You have not proven anywhere on this website that the women who buy high fashion clothes would prefer the looks of the sloppy hoes in your “attractive women” section over the typical high fashion model. Until you prove that these women don't like the way the models look then you are just wasting your time. This is your website so the burden of proof rests on you.
You are only making insecure, "masculine" women feel like shit. Don't flatter yourself into thinking that you are imparting any useful knowledge. I am sure that you can function in day-to-day life but you are still a delusional body nazi. I come to this site because your arguments are so ridiculous that they are actually funny. I don't feel bad about laughing at a homophobic, sexist, racist nut.
Erik, you contradict yourself about rich men's preferences in women
You claim that rich men disproportionately take up "feminine" women; you provide no evidence, not even anecdotal, let alone statistical, to back up this claim; you admit you do not keep up with the lifestyles of rich men yet insist you still know who they marry, and claim that "general observation in upscale settings suffices" to prove this claim. MY general observation in upscale settings is that rich men are far MORE likely to marry "masculinized" women.
You explain away the many marriages of famous rich men to "masculinized" women by claiming that "There is plenty of evidence that upper class men are less likely to be lifetime-exclusive heterosexual than men in general" and that "The application of Bayes’ theorem suggests that the most likely non-gold-digger for a rich man would be a not so attractive woman."
Make up your mind: Either rich men disproportionately marry feminine women OR rich men are more likely to be not lifetime exclusive heterosexuals and marry "masculinized" women to cut down on the risk of marrying a gold digger. You can't have it both ways!
The real reason so many female porn stars are "masculinized"
Erik, your statement to me in your most recent post on this page is accidentally addressed to Gabrielle, the nude model.
Erik, you assume that the reason most female porn stars are "masculinized" is that "feminine" women are generally less willing to do porn than "masculinized" women. Melisande, who has worked as both a nude model and a porn star, says that many pornographers prefer the "supermodel or underage type of body when shooting". Did you ever even consider the possibility that the real reason most of the nude models in your "Attractive Women" gallery have not done porn is not that they refused but that heterosexual pornographers TURNED THEM DOWN? "Masculined" women are common in porn because many heterosexual pornographers prefer them to "feminine" women.
As for your claim that "masculinized" women are popular as porn stars because they are "more disinhibited" and willing to perform a wider variety of sex acts, I am not convinced that is true, but IF that is true, then why should men WANT "feminine" porn stars who are more inhibited and perform a narrower range of sex acts?
8-/
Darling Danielle, thou art using the same gimmick;
can’t you see that the rich are a part of the public?
It is not at all difficult to educate an ordinary Mick
and make him see that many models look really sick.
So, can the rich be far behind in feeling yuck, ick?
And will then the rich still the same designers pick
when others use models that do not look like a stick?
The answer should be apparent unless you are thick.
The God of wisdom, not me, asks ye to lay with him
so with the seed of wisdom he filleth ye to the brim,
making you see that I ain’t the harbinger of the grim.
I am just doing my job; currently singing this hymn.
I wonder whether your chances of improving are slim
since who enjoys insulting a “nut,” somebody dim?
Erik, explain why heterosexual pornographers and adult photographers want "masculine" women
Erik wrote: "“Given that a number of feminine women refuse to pose naked”
Melisande wrote: "from my time in the modeling, acting and porn worlds...it’s not that women refuse to pose, it’s that many photographers want the supermodel or underage body type when shooting.."
Erik, why do many heterosexual male pornographers and adult photographers want the "supermodel or underage body type" that you insist most straight men do not prefer?
Did you even stop to consider the possibility that many of your "Attractive Women" nude models got TURNED DOWN by pornographers?
Are you going to claim that the heterosexual porn industry is run by men who are not "lifetime exclusive heterosexuals" or "narrowly escaped homosexuality"?
“Given that a number of feminine women refuse to pose naked"
I think this is incorrect...from my time in the modeling, acting and porn worlds...it's not that women refuse to pose, it's that many photographers want the supermodel or underage body type when shooting..and many beautiful women are told they are too fat...Such a shame too...
The thing is Erik, I'm not surprised that I'm not the only woman on this site to be offended by you calling us masculine. The only women I know who don't mind being called masculine very much are those who are trying to look as male as possible, and even many of them like for people to still acknowledge that they are female. Basically, no girl likes to be called masculine, it's kind of an insult, even if it wasn't meant that way, women are proud of being female!! If I had the choice to be a guy, I still wouldn't do it!! I like being a lady!! :-) And I like to think that I look like a femenine one too...especially if I've been raised to act and dress that way...
