling beautiful and desirable, even though I have had a boyfriend who fell head over heels for me from the beginning, looks included? ....And though I have had two other men consider me attractive enough to pursue me for months despite repeated rejection? I don't think most men would rate me very highly according to your standards, and yet I have felt so much love from the man I adore. ...Yet I cannot escape suffering from major depression, and am in constant self conflict regarding my appearance. If I existed in a society without our current media saturation, I don't think I would have nearly the difficulty I have now. That is just a fact. I would probably feel even worse if the media were saturated with your ideal women.
I do appreciate that you made a thoughtful attempt to apologize for whatever damage your site may have done, but I think you should put your apology in a more prominent place on this website. This page is relatively remote. If you really meant it, then needs to be read, because I think that THAT message is really important to the female visitors to this site in particular, especially young females such as myself.
I am sorry to take up so much of my time here, because I don't particularly find you worth it, Eric, and I know you'll just come up with some crackpot biased response that belittles me even more...BUT I feel like I need to speak out just to those women who have perused this website and have found it as damaging to their own self esteem as it was to mine at first. I'm a 21 year old with a WHR of about .85, so by that and several other standards you have presented here (foot size, broad shoulders in particular), I felt like I could barely be found attractive by ANY man, if what you say is true. I felt horrible looking at your catalogue of "ideal" women, because of course, I agreed with you! I saw myself in many of the high fashion models, and I looked in the mirror with shock and horror, because I had previously been so proud of my body.
Indeed, the women you are championing are hot, feminine, curvacious. I would love to have their bodies if I could. BUT I CANNOT. Sure, I could remove some ribs. See how well that worked out for Cher?
You don't seem to get that women's happiness suffers with the onset of so much pressure to conform to standards of beauty, whether they are instituted by the high fashion or glamour industry, and it's so pathetic and damaging to your credibility to all but the most ignorant visitors of this website. Women suffer from depression almost twice as much as men! You fail to offer any comforting words for those women who don't really want to undergo extreme measures such as surgery, or take over their entire lives trying to change their muscular structure through ridiculously detailed exercise routines, to achieve what will most likely be disappointing results.
While I think you speak the truth overall, and while I'm sure many men would agree with you on what constitutes ideal feminine beauty, I think it is mean and ugly of you to go to such lengths to slander women who appear to be anything less than your absolute ideal (see the section on Miranda Kerr). Not to mention women who fall well outside your ideals...God have mercy on them, huh? Might as well enter a convent, every one of them. And forget about romance, happiness, social acceptance even!
It is DISGUSTING that you imply that women take such drastic measures as surgery to alter their looks in order to conform to your impossible standards of beauty. This is an epidemic in our society as far as I'm concerned. Beauty fades!! Why spend $5,000 on a nose job when you could spend it pampering the body you have (and will ALWAYS HAVE) with beautiful clothes, makeup, education about nutrition, a gym membership even.
At some point, we just need to understand that almost all of us were born with bodies that are capable of astounding physical feats, childbirth among them. And we are all capable of finding absolute love and acceptance in this world. The world is not as harsh a place as this silly man would have you believe. Whether you're blessed with a feminine body or not, whether you're young or old, thin or fat, you should do whatever you can to feel healthy and beautiful, and THAT is the message of the Dove beauty campaign! You will NEVER feel beautiful if you continue to pursue these harsh and demeaning paths to scrutinize and perfect the minutest details of your appearance -- things you WILL NEVER be able to change as much as you would like. There are lots of people out there who are absolutely turned on by the types of bodies that high fashion models have -- and whether that's "gay" or not, I'm sure they're not lacking sexual intimacy!!
Just be happy with what you've got. You only live once!!!
All negative comments must be made by fat women. Beautiful women are not threatened by other beautiful women and men all dream of making love with slim,attractive,tanned,long haired models. Most men can't tell their fat, short haired wives this because the legal system makes it too expensive to divorce them. Many of these wives were once attractive but after trapping a man became fat,lazy slobs or justified their blubber by saying that having a seven pound baby allows a seventy pound husband betraying weight gain.
