"Does anyone seriously believe that pornographers would disproportionately decline the likes of Ms. Drabinova in favor of women with breast implants"
Yes, pornographers WOULD decline the likes of Zuzana Drabinova in favor of women with breast implants because Zuzana Drabinova's natural breasts are not as firm and upright as implants of the same size would be. Drabinova individually may refuse to have sex on camera, but that hardly proves that all of the nude models Erik has found who have not done porn have turned porn down rather than being turned down by pornographers.
Many male regular porn fans do not give a damn what is or looks "natural". Fake breasts, fake bleached hair, fake eyelashes, fake noses, fake cheek implants, fake collagen lips, fake chin implants, fake acrylic fingernails, and fake who knows what else are fine with them.
If you think most men prefer natural looks, I have two words for you: Pamela Anderson. By FAR the biggest female sex symbol of her generation, and everything on her is fake. Pamela Anderson's success cannot be attributed to willingness to perform "atypical/disinhibited sex acts" because Anderson rose to fame as a nude model, not a porn star, and was already the biggest sex symbol in the world before the marketing against her will of her private sex tape. The Zuzana Drabinovas of the world will never have as many male fans as the Pamela Andersons.
Quote:
"The reader should also observe the looks of these top pornstars and wonder whether their “good looks” have made them top stars."
Who said top porn stars are successful because of their "good looks"? Jenna Jameson is the highest-earning porn star of all time, with a personal fortune estimated at $30 million, and I doubt even her biggest fans really believe she's the most beautiful woman in porn. A porn star's success is based less on "good looks" than on sexual skills, ability to cause erections in male co-stars who have to work on schedule, ability to enable male co-stars to maintain erections while delaying orgasm, deep throat oral sex skills, and whatever else comprises any particular porn star's repertoire. In terms of porn stars' faces, most regular male porn fans prefer women who with extremely overtly suggestive, vulgar-looking faces such as Jenna Jameson. Zuzana Drabinova doesn't have what it takes to be a huge porn star even if she were willing.
Quote:
"male customers lean toward nonheterosexuality/are not exclusively heterosexual."
Erik, accusing men who disagree with your taste in women of being gay or bisexual is a ridiculous, unprovable cop out.
Why do thee resort to the ruse that the information here is of no use?
The site makes the reader muse; it also has content that does amuse.
Yet it makes you blow a fuse, and makes thee shower me with abuse.
Do I make masculine women feel crappy like kids spanked by pappy?
I suppose the gay designers are making feminine women very happy?
Who, heretofore under stealth, has been undermining women’s wealth
not so much in terms of lightening the purse but in the form of health?
Very strange that you find my arguments so absurd that they are fun.
I’ve been thinking, hun, whether you have from a lunatic asylum run?
The typical person will, regardless of causal factors, lament for a nut
just as one pities the poor soul who has had his butt bitten by a mutt.
You, on the other hand, rejoice in glee; look ma, here is fun for free!
Seriously, chill, sit down, a sane person be; think carefully, try to see
that the truth can’t be prejudiced; plain obvious to eyes not jaundiced.
It isn’t me who is homophobic, but you appear to be empiric-o-phobic.
Neither sexism nor racism is my sin, and with this note I my reply fin.
Erik, what does someone with a BMI of 18 or just below 18 look like? Do they have bones popping out of their skin? I had a BMI below 18 at one point and I never looked bony. How big do you think those supermodels were? I have read articles that suggest that both Claudia Schiffer and Naomi Campbell had BMIs of 17.7 and 16.5 even in their 30s. What do you think they weighed when they were at the top of their games? My point was that the supermodels represented the typical model body of that time. You have not proven that the all the supers had BMIs over 18. Stop assuming that you can tell a person's weight by looking at photos of them.
You have not made a strong argument that the greater tolerance of homosexuality is responsible for the increasing thinness in fashion models. It has been widely suggested that Miuccia Prada set the trend for increasingly thin models. You wouldn't know that because you know absolutely nothing about the fashion industry other than which designers are gay and which models look like men.
I am not failing to understand any of your shitty arguments. You clearly took the time to make this ridiculous website so I don't see why your time is so precious now.
Only one of my photographs of Claudia can be called "blurry". her facial features are clear in all of my pics. She is in her 20s in all of the images I selected and her face isn't being obscured by her hair in most of them.
I don't need to go to great lengths to rebutt your "arguments" because they are as shallow as a kiddie pool. Your opinions aren't facts and you aren't presenting strong arguments just because you say you are.
Your models are ugly. There is simply no excuse for that. I called them sloppy hoes and then you said that they were not airbrushed. You were clearly trying to explain why they look so bad.
That page you linked to suggests that most people think fashion models are too thin. It did'nt mention anything about how they look in clothes. Nice try.
This is your website. You want an alternative industry (LOL). It is up to you to find better looking models and create better arguments. You know nothing about fashion or business and marketing. I suggest that you study those topics instead of talking out of your ass.
Danielle: thanks for the compliment about Anna, I will pass it on to her. Some time ago she explained to me why escort girls charge more in the US but I forgot what the exact reason was. Meanwhile, Erik might try Zohra to help him overcome his problem with women. I never had a sexual identity crisis (lucky me). And if Erik were to address me such a thing I would not respond to it at all: it would give all the people that do know me well a big laugh!
Harry: Erik may accuse you of being "not lifetime exclusive heterosexual" or "narrowly escaping nonheterosexuality" because that is how he explains away men who disagree with him.
Harry, BTW, the Dutch escort whose website you have linked to your name signature is stunning. She is undercharging. At least, I know she could make more money in America.
You still haven't proved your claims about what kind of women rich men want
Quote:
"When I talked about the women that rich men are disproportionately seen with in upscale settings, I wasn’t talking about wives. The women could be wives, girlfriends or escorts."
You're backpedalling. What you said was "Do I need to cite proof that feminine beauties are disproportionately taken up by richer men? Visit some upscale clubs/restaurants and observe for yourself. Granted that not all rich men have hot wives"
You made it clear that when you claimed "feminine" women are disproportionately taken up by rich men, you were talking about wives. After I pointed out that many rich men marry "masculinized" women and that you can't even come up with anecdotal, let alone statistical, evidence that rich men disproportionately marry "feminine" women, you changed your tune and rewrote your statement to include girlfriends and escorts, since you know there is no way to prove who rich men date or hire as prostitutes.
Quote:
"I do not have a problem making up my mind. There is no reason why an interest in masculinized women and Bayes’ theorem cannot work in concert."
That is not what I meant; what I mean is that your idea of rich men's "interest in masculinized women and Bayes’ theorem" CAN "work in concert" with each other, but CANNOT work in concert with the claim that "feminine" women are disproportionately taken up by rich men.
More on why "feminine" women are not the norm in porn
Erik, it makes no difference whether "most men" do or do not want porn stars with "the supermodel or underage type of body". All that matters to pornographers is what men who buy pornography regularly want, and they apparently generally want the "supermodel or underage type of body", so that is what pornographers use.