Exactly what you said. No comments for the obvious fact that these women are naturally ugly (both before and after make up)
Masculine, ugly, freckly, bony...
If these women aren't chosen to be fashion models based on their natural, feminine, beautiful looks, then what are the criteria based on? Hmm...suspicious...
Harry, I am not trying to chang anyone's mind. I like insulting and arguing with Erik because I think he's a nut. My comments are intended to contribute to some grand purpose or goal.
Erik, how many times does it have to be explained to you that the general public is not the main market for designer merchandise? Their boycotts will mean nothing in that context. You are seriously overestimating the power of this little site. Most men do not view high fashion images critically. They are not interested in high fashion and they don't seek out images of these models. If they find them unattractive then they ignore them. No one is particularly interested in setting up an alternative except you and maybe a few other people. That's not enough. I won't be laying with you anywhere and your rhymes suck. You aren't really hurting anyone but yourself when you post that shit.
Models are not important because they are not the minds behind the creation and the development of high fashion merchandise. They are not stylists, designers, marketers, photographers or financial backers. They provide the canvas that these other people present their ideas on. Your "alternative fashion industry" idea is ridiculous because the models are not important enough to have an entire industry built around them. If you observed the industry and models beyond a superficial level you will see that they are disposable. Models come and go every season. A model can walk for Valentino for one season and then two seasons later her biggest show is Baby Phat.
Everyone blames Miuccia Prada for introducing the emaciated girls after the supermodel era was waning so you may go after her next. You probably won't because you are not interested in model health or female self esteem. You are interested in distancing yourself from gay men by demonizing them. You are homophobic and delusional and you have a laughable and extremely shallow view of feminists and others that don't fit your "lifetime-exclusive heterosexual" mold. Is that lifetime exclusive term something you made up to convince yourself that your fantasies of screwing men meant nothing because you never acted on them?
You're lame and this alternative industry thing is never going to happen.
Gabrielle: Whereas I haven’t seen much of pornographic movies, you can bet I have gone through pictures of thousands of porn stars. The sites that I get pictures from often feature nude porn stars. When I initially gathered pictures for this site, I didn’t know who was or wasn’t a porn star, but I ran into databases featuring the nude/porn work of various models and also asked around, and it turned out that few of the women I had intended for the attractive women section had done porn work. So inadequate sample size doesn’t explain my conclusions.
In the age of the internet, a nude model that does porn will not get far with lying about her porn work. If you seek pictures of Gabrielle, including by using her other names, you will note that a number of men are asking whether she has shown “pink,” i.e., her genitals, but apparently she hasn’t gone beyond a slight peek of her vulva so far. If she had done porn, how well could she hide it?
When it comes to the appeal of a porn star to heterosexual men, you are also looking at factors apart from looks, namely the woman’s repertoire of onscreen sex practices and how disinhibited her screen presence is. Masculinized porn stars tend to indulge in a wider variety of sex practices, making them suitable for casting in more movies and widening their appeal base, and these women also tend to be more disinhibited. So once again, their popularity isn’t because of their physical masculinization, but because they comprise the typical women who are willing/able to do on camera what they do.
I have seen few upper class men dating fashion models types; they generally go for women most find better looking than average, which corresponds to above average feminine women. I don’t have to keep up with the lifestyles of individual rich men to point this out; just general observation in upscale settings suffices.
You were on track to getting Bayesian logic right, but missed the point. The point isn’t that plain women aren’t gold diggers or are less likely to be gold diggers, but as you said, since there are a lot more of them, the most likely non-gold-digger and suitable match for a rich man would be a woman who isn’t that attractive. Wise rich men know they can get plenty of action on the side and wouldn’t marry rashly. When they goof up, it costs them dearly. Consider Paul McCartney; he ended up with a former nude model, porn star and call girl, and will be paying decent alimony. Since femininity is a very powerful correlate of beauty in women, it follows that masculinized/non-feminine women will be overrepresented among plain-looking women, and hence you can paraphrase Bayesian logic in terms of the likely femininity of a suitable choice for a rich man.