Men would never be so bold as to tell women what to find attractive in a man and then agressively argue the point. Leave the determination of female beauty to those whom nature designed to respond to it, for they are the true and only experts. Women judge Men,,Men judge Women.
Erik, concerning female body builders who stopped taking androgens, is there anything they can do to correct the masculinization that remains even after they have stopped taking the hormones? Does the reverse happen if a woman takes estrogen?
I watch chick chanal everydays and I find all models are very beautifull and glamour. espceially when seen them face to face. the pictures Erik posted just some that look ugly. I find the white porn stars he posted look more uglier. almost frenkenstien-like. and the face has no any attaction. small eyes? deadly ghost skin? dry and pale scarecrowed hair?
dirty party spot on the face just like a dog? with a lot of stretchmark and a lot of fatty cellulite!!
Erik, please stop do such a thing. the women you posted I saw them with my own eyes, face to face and they are beauty. you picture are fake. if I could post the pictures I have you will see they are prettier than the women you state.
I've seen a bunch of people say that a lot of Erik's images of attractive women on this website look like white trash. And I can see where that impression comes from. But you know? I think that's really missing the point, because the perception of a woman as "white trash" depends on stuff like clothing style, makeup, hairstyle, and body language and facial expressions.
Erik isn't saying that feminine beauty is about adopting all that stuff which makes these women look like white trash to some people because of symbolizing lower class. He is saying that the proportions of these women are feminine and attractive. You could take these same women, dress them up differently, and photograph them in a classy manner.
If indeed people associate feminine curves with "trashiness," I think that is a shame, and is probably due to the fact that women with these bodies don't get represented so much in the fashion world, and only in porn and nude modeling (which often has aesthetics that are closer to porn than to fashion). So we never even get to see how these women would look if dressed and photographed in a classy manner. Don't you think that women with diverse body types should get a chance to be presented in a beautiful and classy manner, not just the skinny and masculine body types present in high fashion?
He said: “Some women will never understand what is attractive to a guy, and no amount of evidence and logic is going to convince them otherwise.”
Actually, as an artist, I have a very good idea of what beauty is, and while I am not male, myself, as well as other women, are pretty damn intelligent enough to know what true beauty is.
I'm an artist also. I think that as an artist, you probably have a good sense of aesthetics, which is why you correctly find the aesthetics of many of Erik's photos to be lacking and to create the "white trash" look. However, I think you are getting too caught up in aesthetics, and you are missing the point that when Erik is talking about beauty, he is talking about proportions. He is saying that these are the physical proportions that are most attractive to heterosexual men. To say otherwise, without at least some evidence to back yourself up like the evidence that Erik has compiled here, is to prove T's comment correct.
He said: "Some women will never understand what is attractive to a guy, and no amount of evidence and logic is going to convince them otherwise."
Actually, as an artist, I have a very good idea of what beauty is, and while I am not male, myself, as well as other women, are pretty damn intelligent enough to know what true beauty is.
It is true that many of these trashy looking women who most likely expose too much skin are getting all the (wrong) attention, but in sum, women with class are resentful of women like that, because women like myself, we're trying to set new standards for women, rather than being perceived as objects.
Men have never been objectified as much as women, and that is why intelligent and classy women do not like trashy-looking women, because we know they are trying to appeal to the lowest-common denominator and because it is an insult to women as a whole.
Women may also feel "threatened" because such sleazy looking women are perceived as homewreckers, and this is where you men get it right: of course women are threatened by whores. Just as all men would be threatened if their wife was being advanced on by a Lothario.
The only difference between a male Lothario and trashy women is that the trashy woman is more obvious -- she looks it and dresses very provacativly. I wouldn't blame ANY woman for wanting to protect her boyfriend or husband from a "skank."
In the end, what does it all mean anyway? We don't tend to marry people in pictures on the internet or in the magazines. Most men marry women in "real life" and vice versa. These women, both the fashion models and the white trash versions, are just illusions.
I'm sorry in advance, and I don't mean to be rude (this will be my last comment here as I've got other things to do), but all of the women you've chosen to be attractive look like white trash, there is just no other way to tell you about the impression I get.