Pornographers turn down "feminine" women in porn and choose women with breast implants because many, if not most, male regular porn customers prefer fake breasts to real breasts. Fake breasts are usually firmer, perkier, and more upright than real breasts of the same size. Those male regular porn customers who do not prefer fake breasts tend to prefer very small breasts for underage-looking waif appeal. There is a subgenre of porn that focuses on large real breasts, but it does not sell nearly as well as porn featuring large fake breasts or small real breasts.
"Feminine" porn stars who are "more disinhibited and perform fewer sex acts" may appeal to men who are not into "atypical/disinhibited sex acts", but such men are FAR less likely than men who are into "atypical/disinhibited sex acts" to be regular porn customers, and pornographers make money by catering to their regulars.
Quote:
"In addition, even men who are into such practices will often want to see the tamer porn because it features more beautiful women."
Wrong. Men who are regular customers of the more "atypical/disinhibited porn" usually have little or no interest in "the tamer porn", and if they regarded "feminine" women as more beautiful, they would make those porn films that feature "feminine" women bestsellers - and they don't.
:long:
ERIK'S DEFINITION OF FEMININITY IS AN INVALID CONTRADICTION IN TERMS BECAUSE FEMININITY MEANS CHARACTERISTIC OF WOMEN BUT ERIK DEFINES FEMININITY AS CHARACTERISTICS MOST WOMEN DON'T HAVE
Simply put: Femininity means characteristic of women, and therefore any definition of femininity that excludes most women is automatically invalid.
Erik's definition of "femininity" is actually exaggerated hyperfemininity. Erik's definition of "somewhat masculinized" is actually more than normal femininity. Erik's definition of "masculinized" is actually normal femininity or slightly androgynous femininity.
A truly masculinized woman is one who has male hormone levels as high as the average man's and female hormone levels as low as the average man's, and almost NONE of the women Erik calls "masculinized" meet the criteria. Truly masculinized women are very rare and Erik has almost no photographs of them on this website because the real thing makes it impossible to keep passing off the fake. Put a photograph of a truly masculinized woman like 1980's tennis star Martina Navratilova next to the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Models and it becomes impossible to persuade anyone to view the swimsuit models as "masculinized".
Humphrey Bogart doesn't look ugly to you because, like the vast majority of heterosexual men, you judge male looks far more leniently than you judge female looks. If you saw Humphrey Bogart's twin sister who looks like a female version of him, you would definitely find her ugly, no matter how "feminine" she might be. Homosexual men do not have this lenience in judging male looks, which is why Humphrey Bogart is one of those hugely popular heterosexual male sex symbols who has NO fan base as a sex symbol to gay men.
Quote:
"The women who responded to him were responding to a man and a masculine characteristic in him."
Humphrey Bogart's masculinity alone without good looks cannot account for his sex symbol status because there have been other male movies stars who were also very masculine without good looks, such as Edward G. Robinson, who never became sex symbols.
Women respond to Humphrey Bogart's VOICE. Why do you think it is that as a young actor in the silent film era of the 1920's, he was able to get only one film role in that entire decade, but as soon as sound film began in the early 1930's, he began to get regular film roles and gradually became a huge movie star? Humphrey Bogart is an example of how women are aroused by what they hear, which is why women are aroused by music.
8-/
Why there will never be a successful heterosexual fashion industry
Quote:
"In other words, the effectively-monopoly-like factor is not inconsistent with the talent factor."
Your definition of the word monopoly would get a failing grade in any economics class. Market dominance through superior talent is NOT monopoly.
Quote:
"There are undoubtedly many heterosexual men who could be outstanding at fashion designing, but the nature of the job doesn’t appeal to them."
This statement proves you have no artistic talent of any kind. If you had any form of artistic talent, you would know it is impossible to have artistic talent without enjoying the nature of its use.
Quote:
"If you can start a low-key alternative using feminine women, then the possibility of working with the kind of women they like will create an incentive for more heterosexual men to take up fashion designing"
Further proof that you have no artistic talent. Anyone who has any form of artistic talent does not need the incentive of working with those whom he/she finds sexually attractive in order to want to use that talent. For the moment I will leave aside your insistence that most heterosexual men prefer "feminine" women, which is highly debatable to say the least but that's a different topic. The point is, if a man has real design talent then he will want and NEED to design regardless of whether he finds the models sexually attractive, and if he needs the incentive of models he finds sexually attractive to get him to design clothes, then he has no real design talent and merely uses fashion design as a means to meet women he finds attractive.
Artistic talent DEMANDS expression, with or without amenable conditions or rewards or fringe benefits or incentives of any kind. Mozart composed in penniless squalor without pay because he HAD to. Emily Dickinson wrote her huge volume of unpublished poetry because she HAD to. Vincent Van Gogh kept painting without ever selling a single painting because he HAD to. If heterosexual men don't design because they HAVE to, regardless of whether they find the models attractive, then they do not have real design talent.
Quote:
"with advances in computer software, you can have some heterosexual computer geeks delve into fashion designing since using computers in a game-like/virtual reality situation attracts many heterosexual men."
Yet even more proof that you have no artistic talent. Anyone who has design talent does not need design to be turned into a videogame to make it interesting to him. All your talk of incentives for a heterosexual fashion industry misses the point: Real artistic talent requires no incentive whatsoever, and anyone who requires an incentive to create art has no real artistic talent.
Quote:
"So don’t bet against alternative fashion industries."
Erik, it is plainly obvious that you have no artistic talent at all and have never worked in any form of marketing. If you had any real idea how either of those two areas work, you would know exactly why there will never be a heterosexual fashion industry no matter what. Heterosexual male psychology is simply not conducive to fashion design; the process by which boys become fully heterosexual and permanenently lose any capacity for homosexual response necessarily involves losing the particular type of aesthetic sense necessary for high-level fashion design. The fact that you cannot name one single great and greatly successful heterosexual male fashion designer would tell you something, if you weren't closing your eyes and putting your hands over your ears.
:down:
Bailey's and Chivers' Studies are Confirmed by Real Life Phenomena
Quote:
"It is time to end the discussion about Bailey and Chivers’ useless studies."
Erik, you don't get to cherry pick which studies we will discuss to limit the discussion to those studies that reach conclusions you like.
Quote:
"You have claimed that sexual arousal and sexual desire are not linked in women. Where is the proof for this?"
Where is your disproof for this? Why is there a burden of proof but no burden of disproof? Why should the fact that sexual arousal and sexual desire are linked in men be considered proof that they must be linked in women as well?
My proof is my own experience as a person with a female body and female sexuality, and the accounts of the many, many women I have both known personally and encountered through the media. Erik, does it tell you anything that even BRON who agrees with you far more often than she agrees with me, agrees with me that women can be *aroused* by men they do not *desire* and that women can be *aroused* by music alone when it is not even possible to feel *desire* for a song? Do you realize that girls who become hysterical during pop stars are having music-induced orgasms that the presence of the same musicians while not playing their music cannot induce?