Not from Twisty’s: I would not recommend that you equate feminine features with pedomorphic ones. Feminine maturation makes a woman deviate away from the norm in children. Just because the deviation on some counts is less than that in men, it does not follow that “feminine” should be labeled “pedomorphic.” Gabrielle’s overall face shape should be seen in this context, which shows the expansion of the cheekbones resulting from feminization, not robusticity.
Danielle: What do you mean models are not that important? Whatever importance they have, they are the main variables being addressed. I am assuming that the alternatives will be comparable with respect to quality of designs/creativity.
Bow wow wow yippie yay yippie yay...
Sayeth the God of wisdom, Danielle hey,
thou could be learned and wise, what say?...
and see the writing on the wall doth portray
that the designers of the type known as gay
will not for long choose models light as hay;
a well-informed public will for a boycott bay
and there’ll be alternatives to make ‘em sway.
Chill and relax, do not let your nerves fray.
Come, why don’t you in bed with me lay?
The pup wageth in agreement, aye, aye!
Bow wow wow yippie yay yippie yay...
I agree that homosexual men dominate the fashion industry, but not by monopoly; by superior talent.
I disagree with your belief that a successful heterosexual fashion industry is possible. The near-absolute homosexual dominance of the fashion industry indicates that there is some link between fashion design talent and male homosexual psychology.
I agree with your belief that the homosexual designers want the models to look like adolescent boys because of their own attraction to adolescent boys.
I disagree with your belief that high fashion models look like boys because of their natural attributes. Some (not all) of the high fashion models look like boys because the designers require them to starve themselves until all outward signs of female secondary sex characteristics are stripped off their bodies. These same high fashion models at a HEALTHY WEIGHT would look feminine and lovely.
ha ha wrote: "whipped honey and danielle, you both rock for OWNING erik, he can’t come up with any counter arguments because he knows he’s beat. you two ROCK."
Emaciated models were popping up in the late nineties but it is becoming normal for the newest girls to look like death. This girl probably booked the most shows out of every other model this season: Olga Shearer
I think the difference between the looks of high fashion models of the eighties and nineties and the looks of girls like this is pretty drastic. Even more established models like Lily Donaldson, Kim Noorda and Natasha Poly are starting to waste away. I find it unattractive and disturbing.
Lily Donaldson Kim Noorda
Some people believe Muicca Prada started the trend of booking "very frail, very pale and very thin" models for shows. It may be more than that but your explanations are really ridiculous and unsatisfying and they reek of homophobia. It would be better if you knew more about the industry you are analyzing. Stop using models.com as your source for verything model related.
Erik, I cannot judge the BMIs of the supers by just looking at pictures of them. These women were all VERY thin. If you are offering no proof other than "just look at them" then I won't take your opinion seriously.
You have not established that there is a significant correlation between the greater tolerance of homosexuality and an increasing masculinization of fashion models. You are continously presenting that hypothesis as if it is a fact. It is not a fact. 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. The only consistancy of your arguments is your underlying homophobia.
First you say models are getting thinner because of tolerance of homosexuality now you are syaing that they haven't really gotten thinner at all? Please stop writing bullshit. The NEWEST top models who have just arrived LOOK very different from the supers. The supermodels looked like women. These new girls look like sullen, ugly russian children. This new development is the one I am adressing. I have no problem with the thinness of the models of the nineties and even the early 2000s.
You posted one picture of an older Claudia Schiffer's face from one angle where her hair partially obscures her face. My pictures are not much smaller with regards to her face and you can see her features clearly. I was going to post larger pictures of her face but they needed to be resized and I couldn't be bothered to do that. If these "masculine" models can be made to look "feminine" then what is your problem? "Feminine" beauty is being honored by those photographs. You are just a self hating queer that needs to find a milion different reasons why you are different from "teh evil gay pederast designers".
You are trying to give excuses for why your slut models look like shit but it's not working. Your models look like shit because the men who access those sites are not interested in their facial beauty. They are interested in jacking off at the sight of their asses and titties. If men were really interested in their faces then they would be airbrushed within an inch of their lives.
High fashion models elicit a different reaction in potential consumers. They can look feminine or masculine and they look good with clothes ON. The same cannot be said for those fugbeasts that you call "attractive women".
You have not proven anywhere on this website that the women who buy high fashion clothes would prefer the looks of the sloppy hoes in your “attractive women” section over the typical high fashion model. Until you prove that these women don't like the way the models look then you are just wasting your time. This is your website so the burden of proof rests on you.