I agree with Adrian's comment somewhat. Birds of a feather tend to flock together.
Also, I always thought that television shows and movies were specifically picked due to the demands of the general population. Someone who used to work in the media told me this. The same goes for people who are conscious of a higher brand of beauty and taste.
I would not date a guy who wears football jerseys and drinks beer, because that's just not me. I suspect that most men of higher class and taste wouldn't date a women who is what we call "white trash." He might sleep with her, maybe, but not date her.
To be honest with you, it doesn't really take much for any hetero man to want to put his hands on anything.
The blonde girl you posted pics of is the kind of cheap looking girl I'd see in the mall and roll my eyes at. She sets back the evolution of women to lower standards. She doesn't have any class.
A woman with class doesn't wear tight jeans like that in public.
Lessing, to me, looked like she already had a very strong jawline when she was younger.
In the picture where she's older, she just looks like an older lady to me, not masculine. The muscle and connective tissues in the face fall as we age, thus she doesn't have the same beauty when she's older.
I think that there are many variations on feminine beauty, just as there are many variations on male beauty or attractiveness, and it depends on the taste of the individual, or, the "eye" of the beholder. I do agree that many female models today look a bit harsh, but there are some attractive ones here and there. Then again, many of the male models to me, also look very harsh and overly masculine, and I'm more attracted to men who don't look so garishly rugged.
I also think it's important to remember that beauty ideals change. It was once thought, during the 1930's, that a tomboyish beauty and flat chest were ideal (flappers, etc.) Back in ancient Greek, the ideal beauty was androgynous.
The entire emphasis on skinniness today also has to do with financial status. When it used to be hard for poor people to eat, like in the times of Rubens the painter (thus the term Rubenesque), people used to show off their higher social status by having a larger girth. Women were considered beautiful if they were heavy. You can still see this going on in India, where women of higher status are a bit "chubby."
So I don't really think that "masculine-females" are a new invention, it's just that people think that women with higher cheekbones are more photogenic, and to be honest, I think they do photograph better. I am a woman with a rounder face and I don't have very jutting features; however, I don't often photograph well, but I think at times I look a bit better (in real life) than many of the harsher-looking models you see in magazines. Then again, it's all relative. Some of the models you hate, like Alessandra, can have good and bad days just like the rest of us. She often photographs well, but can have bad days too, and this goes for her candid "real life" photos.
Also, I'd like to mention that, if you think having high cheekbones (for women) makes a woman more masculine, then take a look at Asian women. Many Asian women, I think, are very beautiful and very feminine, but they have flatter faces and very high (almost jutting) cheekbones; this, however, does not mar their femininity in any way.
As an end note, I'd also like to make a comment that there are way too many pressures on women already to conform to specific "looks" and stereotypes, and you've probably heard this before, but I think this needs to end. While I think you have some good points about the unrealistic and often weird looks of some models, in the end, all this obsession with womens' looks isn't helping anybody. In fact, women can't help it if they're born looking less feminine than your ideal, so why put more pressure on them.
Well if you thought Rebecca Romijn didn't look very feminine, you sir have problems!!
Perfect choice compared to this, porn star that you think should have got it. Calling her a glamour model doesn't change the fact that it's just the posh way of saying porn star.
You've got to be kidding me. This is some kind of joke right? You are comparing Tara Conner, Miss USA, to some women from a 3rd rate porn site. Don't get me wrong. There are some very attractive women in the porn industry, but seriously. Seriously. You're joking, right?
Not sure if anyone has made a similar comment yet, but as a bisexual woman I find myself most attracted to extreme femininity, or at least much further along the scale than you (In your first set of pictures, I unanimously prefer the women to the far right). I like women with serious curves, and personally I think that most of the women in your "attractive women" section, while more attractive to me than high fashion models, are still not voluptuous enough. I obviously don't speak for all lesbians and bisexuals, but I feel I'm not alone in my preferences, considering what I've heard from lesbians I've known.
You might be interested in the following study:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2372/is_3_38/ai_82013894/pg_1
...which concludes that lesbians prefer, overall, a greater proportion of body fat in their partners, with the most voluptuous women being the most attractive. They also seem to share the same WHR preferences as heterosexual men, although there is a tendency to deviate from this norm and rate women with a slender build and high WHR as attractive.