Of course women can be *aroused* by and feel *desire* for the same stimuli, but they can also experience the two phenomena separately. This may simply be beyond your comprehension because you are a man. Just please note that you cannot find a single woman who disagrees with me, not even Bron, who disagrees with me about everything else!
Quote:
"The Bailey et al. studies do not prove this. They have employed a test known as vaginal photoplethysmography (also known as vaginal pulse amplitude). This test suffers from the following shortcomings: 1) no absolute scale, making between-participants comparisons problematic;"
Comparisons between participants do not depend on absolute scale. If I compare how fast 10 people are driving, I do not need an absolute scale of what constitutes "speeding" in order to compare how much faster or slower one driver is than another.
Quote:
"2) the test provides a relative measurement of vaginal blood flow and no anatomic information, i.e., no validation of a direct relationship with vasocongestion;"
You are misleading by citing issues that do not explain away the huge difference in heterosexual women's measured arousal to human porn vs primate porn. Why would the former cause far more vaginal blood flow than the latter if it did not cause more arousal?
Quote:
3) is affected by movement;"
Again, you are misleading by citing issues that do not explain away the huge difference in heterosexual women's measured arousal to human porn vs primate porn. Why would the former occur with far greater movement than the latter?
Quote:
"4) has a confound in that the very act of vaginal insertion of the apparatus would stimulate the tissue;"
Again, you are misleading by citing issues that do not explain away the huge difference in heterosexual women's measured arousal to human porn vs primate porn. Why would the former be far more confounded by vaginal insertion of the apparatus stimulating the tissue than the latter?
Quote:
"and 5) often fails to find a correlation between the genital measure of arousal and subjective reports of arousal."
MANY sexual studies of either men or women or both fail to find a correlation between the genital measure of arousal and subjective reports of arousal because subjective reports demonstrate what the people studied want to believe about their own sexuality. Although the article I linked doesn't mention this, I know from another source which I can no longer find that Bailey's and Chivers' initial study found that among the men studied who subjectively reported themeselves as bisexual, the vast majority were aroused only by male bodies in pornography and not by female bodies. Most of the men who subjectively self-reported as bisexual were in fact homosexual. This doesn't mean the measure of arousal was invalid; it means the men's subjective self-reporting was delusional.
Quote:
"In both studies, heterosexual and homosexual women “genitally responded” to male homosexual pornography too!"
Further proof that the study is accurate. Many women ARE sexually aroused by male homosexual pornography, just as many men are sexually aroused by lesbian pornography. The difference is that men prefer actual filmed/photographed lesbian pornography, whereas women are more likely to prefer non-explicit/written/drawn/painted male homosexual pornography. If you don't believe me, I suggest you google the words "slash fiction", "Harry Potter slash", "yaoi" or "shonen-ai". There's a huge Internet phenomenon of non-explicit/written/drawn/painted male homosexual pornography created by females for female audiences.
Quote:
"In the second study the authors cited an unpublished doctoral dissertation that reported no differences in women’s “genital arousal” to audio narratives of rape and consensual sex. Granted that women typically do not want to be raped, but why should they be genitally aroused by a rape scenario?"
Erik, you think women aren't aroused by rape scenarios?! Rape is by FAR one of the most popular female sexual fantasies!
I won't even bother to post links to any of the hundreds or thousands of studies of female sexual fantasies that conclude that rape is consistently in the top 10 and very often number 1. You can find them easily yourself.
Your mind-blowing ignorance of female sexuality is on display in your belief that since "women typically do not want to be raped, but why should they be genitally aroused by a rape scenario?" Women are very often aroused by scenarios they have no desire to act out in real life, because fantasies, unlike realities, are completely controllable and have no unwanted consequences.
Women's rape fantasy is being forced to have sex with a man she WANTS to have sex with. Real rape is being forced to have sex with a man she does NOT WANT to have sex with. That makes all the difference. Women's rape fantasy never involves being maimed or killed, even though it may involve the fear of being maimed or killed. Real rape often involves being maimed or killed.
The whole industry of romance novels, which account for one third of all paperback sales in the United States, is an industry of selling written rape fantasies to women. The covers typically portray a man forcefully holding or in some way overpowering a woman. The sex typically involves some form or degree of coercion.
Women swoon during the marital rape scene in "Gone With The Wind" because it is a perfect example of the female rape fantasy.
The appeal of the female rape fantasy is that because the woman does not consent, she has no moral responsibility for the sexual act, and is therefore totally freed from all guilt or shame.
Men may not understand women's rape fantasy because, for obvious reasons of evolutionary psychology, men do not feel any conflict between desiring promiscuous sex and being considered desirable as a mating partner.
Quote:
"The authors argue that their studies as well as those of others using a similar apparatus suggest that the female genital arousal response is an automatic/reflex response to any sexual stimuli. They then argue: "Having reflexive and low-cost vasocongestion to nonspecific sexual features may have improved fitness in ancestral environments by reducing the probability of adverse events such as injury during sexual intercourse." What are the chances that the likelihood of rape, including rape by animals, was high enough for such a response to evolve?"
100%! Rape was the EVOLUTIONARY HISTORICAL NORM. The idea that rape is wrong did not even exist until relatively recently in homo sapien history, and there is no indication that earlier members of the Homo genus even understood the CONCEPT of sexual consent.
A friend of a friend of mine worked as a professional rape counselor, and she said it is not at ALL uncommon for women to become aroused or even orgasm during rape, and that the feeling that their bodies have betrayed them is often more traumatic than the rape experience itself. The disconnect between the rape victim's emotional anguish and her body's reflexive erotic reaction to sexual stimuli can cause rape victims to hate their own bodies.
Yes, it is entirely likely that women evolved a generalized responsiveness to any sexual stimuli in order to make rape less likely to result in injury.
Quote:
"In the second study, the authors did use a neutral, non-sexual stimulus. This is mentioned in the abstract. Read the papers if you wish."
Again, I refuse to open any zip files. If you want to make a point by referencing information, then post the information or a link to it.
Erik, your insistence that Bailey's and Chivers' studies must be invalid because the reach conclusions you find unbelievable simply demonstrates how little you know about female sexuality.
:ohh:
@Danielle: sorry for the delayed response. I agree with your opinion about Erik's writings. That's precisely why I will not respond to his statements. He might best be helped by someone from http://www.virgin-experience.com to get over his fear of women.
Hugh Ristik: Masculinization making women more likely to be willing to deal with the casting couch is an obvious factor, but Hollywood is a little different. Even if fewer feminine women are willing to deal with the casting couch, there are some such women and given the massive rewards associated with success in Hollywood, the absolute number of feminine and attractive women willing to deal with the casting couch in Hollywood should be high. So if feminine beauty were in the limelight and masculinized women were cast as the lead role in romance-themes movies, many people would find it odd and comment on it to a much greater extent than they do currently. I believe that a number of not so feminine women have reached a high rank in Hollywood partly because there are few feminine beauties among top models.