You are only making insecure, "masculine" women feel like shit. Don't flatter yourself into thinking that you are imparting any useful knowledge. I am sure that you can function in day-to-day life but you are still a delusional body nazi. I come to this site because your arguments are so ridiculous that they are actually funny. I don't feel bad about laughing at a homophobic, sexist, racist nut.
See what?
If you have a point to make, why don't you make it?
:question:
Erik, you contradict yourself about rich men's preferences in women
You claim that rich men disproportionately take up "feminine" women; you provide no evidence, not even anecdotal, let alone statistical, to back up this claim; you admit you do not keep up with the lifestyles of rich men yet insist you still know who they marry, and claim that "general observation in upscale settings suffices" to prove this claim. MY general observation in upscale settings is that rich men are far MORE likely to marry "masculinized" women.
You explain away the many marriages of famous rich men to "masculinized" women by claiming that "There is plenty of evidence that upper class men are less likely to be lifetime-exclusive heterosexual than men in general" and that "The application of Bayes’ theorem suggests that the most likely non-gold-digger for a rich man would be a not so attractive woman."
Make up your mind: Either rich men disproportionately marry feminine women OR rich men are more likely to be not lifetime exclusive heterosexuals and marry "masculinized" women to cut down on the risk of marrying a gold digger. You can't have it both ways!
The real reason so many female porn stars are "masculinized"
Erik, your statement to me in your most recent post on this page is accidentally addressed to Gabrielle, the nude model.
Erik, you assume that the reason most female porn stars are "masculinized" is that "feminine" women are generally less willing to do porn than "masculinized" women. Melisande, who has worked as both a nude model and a porn star, says that many pornographers prefer the "supermodel or underage type of body when shooting". Did you ever even consider the possibility that the real reason most of the nude models in your "Attractive Women" gallery have not done porn is not that they refused but that heterosexual pornographers TURNED THEM DOWN? "Masculined" women are common in porn because many heterosexual pornographers prefer them to "feminine" women.
As for your claim that "masculinized" women are popular as porn stars because they are "more disinhibited" and willing to perform a wider variety of sex acts, I am not convinced that is true, but IF that is true, then why should men WANT "feminine" porn stars who are more inhibited and perform a narrower range of sex acts?
8-/
Darling Danielle, thou art using the same gimmick;
can’t you see that the rich are a part of the public?
It is not at all difficult to educate an ordinary Mick
and make him see that many models look really sick.
So, can the rich be far behind in feeling yuck, ick?
And will then the rich still the same designers pick
when others use models that do not look like a stick?
The answer should be apparent unless you are thick.
The God of wisdom, not me, asks ye to lay with him
so with the seed of wisdom he filleth ye to the brim,
making you see that I ain’t the harbinger of the grim.
I am just doing my job; currently singing this hymn.
I wonder whether your chances of improving are slim
since who enjoys insulting a “nut,” somebody dim?
. . . I am SO lost.
Erik, explain why heterosexual pornographers and adult photographers want "masculine" women
Erik wrote: "“Given that a number of feminine women refuse to pose naked”
Melisande wrote: "from my time in the modeling, acting and porn worlds...it’s not that women refuse to pose, it’s that many photographers want the supermodel or underage body type when shooting.."
Erik, why do many heterosexual male pornographers and adult photographers want the "supermodel or underage body type" that you insist most straight men do not prefer?
Did you even stop to consider the possibility that many of your "Attractive Women" nude models got TURNED DOWN by pornographers?
Are you going to claim that the heterosexual porn industry is run by men who are not "lifetime exclusive heterosexuals" or "narrowly escaped homosexuality"?
“Given that a number of feminine women refuse to pose naked"
I think this is incorrect...from my time in the modeling, acting and porn worlds...it's not that women refuse to pose, it's that many photographers want the supermodel or underage body type when shooting..and many beautiful women are told they are too fat...Such a shame too...
The thing is Erik, I'm not surprised that I'm not the only woman on this site to be offended by you calling us masculine. The only women I know who don't mind being called masculine very much are those who are trying to look as male as possible, and even many of them like for people to still acknowledge that they are female. Basically, no girl likes to be called masculine, it's kind of an insult, even if it wasn't meant that way, women are proud of being female!! If I had the choice to be a guy, I still wouldn't do it!! I like being a lady!! :-) And I like to think that I look like a femenine one too...especially if I've been raised to act and dress that way...