I'm curious: how important is it to you to please groups other than white male heterosexuals? Do the preferences of lesbians (who obviously have a stake in this as well) count, if what we're talking about here is promoting more sexually stimulating high-fashion models and beauty contestants?
I have to say, Erik, that your website is intriguing me more and more each day. I made some derogatory comments in the self-esteem section which I still stand by, but the topic is just too interesting for me to dismiss.
Ok, well I can see how some of the models look like young adolescent boys,however, in their case, it's probably due to low body fat, which tends to make the jawline more angled. Maybe Giselle doesn't have an hourglass waist and hips, but she is in excellent shape and in her photos she can give sensual appeal. The comment of Alessandra looking like a drag queen confuses me. For one, she has real hair; not some shocking coloured wig. Her makeup is minimal but classy. I can't help but notice the picture of the girl next to Alessandra. She looks like a girl too, but her look is more unnatural and plastic. Firstly, she needs to quick plucking her eyebrows. This would make her look more feminine. It's the trannys that over-pluck. Secondly, purchase a bathing suit that would correctly fit and flatter her breasts and hips. The bright pink suit she has on doesn't go well with her skin tone, and makes her waist look wider (thus creating a maculine look). I agree with the yellow staining of her teeth, which is a more mascline quality. She should visit a dentist for that issue. Her body over all needs toning especially upper thighs and buttocks... she has a "double-cheek" thing going. She needs to build up at least an inch on her calves to balance her frame, and her stomach looks a little pudgy. She needs to pose with more confidence. she looks dull and vague. My last comment is really noting the acne on her butt. It looks like a rash or really bad hygiene. Get rid of it!! Besides, the writer of this huge abasement is missing the true meaning of beauty. It's sensuality from deep within the eyes; soft, unblemished skin, unique but impacting personality, which can be found anywhere, if you look for it. Please take some self-esteem classes!
very attractive
she is part asian. so her face overall is wider. in proporttion to her wide set eyes and cheekbones, her nose is fine.
You're seriously deluded.
Ugh. Thanks, brenda. Wow, I had no idea that I needed to work on my self esteem!
I'm making the same point you are in your last paragraph, I'm just trying to be optimistic. I hate the way this site made me feel. Of course I have self esteem issues, but things like this simply feed into them. I don't think anyone else deserves to feel the same way I did when I first encountered it, so I think Eric would get a lot less hostility from women if he just made the message of neutrality more clear, possibly by adding it to his main page? Just an idea. I think the organization on this site is pretty awful. It was hard to find this page, and most people are not really going to take the time to read through everything he has to say to locate his tiny, feeble apology. I think there is something cold and calculating in his style and approach that makes him seem like a bit of a nut. That's just what I gather from the many comments people leave him, and from my own gut reaction to this site. If he wants to reach people, he needs to fix that.
About the Dove campaign...I think they are just trying to rectify the self esteem issues which undeniably cause a lot of women to suffer and ultimately to give up entirely on looking presentable and feeling good about themselves (aka healthy and vibrant and not anxious about their looks). I know women will always try to work towards that ultimate goal of femininity, and will inevitably feel disappointed when they can't achieve it, but I think there is definitely an implication in the media that we should be obsessed with appearance...that you cannot rest until your skin, hair, boobs, waist all conform to the ideal. The reasons for this are obvious -- it pays to make women feel bad about themselves. I don't totally respect Dove the way I might respect a nonprofit organization, but at least they are trying to remind the public that perfection is elusive and that although femininity and thinness may be the ultimate or most widely popular form of beauty, it is not the only one and it is not the be-all-end-all of female existence. Women should not feel the need to take drastic measures to alter their appearance, because lasting self-esteem comes from inner peace and self acceptance, and from meaningful relationships. They are trying to bring to light the fact that the perfection and beauty that sells in the advertising industry is an illusion, and if you look carefully at their ads you will notice that they are not saying that ugliness is beauty, they are just saying that in a society with such high beauty standards, we need to be able to just CALM DOWN about it. Eric is not calm -- his goal represents yet another force trying to cattle-prod us into obsession. The Dove fund is called the self esteem fund! What can you possibly criticize about that mission statement?