Danielle: If you can’t figure out that the 1990s supermodels had BMIs of 18-plus by looking at their pictures (not when they started, but when they had earned the supermodel designation), then I can be of no assistance to you. My point is that present high-fashion models in general are not drastically thin compared to their 1990s counterparts; you are just addressing the 1990s supermodels. There has been a gradual thinness trend over the past couple of decades. I didn’t say that current models are not thinner than their 1990s counterparts, on average.
The correlation between increasing post-mid-twentieth century tolerance of homosexuality and increasing masculinization of female high-fashion models is well-established. What is not well-established is that there is a causal relationship between these variables. However, I have made a strong case for a causal relationship between the curvilinear 20th century trend in high-fashion models’ femininity and the curvilinear trend in the public tolerance of homosexuality, and you have yet to offer an alternative, let alone a better hypothesis.
You said that the only consistency of my arguments is my underlying homophobia when the fact is that you consistently either fail to understand them or deliberately misrepresent them to waste my time. You wrote:
Quote:
You have argued that high fashion models are thin in order to shock audiences then you argued that their thinness is similar to the build of pubescent boys now you are arguing that they are thin and getting thinner because of a greater tolerance of homosexuality.
No! Something shocking attracts attention, but it can be shocking only if used sparingly, not consistently, or else there would be nothing shocking about it. So the typical thinness of high-fashion models doesn’t qualify here. The second part should read that the typical thinness of high-fashion models is part of a package of looks that makes them resemble boys in their early adolescence (not pubescence). The last part should read, taking advantage of increasing tolerance of homosexuality in the general public, the male homosexual designers have increasingly selected female models to their tastes with lesser concern for having their sexuality outed and suffering adverse repercussions. So the second and third parts are completely consistent.
In the face picture of Claudia Schiffer that I posted, whereas some of her hair is covering part of her eye and cheekbone, the other side is clear, and her jawline is clearly shown. Your pictures are worse since in a number of cases the hair is covering even more of the face or the other side isn’t clearly shown or the faces are smaller or the pictures are blurred. Again, feminine women will not look masculine form any angle, and Claudia obviously doesn’t have a feminine face. My problem isn’t with using posing and make-up to make masculinized women look more feminine, but I am making people ask why not use feminine women instead of having to resort to tricks? The answer to this question explains the looks of fashion models and lingerie models.
If you cannot come up with a proper rebuttal, you need to stop commenting. Don’t repeat that I am a self-hating queer.
I am not coming up with any excuses for why some of the feminine women that I have come up with look like “shit.” All I did was to explain that it is unlikely that the pictures of these women have been airbrushed at all, let alone to the substantial extent often seen in professional fashion photography.
Whipped honey: It is time to end the discussion about Bailey and Chivers’ useless studies. You have claimed that sexual arousal and sexual desire are not linked in women. Where is the proof for this? The Bailey et al. studies do not prove this. They have employed a test known as vaginal photoplethysmography (also known as vaginal pulse amplitude). This test suffers from the following shortcomings: 1) no absolute scale, making between-participants comparisons problematic; 2) the test provides a relative measurement of vaginal blood flow and no anatomic information, i.e., no validation of a direct relationship with vasocongestion; 3) is affected by movement; 4) has a confound in that the very act of vaginal insertion of the apparatus would stimulate the tissue; and 5) often fails to find a correlation between the genital measure of arousal and subjective reports of arousal. The citations for these shortcomings are:
Quote:
Heiman JR. Psychophysiological models of female sexual response. Int J Impotence 1998;10:S84-S97.
Laan E, Everaerd W. Physiological measures of vaginal vasocongestion. Int J Impotence 1998;10:S107-S110.
Meston, CM. (2000). The psychophysiological assessment of female sexual function. J Sex Educ Therapy 2000;25(1), 6-16.
None of these shortcomings are mentioned by the authors. I looked up their studies. In both studies, heterosexual and homosexual women “genitally responded” to male homosexual pornography too! In the second study the authors cited an unpublished doctoral dissertation that reported no differences in women’s “genital arousal” to audio narratives of rape and consensual sex. Granted that women typically do not want to be raped, but why should they be genitally aroused by a rape scenario? Don’t you think it reasonable that something is not right with the measure of “genital arousal”? The authors argue that their studies as well as those of others using a similar apparatus suggest that the female genital arousal response is an automatic/reflex response to any sexual stimuli. They then argue:
Quote:
Having reflexive and low-cost vasocongestion to nonspecific sexual features may have improved fitness in ancestral environments by reducing the probability of adverse events such as injury during sexual intercourse.
What are the chances that the likelihood of rape, including rape by animals, was high enough for such a response to evolve? In the second study, the authors did use a neutral, non-sexual stimulus. This is mentioned in the abstract. Read the papers if you wish.
Humphrey Bogart doesn’t look ugly to me. The women who responded to him were responding to a man and a masculine characteristic in him.
I disagree with your “agreement and disagreement with me.” I have acknowledged that homosexual men appear to have a higher incidence of the talent/abilities needed to reach the top among fashion designers, which allows homosexual men to numerically dominate the top ranks of the fashion industry, but this is responsible for why they effectively have a monopoly with respect to specifying the norms seen among high-fashion models. In other words, the effectively-monopoly-like factor is not inconsistent with the talent factor.
I believe that alternative fashion industries are possible. When it comes to fashion designing, talent is not the only factor. There are undoubtedly many heterosexual men who could be outstanding at fashion designing, but the nature of the job doesn’t appeal to them. If you can start a low-key alternative using feminine women, then the possibility of working with the kind of women they like will create an incentive for more heterosexual men to take up fashion designing, and with advances in computer software, you can have some heterosexual computer geeks delve into fashion designing since using computers in a game-like/virtual reality situation attracts many heterosexual men. So don’t bet against alternative fashion industries.
I haven’t argued that high-fashion models always naturally look the way they do. Some of them obviously starve to maintain their low body weights. Women with masculinized skeletal proportions will not look feminine even if they go from skinny to normal, though curves (not excess body fat) will make them look more feminine.
Whipped honey: Sorry about mistakenly addressing you as Gabrielle. I will address Melisande’s comment in the entry titled, “Guinevere...” I will say in brief here that there is a positive correlation between an interest in atypical/bizarre sexual behaviors and a disinhibited libido. Men with a stronger libido are more likely to be regular customers of pornography. Hence there will be a strong demand for porn/pictures of women featuring underage bodies even though men into such females are a small proportion of the population. So if some pornographers are especially looking for 18-plus women with underage bodies, you bet this is not because most men demand this.
There is no way pornographers are turning down feminine beauties in porn. Breast implants are quite common among porn stars, including the top-ranked ones. If these women were feminine, they would typically not need implants. Why do pornographers allow so many porn stars with breast implants? This is because most of their customers prefer women with more femininity that what the porn stars naturally have, but the pornographers are just not successful in recruiting enough sufficiently feminine women.
Why would men want feminine porn stars that are more inhibited and perform fewer sex acts? Many men are not into sex practices such as anal sex, oral-anal sex and ejaculate consumption, and hence they are perfectly at home watching porn where such acts or other atypical/disinhibited acts are not featured. In addition, even men who are into such practices will often want to see the tamer porn because it features more beautiful women.
When I talked about the women that rich men are disproportionately seen with in upscale settings, I wasn’t talking about wives. The women could be wives, girlfriends or escorts.
I do not have a problem making up my mind. There is no reason why an interest in masculinized women and Bayes’ theorem cannot work in concert.
Danielle: Individual models come and go every season, but the central tendency of their looks persists much longer. I have assumed that the alternatives will be comparable with respect to quality of designs. I haven’t argued that entire industries will be built around the models; just emphasized what kind of models the alternatives will have. I admit the ideas are a long shot, but they are not impossible to achieve.
Arguing that someone portraying unflattering [and true] correlates of homosexuality is repressing homosexual urges in himself is an old ploy that should have died with Freud, and a sign that you have no valid counter arguments.
Prada is the one to blame? If she initiated it, why did the others copy her in droves unless they liked it? The homosexuals in the industry will naturally provide a thousand useless leads, some examples of which were addressed in a questionnaire following a brief educational video.
Quote:
Yes, pornographers WOULD decline the likes of Zuzana Drabinova in favor of women with breast implants because Zuzana Drabinova's natural breasts are not as firm and upright as implants of the same size would be. Drabinova individually may refuse to have sex on camera, but that hardly proves that all of the nude models Erik has found who have not done porn have turned porn down rather than being turned down by pornographers.
Many male regular porn fans do not give a damn what is or looks "natural". Fake breasts, fake bleached hair, fake eyelashes, fake noses, fake cheek implants, fake collagen lips, fake chin implants, fake acrylic fingernails, and fake who knows what else are fine with them.
If you think most men prefer natural looks, I have two words for you: Pamela Anderson. By FAR the biggest female sex symbol of her generation, and everything on her is fake. Pamela Anderson's success cannot be attributed to willingness to perform "atypical/disinhibited sex acts" because Anderson rose to fame as a nude model, not a porn star, and was already the biggest sex symbol in the world before the marketing against her will of her private sex tape. The Zuzana Drabinovas of the world will never have as many male fans as the Pamela Andersons.
Quote:
Who said top porn stars are successful because of their "good looks"? Jenna Jameson is the highest-earning porn star of all time, with a personal fortune estimated at $30 million, and I doubt even her biggest fans really believe she's the most beautiful woman in porn. A porn star's success is based less on "good looks" than on sexual skills, ability to cause erections in male co-stars who have to work on schedule, ability to enable male co-stars to maintain erections while delaying orgasm, deep throat oral sex skills, and whatever else comprises any particular porn star's repertoire. In terms of porn stars' faces, most regular male porn fans prefer women who with extremely overtly suggestive, vulgar-looking faces such as Jenna Jameson. Zuzana Drabinova doesn't have what it takes to be a huge porn star even if she were willing.
Quote:
Erik, accusing men who disagree with your taste in women of being gay or bisexual is a ridiculous, unprovable cop out.
Harry: Thanks for the picture you linked to my name! You must have read my mind to know I am a fan of both wonder woman and bondage.
;-)
Erik,
why respond to some comments and not others
Damn Danielle, women prefer in females looks the same as do men.
Why do I have to write it yet again? The ink’s running out of my pen.
Why do thee resort to the ruse that the information here is of no use?
The site makes the reader muse; it also has content that does amuse.
Yet it makes you blow a fuse, and makes thee shower me with abuse.
Do I make masculine women feel crappy like kids spanked by pappy?
I suppose the gay designers are making feminine women very happy?
Who, heretofore under stealth, has been undermining women’s wealth
not so much in terms of lightening the purse but in the form of health?
Very strange that you find my arguments so absurd that they are fun.
I’ve been thinking, hun, whether you have from a lunatic asylum run?
The typical person will, regardless of causal factors, lament for a nut
just as one pities the poor soul who has had his butt bitten by a mutt.
You, on the other hand, rejoice in glee; look ma, here is fun for free!
Seriously, chill, sit down, a sane person be; think carefully, try to see
that the truth can’t be prejudiced; plain obvious to eyes not jaundiced.
It isn’t me who is homophobic, but you appear to be empiric-o-phobic.
Neither sexism nor racism is my sin, and with this note I my reply fin.
Harry the pimp: I don't have any bros for your hos; stop promoting them here.
How did Ana Beatriz Barros's butt went from flat to a perfectly round butt ??
Erik, what does someone with a BMI of 18 or just below 18 look like? Do they have bones popping out of their skin? I had a BMI below 18 at one point and I never looked bony. How big do you think those supermodels were? I have read articles that suggest that both Claudia Schiffer and Naomi Campbell had BMIs of 17.7 and 16.5 even in their 30s. What do you think they weighed when they were at the top of their games? My point was that the supermodels represented the typical model body of that time. You have not proven that the all the supers had BMIs over 18. Stop assuming that you can tell a person's weight by looking at photos of them.
You have not made a strong argument that the greater tolerance of homosexuality is responsible for the increasing thinness in fashion models. It has been widely suggested that Miuccia Prada set the trend for increasingly thin models. You wouldn't know that because you know absolutely nothing about the fashion industry other than which designers are gay and which models look like men.
I am not failing to understand any of your shitty arguments. You clearly took the time to make this ridiculous website so I don't see why your time is so precious now.
Only one of my photographs of Claudia can be called "blurry". her facial features are clear in all of my pics. She is in her 20s in all of the images I selected and her face isn't being obscured by her hair in most of them.
I don't need to go to great lengths to rebutt your "arguments" because they are as shallow as a kiddie pool. Your opinions aren't facts and you aren't presenting strong arguments just because you say you are.
Your models are ugly. There is simply no excuse for that. I called them sloppy hoes and then you said that they were not airbrushed. You were clearly trying to explain why they look so bad.
That page you linked to suggests that most people think fashion models are too thin. It did'nt mention anything about how they look in clothes. Nice try.
This is your website. You want an alternative industry (LOL). It is up to you to find better looking models and create better arguments. You know nothing about fashion or business and marketing. I suggest that you study those topics instead of talking out of your ass.
Whipped Honey: sorry, I noticed too late that it was you who posted.
Danielle: thanks for the compliment about Anna, I will pass it on to her. Some time ago she explained to me why escort girls charge more in the US but I forgot what the exact reason was. Meanwhile, Erik might try Zohra to help him overcome his problem with women. I never had a sexual identity crisis (lucky me). And if Erik were to address me such a thing I would not respond to it at all: it would give all the people that do know me well a big laugh!
Harry: Erik may accuse you of being "not lifetime exclusive heterosexual" or "narrowly escaping nonheterosexuality" because that is how he explains away men who disagree with him.