I think most visitors to this site will agree that Eric's presentation of the "facts" is sketchy, and that he often replaces hard data with his own personal preferences and labels them the "consensus" when that is really not the case. He is excruciatingly picky -- I think most men would LOVE to get in bed with Miranda Kerr, and yet he specifically targets her and points out what he calls a "deformity" in her nose, calling her beauty and perfection into question because of it. I think this kind of scrutiny is harmful, and if you disagree, then there's nothing I can do.
Why can't Eric just appreciate beautiful women he sees on the street and in glamour ads? I am bisexual, and I appreciate them. I like to look at them. I'm glad they're out there. I guess if you could immediately replace all stick-thin masculinized women in the media with feminine ones, I would be just fine with it. Happy, even. But he has no method to his madness, he just has some crackpot site that he's put probably hundreds of hours of effort into, that causes many people to feel hostile and insulted with their first impression. I guess I can see why he would see his ultimate mission as unharmful and possibly even helpful to women (after all, most women do look more feminine than masculine, and it helps to be reminded that you're not a freak and that curves are normal), but he needs to do a better job presenting his case. Eric, every time an argument pops up in my head, I suspect there is an answer to it somewhere on this site, and being an obsessive person, I seek it out. However, your explanations somehow seem cold and impersonal, and beyond that, they are not very easily accessible. Your mission seems all over the place to me. That is just my opinion. This site was really hurtful to me, partly because I didn't take 20 hours to read through EVERYTHING you had to say, to be able to really understand you. After reading a lot (not all), I think I feel less badly about it, but it still gives me that repulsed gut reaction. I think there may be many others who haven't commented but who have felt the same way, to a lesser extent. Don't you feel bad about that?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
LOL! I think I love you! I despise those "dirty party spots" as well. Why am I visualizing a young eastern european model sitting at her computer with a scowl on her face as she types?
Women who do not fit the definition of feminine appearance presented in this website always think that Erik is giving us another standard to conform to when in reality he is only presenting facts. The fact is that both men and women in general find Erik's definition of a feminine woman as attractive, and they find masculinized women generally attractive. A masculinized woman is still a woman, but her looks are nearer to the masculine norm than to the feminine norm.
Erik is not telling us to try to achieve these standards. It is our innate vanity and desire to look good that makes us want to be the ultimate attractive feminine woman. And we are hurt by this site because, though we try hard to deny it, we do realize that this site speaks the truth; and that if we look masculinized, we are more or less unattractive according to almost everybody. And if we steer clear of cosmetic surgery, there is very little we can do because this standard of feminine beauty is hardwired in the human brain. There are a lot of scientific studies that support this.
We should not hate Erik for presenting us these facts. Yes, they hurt, but it's the truth and the truth hurts. What can we do?
And the Dove campaign? I think it's silly and futile. If you know you look unattractive and you try to convince yourself otherwise, who are you kidding? Just because Dove started this campaign doesn't mean we can change our hardwiring in just a snap. I think that we should just focus on improving our inner beauty instead of trying to convince everybody that all women are beautiful physically. I think we all have noticed that at least once in our life we have fallen for or at least liked a person who is not really physically attractive just because of that person's character. Inner beauty has just as much weight as physical beauty. Do not discount its importance.
Marie, if there are men who like the way you look, then I don't see what your problem is. Be grateful and work on your self-esteem.
Whoops...an addendum, if you'll allow it.
I just realized that you are not in fact promoting cosmetic surgery. I apologize for reading through this section so hastily. I was eager to voice my opinion because the rest of your website made me feel...well, horrible. I realize that you're trying to offer an "out" for women who don't want to feel pressured to alter themselves to look like high fashion models, but I still disagree with you on many points.