Harry, BTW, the Dutch escort whose website you have linked to your name signature is stunning. She is undercharging. At least, I know she could make more money in America.
You still haven't proved your claims about what kind of women rich men want
Quote:
You're backpedalling. What you said was "Do I need to cite proof that feminine beauties are disproportionately taken up by richer men? Visit some upscale clubs/restaurants and observe for yourself. Granted that not all rich men have hot wives"
You made it clear that when you claimed "feminine" women are disproportionately taken up by rich men, you were talking about wives. After I pointed out that many rich men marry "masculinized" women and that you can't even come up with anecdotal, let alone statistical, evidence that rich men disproportionately marry "feminine" women, you changed your tune and rewrote your statement to include girlfriends and escorts, since you know there is no way to prove who rich men date or hire as prostitutes.
Quote:
That is not what I meant; what I mean is that your idea of rich men's "interest in masculinized women and Bayes’ theorem" CAN "work in concert" with each other, but CANNOT work in concert with the claim that "feminine" women are disproportionately taken up by rich men.
More on why "feminine" women are not the norm in porn
Erik, it makes no difference whether "most men" do or do not want porn stars with "the supermodel or underage type of body". All that matters to pornographers is what men who buy pornography regularly want, and they apparently generally want the "supermodel or underage type of body", so that is what pornographers use.
Pornographers turn down "feminine" women in porn and choose women with breast implants because many, if not most, male regular porn customers prefer fake breasts to real breasts. Fake breasts are usually firmer, perkier, and more upright than real breasts of the same size. Those male regular porn customers who do not prefer fake breasts tend to prefer very small breasts for underage-looking waif appeal. There is a subgenre of porn that focuses on large real breasts, but it does not sell nearly as well as porn featuring large fake breasts or small real breasts.
"Feminine" porn stars who are "more disinhibited and perform fewer sex acts" may appeal to men who are not into "atypical/disinhibited sex acts", but such men are FAR less likely than men who are into "atypical/disinhibited sex acts" to be regular porn customers, and pornographers make money by catering to their regulars.
Quote:
Wrong. Men who are regular customers of the more "atypical/disinhibited porn" usually have little or no interest in "the tamer porn", and if they regarded "feminine" women as more beautiful, they would make those porn films that feature "feminine" women bestsellers - and they don't.
:long:
ERIK'S DEFINITION OF FEMININITY IS AN INVALID CONTRADICTION IN TERMS BECAUSE FEMININITY MEANS CHARACTERISTIC OF WOMEN BUT ERIK DEFINES FEMININITY AS CHARACTERISTICS MOST WOMEN DON'T HAVE
Simply put: Femininity means characteristic of women, and therefore any definition of femininity that excludes most women is automatically invalid.
Erik's definition of "femininity" is actually exaggerated hyperfemininity. Erik's definition of "somewhat masculinized" is actually more than normal femininity. Erik's definition of "masculinized" is actually normal femininity or slightly androgynous femininity.
A truly masculinized woman is one who has male hormone levels as high as the average man's and female hormone levels as low as the average man's, and almost NONE of the women Erik calls "masculinized" meet the criteria. Truly masculinized women are very rare and Erik has almost no photographs of them on this website because the real thing makes it impossible to keep passing off the fake. Put a photograph of a truly masculinized woman like 1980's tennis star Martina Navratilova next to the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Models and it becomes impossible to persuade anyone to view the swimsuit models as "masculinized".
Elaboration on women's arousal by sound
Quote:
Humphrey Bogart doesn't look ugly to you because, like the vast majority of heterosexual men, you judge male looks far more leniently than you judge female looks. If you saw Humphrey Bogart's twin sister who looks like a female version of him, you would definitely find her ugly, no matter how "feminine" she might be. Homosexual men do not have this lenience in judging male looks, which is why Humphrey Bogart is one of those hugely popular heterosexual male sex symbols who has NO fan base as a sex symbol to gay men.
Quote:
Humphrey Bogart's masculinity alone without good looks cannot account for his sex symbol status because there have been other male movies stars who were also very masculine without good looks, such as Edward G. Robinson, who never became sex symbols.
Women respond to Humphrey Bogart's VOICE. Why do you think it is that as a young actor in the silent film era of the 1920's, he was able to get only one film role in that entire decade, but as soon as sound film began in the early 1930's, he began to get regular film roles and gradually became a huge movie star? Humphrey Bogart is an example of how women are aroused by what they hear, which is why women are aroused by music.
8-/
Why there will never be a successful heterosexual fashion industry
Quote:
Your definition of the word monopoly would get a failing grade in any economics class. Market dominance through superior talent is NOT monopoly.
Quote:
This statement proves you have no artistic talent of any kind. If you had any form of artistic talent, you would know it is impossible to have artistic talent without enjoying the nature of its use.
Quote:
Further proof that you have no artistic talent. Anyone who has any form of artistic talent does not need the incentive of working with those whom he/she finds sexually attractive in order to want to use that talent. For the moment I will leave aside your insistence that most heterosexual men prefer "feminine" women, which is highly debatable to say the least but that's a different topic. The point is, if a man has real design talent then he will want and NEED to design regardless of whether he finds the models sexually attractive, and if he needs the incentive of models he finds sexually attractive to get him to design clothes, then he has no real design talent and merely uses fashion design as a means to meet women he finds attractive.
Artistic talent DEMANDS expression, with or without amenable conditions or rewards or fringe benefits or incentives of any kind. Mozart composed in penniless squalor without pay because he HAD to. Emily Dickinson wrote her huge volume of unpublished poetry because she HAD to. Vincent Van Gogh kept painting without ever selling a single painting because he HAD to. If heterosexual men don't design because they HAVE to, regardless of whether they find the models attractive, then they do not have real design talent.
Quote:
Yet even more proof that you have no artistic talent. Anyone who has design talent does not need design to be turned into a videogame to make it interesting to him. All your talk of incentives for a heterosexual fashion industry misses the point: Real artistic talent requires no incentive whatsoever, and anyone who requires an incentive to create art has no real artistic talent.
Quote:
Erik, it is plainly obvious that you have no artistic talent at all and have never worked in any form of marketing. If you had any real idea how either of those two areas work, you would know exactly why there will never be a heterosexual fashion industry no matter what. Heterosexual male psychology is simply not conducive to fashion design; the process by which boys become fully heterosexual and permanenently lose any capacity for homosexual response necessarily involves losing the particular type of aesthetic sense necessary for high-level fashion design. The fact that you cannot name one single great and greatly successful heterosexual male fashion designer would tell you something, if you weren't closing your eyes and putting your hands over your ears.
:down:
Bailey's and Chivers' Studies are Confirmed by Real Life Phenomena
Quote:
Erik, you don't get to cherry pick which studies we will discuss to limit the discussion to those studies that reach conclusions you like.
Quote:
Where is your disproof for this? Why is there a burden of proof but no burden of disproof? Why should the fact that sexual arousal and sexual desire are linked in men be considered proof that they must be linked in women as well?