In particular, I take issue with one statement on this page: "good luck trying to get every girl to feel beautiful." Why give up on that goal? Isn't that the goal in life, to feel self satisfied and happy? And isn't women's happiness more important than YOUR satisfaction in seeing more and more "perfect" women saturate our media? The standard you are promoting is not much easier to achieve than the high-fashion standard. At least not for me, and I'm sure many, many, many other women would agree. I know you will not agree with me here, but I think the Dove beauty campaign is exactly what women need to be exposed to, considering that media will not subside anytime son. In the times before magazine ads, billboards, etc., women didn't necessarily have any other standard to look up to besides what they saw within their own communities. They could shield themselves from self esteem issues by simply not paying attention to their own beauty status. Not so today.
I undeniably agree with you that there are intrinsic ideas about feminine beauty, and you attempt to address these in excruciating detail. But it is not much help to women to introduce yet another impossible-to-achieve standard. Take someone like me, for example. I have been told that my face is a little flat. I also have a scar on my chest from early sun damage. Both of these "problems" have come up when I have obsessively probed boyfriends about what features they dislike about me. In order to feel better about the way I look, I have begun a series of steroid injections for the scar, free of charge through insurance, which should clear it up in a few months. My face, on the other hand? It would take potentially massive reconstructive surgery for me to correct that "deformity" as you call it. This wounds me deeply, to think that I am to have less acceptance from men because of something so completely out of my control. Should I go through life feeling like a freak? Should I stop feeling beautiful and desirable, even though I have had a boyfriend who fell head over heels for me from the beginning, looks included? ....And though I have had two other men consider me attractive enough to pursue me for months despite repeated rejection? I don't think most men would rate me very highly according to your standards, and yet I have felt so much love from the man I adore. ...Yet I cannot escape suffering from major depression, and am in constant self conflict regarding my appearance. If I existed in a society without our current media saturation, I don't think I would have nearly the difficulty I have now. That is just a fact. I would probably feel even worse if the media were saturated with your ideal women.
I do appreciate that you made a thoughtful attempt to apologize for whatever damage your site may have done, but I think you should put your apology in a more prominent place on this website. This page is relatively remote. If you really meant it, then needs to be read, because I think that THAT message is really important to the female visitors to this site in particular, especially young females such as myself.
I am sorry to take up so much of my time here, because I don't particularly find you worth it, Eric, and I know you'll just come up with some crackpot biased response that belittles me even more...BUT I feel like I need to speak out just to those women who have perused this website and have found it as damaging to their own self esteem as it was to mine at first. I'm a 21 year old with a WHR of about .85, so by that and several other standards you have presented here (foot size, broad shoulders in particular), I felt like I could barely be found attractive by ANY man, if what you say is true. I felt horrible looking at your catalogue of "ideal" women, because of course, I agreed with you! I saw myself in many of the high fashion models, and I looked in the mirror with shock and horror, because I had previously been so proud of my body.
Indeed, the women you are championing are hot, feminine, curvacious. I would love to have their bodies if I could. BUT I CANNOT. Sure, I could remove some ribs. See how well that worked out for Cher?
You don't seem to get that women's happiness suffers with the onset of so much pressure to conform to standards of beauty, whether they are instituted by the high fashion or glamour industry, and it's so pathetic and damaging to your credibility to all but the most ignorant visitors of this website. Women suffer from depression almost twice as much as men! You fail to offer any comforting words for those women who don't really want to undergo extreme measures such as surgery, or take over their entire lives trying to change their muscular structure through ridiculously detailed exercise routines, to achieve what will most likely be disappointing results.
While I think you speak the truth overall, and while I'm sure many men would agree with you on what constitutes ideal feminine beauty, I think it is mean and ugly of you to go to such lengths to slander women who appear to be anything less than your absolute ideal (see the section on Miranda Kerr). Not to mention women who fall well outside your ideals...God have mercy on them, huh? Might as well enter a convent, every one of them. And forget about romance, happiness, social acceptance even!
It is DISGUSTING that you imply that women take such drastic measures as surgery to alter their looks in order to conform to your impossible standards of beauty. This is an epidemic in our society as far as I'm concerned. Beauty fades!! Why spend $5,000 on a nose job when you could spend it pampering the body you have (and will ALWAYS HAVE) with beautiful clothes, makeup, education about nutrition, a gym membership even.