My proof is my own experience as a person with a female body and female sexuality, and the accounts of the many, many women I have both known personally and encountered through the media. Erik, does it tell you anything that even BRON who agrees with you far more often than she agrees with me, agrees with me that women can be *aroused* by men they do not *desire* and that women can be *aroused* by music alone when it is not even possible to feel *desire* for a song? Do you realize that girls who become hysterical during pop stars are having music-induced orgasms that the presence of the same musicians while not playing their music cannot induce?
Of course women can be *aroused* by and feel *desire* for the same stimuli, but they can also experience the two phenomena separately. This may simply be beyond your comprehension because you are a man. Just please note that you cannot find a single woman who disagrees with me, not even Bron, who disagrees with me about everything else!
Quote:
Comparisons between participants do not depend on absolute scale. If I compare how fast 10 people are driving, I do not need an absolute scale of what constitutes "speeding" in order to compare how much faster or slower one driver is than another.
Quote:
You are misleading by citing issues that do not explain away the huge difference in heterosexual women's measured arousal to human porn vs primate porn. Why would the former cause far more vaginal blood flow than the latter if it did not cause more arousal?
Quote:
Again, you are misleading by citing issues that do not explain away the huge difference in heterosexual women's measured arousal to human porn vs primate porn. Why would the former occur with far greater movement than the latter?
Quote:
Again, you are misleading by citing issues that do not explain away the huge difference in heterosexual women's measured arousal to human porn vs primate porn. Why would the former be far more confounded by vaginal insertion of the apparatus stimulating the tissue than the latter?
Quote:
MANY sexual studies of either men or women or both fail to find a correlation between the genital measure of arousal and subjective reports of arousal because subjective reports demonstrate what the people studied want to believe about their own sexuality. Although the article I linked doesn't mention this, I know from another source which I can no longer find that Bailey's and Chivers' initial study found that among the men studied who subjectively reported themeselves as bisexual, the vast majority were aroused only by male bodies in pornography and not by female bodies. Most of the men who subjectively self-reported as bisexual were in fact homosexual. This doesn't mean the measure of arousal was invalid; it means the men's subjective self-reporting was delusional.
Quote:
Further proof that the study is accurate. Many women ARE sexually aroused by male homosexual pornography, just as many men are sexually aroused by lesbian pornography. The difference is that men prefer actual filmed/photographed lesbian pornography, whereas women are more likely to prefer non-explicit/written/drawn/painted male homosexual pornography. If you don't believe me, I suggest you google the words "slash fiction", "Harry Potter slash", "yaoi" or "shonen-ai". There's a huge Internet phenomenon of non-explicit/written/drawn/painted male homosexual pornography created by females for female audiences.
Quote:
Erik, you think women aren't aroused by rape scenarios?! Rape is by FAR one of the most popular female sexual fantasies!
I won't even bother to post links to any of the hundreds or thousands of studies of female sexual fantasies that conclude that rape is consistently in the top 10 and very often number 1. You can find them easily yourself.
Your mind-blowing ignorance of female sexuality is on display in your belief that since "women typically do not want to be raped, but why should they be genitally aroused by a rape scenario?" Women are very often aroused by scenarios they have no desire to act out in real life, because fantasies, unlike realities, are completely controllable and have no unwanted consequences.
Women's rape fantasy is being forced to have sex with a man she WANTS to have sex with. Real rape is being forced to have sex with a man she does NOT WANT to have sex with. That makes all the difference. Women's rape fantasy never involves being maimed or killed, even though it may involve the fear of being maimed or killed. Real rape often involves being maimed or killed.
The whole industry of romance novels, which account for one third of all paperback sales in the United States, is an industry of selling written rape fantasies to women. The covers typically portray a man forcefully holding or in some way overpowering a woman. The sex typically involves some form or degree of coercion.
Women swoon during the marital rape scene in "Gone With The Wind" because it is a perfect example of the female rape fantasy.
The appeal of the female rape fantasy is that because the woman does not consent, she has no moral responsibility for the sexual act, and is therefore totally freed from all guilt or shame.
Men may not understand women's rape fantasy because, for obvious reasons of evolutionary psychology, men do not feel any conflict between desiring promiscuous sex and being considered desirable as a mating partner.
Quote:
100%! Rape was the EVOLUTIONARY HISTORICAL NORM. The idea that rape is wrong did not even exist until relatively recently in homo sapien history, and there is no indication that earlier members of the Homo genus even understood the CONCEPT of sexual consent.
A friend of a friend of mine worked as a professional rape counselor, and she said it is not at ALL uncommon for women to become aroused or even orgasm during rape, and that the feeling that their bodies have betrayed them is often more traumatic than the rape experience itself. The disconnect between the rape victim's emotional anguish and her body's reflexive erotic reaction to sexual stimuli can cause rape victims to hate their own bodies.
Yes, it is entirely likely that women evolved a generalized responsiveness to any sexual stimuli in order to make rape less likely to result in injury.
Quote:
Again, I refuse to open any zip files. If you want to make a point by referencing information, then post the information or a link to it.
Erik, your insistence that Bailey's and Chivers' studies must be invalid because the reach conclusions you find unbelievable simply demonstrates how little you know about female sexuality.
:ohh:
The picture says what? Tyra Banks had a nose job. Duh, that's no secret. So? Her success in modeling was built on her magnificent body, 100% real, as seen here in Tyra Banks Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue cover 1997.
The Asian woman in the video is mentally messed up and the surgery made her look worse.
Gong Li is the most beautiful East Asian woman in the world and she did not have the eyelid surgery.
@Danielle: sorry for the delayed response. I agree with your opinion about Erik's writings. That's precisely why I will not respond to his statements. He might best be helped by someone from http://www.virgin-experience.com to get over his fear of women.
Hugh Ristik: Masculinization making women more likely to be willing to deal with the casting couch is an obvious factor, but Hollywood is a little different. Even if fewer feminine women are willing to deal with the casting couch, there are some such women and given the massive rewards associated with success in Hollywood, the absolute number of feminine and attractive women willing to deal with the casting couch in Hollywood should be high. So if feminine beauty were in the limelight and masculinized women were cast as the lead role in romance-themes movies, many people would find it odd and comment on it to a much greater extent than they do currently. I believe that a number of not so feminine women have reached a high rank in Hollywood partly because there are few feminine beauties among top models.
Danielle: If you can’t figure out that the 1990s supermodels had BMIs of 18-plus by looking at their pictures (not when they started, but when they had earned the supermodel designation), then I can be of no assistance to you. My point is that present high-fashion models in general are not drastically thin compared to their 1990s counterparts; you are just addressing the 1990s supermodels. There has been a gradual thinness trend over the past couple of decades. I didn’t say that current models are not thinner than their 1990s counterparts, on average.
The correlation between increasing post-mid-twentieth century tolerance of homosexuality and increasing masculinization of female high-fashion models is well-established. What is not well-established is that there is a causal relationship between these variables. However, I have made a strong case for a causal relationship between the curvilinear 20th century trend in high-fashion models’ femininity and the curvilinear trend in the public tolerance of homosexuality, and you have yet to offer an alternative, let alone a better hypothesis.