At some point, we just need to understand that almost all of us were born with bodies that are capable of astounding physical feats, childbirth among them. And we are all capable of finding absolute love and acceptance in this world. The world is not as harsh a place as this silly man would have you believe. Whether you're blessed with a feminine body or not, whether you're young or old, thin or fat, you should do whatever you can to feel healthy and beautiful, and THAT is the message of the Dove beauty campaign! You will NEVER feel beautiful if you continue to pursue these harsh and demeaning paths to scrutinize and perfect the minutest details of your appearance -- things you WILL NEVER be able to change as much as you would like. There are lots of people out there who are absolutely turned on by the types of bodies that high fashion models have -- and whether that's "gay" or not, I'm sure they're not lacking sexual intimacy!!
Just be happy with what you've got. You only live once!!!
How do I post pictures ? Its not working for me
All negative comments must be made by fat women. Beautiful women are not threatened by other beautiful women and men all dream of making love with slim,attractive,tanned,long haired models. Most men can't tell their fat, short haired wives this because the legal system makes it too expensive to divorce them. Many of these wives were once attractive but after trapping a man became fat,lazy slobs or justified their blubber by saying that having a seven pound baby allows a seventy pound husband betraying weight gain.
Men would never be so bold as to tell women what to find attractive in a man and then agressively argue the point. Leave the determination of female beauty to those whom nature designed to respond to it, for they are the true and only experts. Women judge Men,,Men judge Women.
Erik, concerning female body builders who stopped taking androgens, is there anything they can do to correct the masculinization that remains even after they have stopped taking the hormones? Does the reverse happen if a woman takes estrogen?
I watch chick chanal everydays and I find all models are very beautifull and glamour. espceially when seen them face to face. the pictures Erik posted just some that look ugly. I find the white porn stars he posted look more uglier. almost frenkenstien-like. and the face has no any attaction. small eyes? deadly ghost skin? dry and pale scarecrowed hair?
dirty party spot on the face just like a dog? with a lot of stretchmark and a lot of fatty cellulite!!
Erik, please stop do such a thing. the women you posted I saw them with my own eyes, face to face and they are beauty. you picture are fake. if I could post the pictures I have you will see they are prettier than the women you state.
I've seen a bunch of people say that a lot of Erik's images of attractive women on this website look like white trash. And I can see where that impression comes from. But you know? I think that's really missing the point, because the perception of a woman as "white trash" depends on stuff like clothing style, makeup, hairstyle, and body language and facial expressions.
Erik isn't saying that feminine beauty is about adopting all that stuff which makes these women look like white trash to some people because of symbolizing lower class. He is saying that the proportions of these women are feminine and attractive. You could take these same women, dress them up differently, and photograph them in a classy manner.
If indeed people associate feminine curves with "trashiness," I think that is a shame, and is probably due to the fact that women with these bodies don't get represented so much in the fashion world, and only in porn and nude modeling (which often has aesthetics that are closer to porn than to fashion). So we never even get to see how these women would look if dressed and photographed in a classy manner. Don't you think that women with diverse body types should get a chance to be presented in a beautiful and classy manner, not just the skinny and masculine body types present in high fashion?
I'm an artist also. I think that as an artist, you probably have a good sense of aesthetics, which is why you correctly find the aesthetics of many of Erik's photos to be lacking and to create the "white trash" look. However, I think you are getting too caught up in aesthetics, and you are missing the point that when Erik is talking about beauty, he is talking about proportions. He is saying that these are the physical proportions that are most attractive to heterosexual men. To say otherwise, without at least some evidence to back yourself up like the evidence that Erik has compiled here, is to prove T's comment correct.
I have a comment for "T" before I go . . .
He said: "Some women will never understand what is attractive to a guy, and no amount of evidence and logic is going to convince them otherwise."
Actually, as an artist, I have a very good idea of what beauty is, and while I am not male, myself, as well as other women, are pretty damn intelligent enough to know what true beauty is.
It is true that many of these trashy looking women who most likely expose too much skin are getting all the (wrong) attention, but in sum, women with class are resentful of women like that, because women like myself, we're trying to set new standards for women, rather than being perceived as objects.
Men have never been objectified as much as women, and that is why intelligent and classy women do not like trashy-looking women, because we know they are trying to appeal to the lowest-common denominator and because it is an insult to women as a whole.
Women may also feel "threatened" because such sleazy looking women are perceived as homewreckers, and this is where you men get it right: of course women are threatened by whores. Just as all men would be threatened if their wife was being advanced on by a Lothario.
The only difference between a male Lothario and trashy women is that the trashy woman is more obvious -- she looks it and dresses very provacativly. I wouldn't blame ANY woman for wanting to protect her boyfriend or husband from a "skank."
In the end, what does it all mean anyway? We don't tend to marry people in pictures on the internet or in the magazines. Most men marry women in "real life" and vice versa. These women, both the fashion models and the white trash versions, are just illusions.
I'm sorry in advance, and I don't mean to be rude (this will be my last comment here as I've got other things to do), but all of the women you've chosen to be attractive look like white trash, there is just no other way to tell you about the impression I get.
That's all I can say. It's been fun. Bye.
I agree with Adrian's comment somewhat. Birds of a feather tend to flock together.
Also, I always thought that television shows and movies were specifically picked due to the demands of the general population. Someone who used to work in the media told me this. The same goes for people who are conscious of a higher brand of beauty and taste.
I would not date a guy who wears football jerseys and drinks beer, because that's just not me. I suspect that most men of higher class and taste wouldn't date a women who is what we call "white trash." He might sleep with her, maybe, but not date her.
To be honest with you, it doesn't really take much for any hetero man to want to put his hands on anything.
The blonde girl you posted pics of is the kind of cheap looking girl I'd see in the mall and roll my eyes at. She sets back the evolution of women to lower standards. She doesn't have any class.
A woman with class doesn't wear tight jeans like that in public.
Lessing, to me, looked like she already had a very strong jawline when she was younger.
In the picture where she's older, she just looks like an older lady to me, not masculine. The muscle and connective tissues in the face fall as we age, thus she doesn't have the same beauty when she's older.
I think that there are many variations on feminine beauty, just as there are many variations on male beauty or attractiveness, and it depends on the taste of the individual, or, the "eye" of the beholder. I do agree that many female models today look a bit harsh, but there are some attractive ones here and there. Then again, many of the male models to me, also look very harsh and overly masculine, and I'm more attracted to men who don't look so garishly rugged.
I also think it's important to remember that beauty ideals change. It was once thought, during the 1930's, that a tomboyish beauty and flat chest were ideal (flappers, etc.) Back in ancient Greek, the ideal beauty was androgynous.
The entire emphasis on skinniness today also has to do with financial status. When it used to be hard for poor people to eat, like in the times of Rubens the painter (thus the term Rubenesque), people used to show off their higher social status by having a larger girth. Women were considered beautiful if they were heavy. You can still see this going on in India, where women of higher status are a bit "chubby."
So I don't really think that "masculine-females" are a new invention, it's just that people think that women with higher cheekbones are more photogenic, and to be honest, I think they do photograph better. I am a woman with a rounder face and I don't have very jutting features; however, I don't often photograph well, but I think at times I look a bit better (in real life) than many of the harsher-looking models you see in magazines. Then again, it's all relative. Some of the models you hate, like Alessandra, can have good and bad days just like the rest of us. She often photographs well, but can have bad days too, and this goes for her candid "real life" photos.
Also, I'd like to mention that, if you think having high cheekbones (for women) makes a woman more masculine, then take a look at Asian women. Many Asian women, I think, are very beautiful and very feminine, but they have flatter faces and very high (almost jutting) cheekbones; this, however, does not mar their femininity in any way.
As an end note, I'd also like to make a comment that there are way too many pressures on women already to conform to specific "looks" and stereotypes, and you've probably heard this before, but I think this needs to end. While I think you have some good points about the unrealistic and often weird looks of some models, in the end, all this obsession with womens' looks isn't helping anybody. In fact, women can't help it if they're born looking less feminine than your ideal, so why put more pressure on them.
And the last picture of this page. Her skin and shape are looked really like a frenkenstien.
Pages