You said that the only consistency of my arguments is my underlying homophobia when the fact is that you consistently either fail to understand them or deliberately misrepresent them to waste my time. You wrote:
Quote:
No! Something shocking attracts attention, but it can be shocking only if used sparingly, not consistently, or else there would be nothing shocking about it. So the typical thinness of high-fashion models doesn’t qualify here. The second part should read that the typical thinness of high-fashion models is part of a package of looks that makes them resemble boys in their early adolescence (not pubescence). The last part should read, taking advantage of increasing tolerance of homosexuality in the general public, the male homosexual designers have increasingly selected female models to their tastes with lesser concern for having their sexuality outed and suffering adverse repercussions. So the second and third parts are completely consistent.
In the face picture of Claudia Schiffer that I posted, whereas some of her hair is covering part of her eye and cheekbone, the other side is clear, and her jawline is clearly shown. Your pictures are worse since in a number of cases the hair is covering even more of the face or the other side isn’t clearly shown or the faces are smaller or the pictures are blurred. Again, feminine women will not look masculine form any angle, and Claudia obviously doesn’t have a feminine face. My problem isn’t with using posing and make-up to make masculinized women look more feminine, but I am making people ask why not use feminine women instead of having to resort to tricks? The answer to this question explains the looks of fashion models and lingerie models.
If you cannot come up with a proper rebuttal, you need to stop commenting. Don’t repeat that I am a self-hating queer.
I am not coming up with any excuses for why some of the feminine women that I have come up with look like “shit.” All I did was to explain that it is unlikely that the pictures of these women have been airbrushed at all, let alone to the substantial extent often seen in professional fashion photography.
Most people disagree that high-fashion models look good in clothes.
Whipped honey: It is time to end the discussion about Bailey and Chivers’ useless studies. You have claimed that sexual arousal and sexual desire are not linked in women. Where is the proof for this? The Bailey et al. studies do not prove this. They have employed a test known as vaginal photoplethysmography (also known as vaginal pulse amplitude). This test suffers from the following shortcomings: 1) no absolute scale, making between-participants comparisons problematic; 2) the test provides a relative measurement of vaginal blood flow and no anatomic information, i.e., no validation of a direct relationship with vasocongestion; 3) is affected by movement; 4) has a confound in that the very act of vaginal insertion of the apparatus would stimulate the tissue; and 5) often fails to find a correlation between the genital measure of arousal and subjective reports of arousal. The citations for these shortcomings are:
Quote:
None of these shortcomings are mentioned by the authors. I looked up their studies. In both studies, heterosexual and homosexual women “genitally responded” to male homosexual pornography too! In the second study the authors cited an unpublished doctoral dissertation that reported no differences in women’s “genital arousal” to audio narratives of rape and consensual sex. Granted that women typically do not want to be raped, but why should they be genitally aroused by a rape scenario? Don’t you think it reasonable that something is not right with the measure of “genital arousal”? The authors argue that their studies as well as those of others using a similar apparatus suggest that the female genital arousal response is an automatic/reflex response to any sexual stimuli. They then argue:
Quote:
What are the chances that the likelihood of rape, including rape by animals, was high enough for such a response to evolve? In the second study, the authors did use a neutral, non-sexual stimulus. This is mentioned in the abstract. Read the papers if you wish.
Humphrey Bogart doesn’t look ugly to me. The women who responded to him were responding to a man and a masculine characteristic in him.
I disagree with your “agreement and disagreement with me.” I have acknowledged that homosexual men appear to have a higher incidence of the talent/abilities needed to reach the top among fashion designers, which allows homosexual men to numerically dominate the top ranks of the fashion industry, but this is responsible for why they effectively have a monopoly with respect to specifying the norms seen among high-fashion models. In other words, the effectively-monopoly-like factor is not inconsistent with the talent factor.
I believe that alternative fashion industries are possible. When it comes to fashion designing, talent is not the only factor. There are undoubtedly many heterosexual men who could be outstanding at fashion designing, but the nature of the job doesn’t appeal to them. If you can start a low-key alternative using feminine women, then the possibility of working with the kind of women they like will create an incentive for more heterosexual men to take up fashion designing, and with advances in computer software, you can have some heterosexual computer geeks delve into fashion designing since using computers in a game-like/virtual reality situation attracts many heterosexual men. So don’t bet against alternative fashion industries.
I haven’t argued that high-fashion models always naturally look the way they do. Some of them obviously starve to maintain their low body weights. Women with masculinized skeletal proportions will not look feminine even if they go from skinny to normal, though curves (not excess body fat) will make them look more feminine.
Whipped honey: Sorry about mistakenly addressing you as Gabrielle. I will address Melisande’s comment in the entry titled, “Guinevere...” I will say in brief here that there is a positive correlation between an interest in atypical/bizarre sexual behaviors and a disinhibited libido. Men with a stronger libido are more likely to be regular customers of pornography. Hence there will be a strong demand for porn/pictures of women featuring underage bodies even though men into such females are a small proportion of the population. So if some pornographers are especially looking for 18-plus women with underage bodies, you bet this is not because most men demand this.
There is no way pornographers are turning down feminine beauties in porn. Breast implants are quite common among porn stars, including the top-ranked ones. If these women were feminine, they would typically not need implants. Why do pornographers allow so many porn stars with breast implants? This is because most of their customers prefer women with more femininity that what the porn stars naturally have, but the pornographers are just not successful in recruiting enough sufficiently feminine women.
Why would men want feminine porn stars that are more inhibited and perform fewer sex acts? Many men are not into sex practices such as anal sex, oral-anal sex and ejaculate consumption, and hence they are perfectly at home watching porn where such acts or other atypical/disinhibited acts are not featured. In addition, even men who are into such practices will often want to see the tamer porn because it features more beautiful women.
When I talked about the women that rich men are disproportionately seen with in upscale settings, I wasn’t talking about wives. The women could be wives, girlfriends or escorts.
I do not have a problem making up my mind. There is no reason why an interest in masculinized women and Bayes’ theorem cannot work in concert.
Danielle: Individual models come and go every season, but the central tendency of their looks persists much longer. I have assumed that the alternatives will be comparable with respect to quality of designs. I haven’t argued that entire industries will be built around the models; just emphasized what kind of models the alternatives will have. I admit the ideas are a long shot, but they are not impossible to achieve.
Arguing that someone portraying unflattering [and true] correlates of homosexuality is repressing homosexual urges in himself is an old ploy that should have died with Freud, and a sign that you have no valid counter arguments.
Prada is the one to blame? If she initiated it, why did the others copy her in droves unless they liked it? The homosexuals in the industry will naturally provide a thousand useless leads, some examples of which were addressed in a questionnaire following a brief educational video.
8D: Do not waste my time. Behave or leave.
Whipped honey: The picture says it; words are not needed.
Pages