Exactly what you said. No comments for the obvious fact that these women are naturally ugly (both before and after make up)
Masculine, ugly, freckly, bony...
If these women aren't chosen to be fashion models based on their natural, feminine, beautiful looks, then what are the criteria based on? Hmm...suspicious...
I meant that my comments *aren't* intended to serve a grand purpose
Harry, I am not trying to chang anyone's mind. I like insulting and arguing with Erik because I think he's a nut. My comments are intended to contribute to some grand purpose or goal.
Erik, how many times does it have to be explained to you that the general public is not the main market for designer merchandise? Their boycotts will mean nothing in that context. You are seriously overestimating the power of this little site. Most men do not view high fashion images critically. They are not interested in high fashion and they don't seek out images of these models. If they find them unattractive then they ignore them. No one is particularly interested in setting up an alternative except you and maybe a few other people. That's not enough. I won't be laying with you anywhere and your rhymes suck. You aren't really hurting anyone but yourself when you post that shit.
Models are not important because they are not the minds behind the creation and the development of high fashion merchandise. They are not stylists, designers, marketers, photographers or financial backers. They provide the canvas that these other people present their ideas on. Your "alternative fashion industry" idea is ridiculous because the models are not important enough to have an entire industry built around them. If you observed the industry and models beyond a superficial level you will see that they are disposable. Models come and go every season. A model can walk for Valentino for one season and then two seasons later her biggest show is Baby Phat.
Everyone blames Miuccia Prada for introducing the emaciated girls after the supermodel era was waning so you may go after her next. You probably won't because you are not interested in model health or female self esteem. You are interested in distancing yourself from gay men by demonizing them. You are homophobic and delusional and you have a laughable and extremely shallow view of feminists and others that don't fit your "lifetime-exclusive heterosexual" mold. Is that lifetime exclusive term something you made up to convince yourself that your fantasies of screwing men meant nothing because you never acted on them?
You're lame and this alternative industry thing is never going to happen.
You fat prick, I am not 8D.
I bet that you're really 8D and just want to stir up drama on your dead site.
I am going to cut off your penis, make a slit in your throat, and then stuff your penis into that slit.
Whites are the prettiest race.
That's why they age like shit and have ugly, bumpy noses and chins.
Gabrielle: Whereas I haven’t seen much of pornographic movies, you can bet I have gone through pictures of thousands of porn stars. The sites that I get pictures from often feature nude porn stars. When I initially gathered pictures for this site, I didn’t know who was or wasn’t a porn star, but I ran into databases featuring the nude/porn work of various models and also asked around, and it turned out that few of the women I had intended for the attractive women section had done porn work. So inadequate sample size doesn’t explain my conclusions.
In the age of the internet, a nude model that does porn will not get far with lying about her porn work. If you seek pictures of Gabrielle, including by using her other names, you will note that a number of men are asking whether she has shown “pink,” i.e., her genitals, but apparently she hasn’t gone beyond a slight peek of her vulva so far. If she had done porn, how well could she hide it?
When it comes to the appeal of a porn star to heterosexual men, you are also looking at factors apart from looks, namely the woman’s repertoire of onscreen sex practices and how disinhibited her screen presence is. Masculinized porn stars tend to indulge in a wider variety of sex practices, making them suitable for casting in more movies and widening their appeal base, and these women also tend to be more disinhibited. So once again, their popularity isn’t because of their physical masculinization, but because they comprise the typical women who are willing/able to do on camera what they do.
I have seen few upper class men dating fashion models types; they generally go for women most find better looking than average, which corresponds to above average feminine women. I don’t have to keep up with the lifestyles of individual rich men to point this out; just general observation in upscale settings suffices.
You were on track to getting Bayesian logic right, but missed the point. The point isn’t that plain women aren’t gold diggers or are less likely to be gold diggers, but as you said, since there are a lot more of them, the most likely non-gold-digger and suitable match for a rich man would be a woman who isn’t that attractive. Wise rich men know they can get plenty of action on the side and wouldn’t marry rashly. When they goof up, it costs them dearly. Consider Paul McCartney; he ended up with a former nude model, porn star and call girl, and will be paying decent alimony. Since femininity is a very powerful correlate of beauty in women, it follows that masculinized/non-feminine women will be overrepresented among plain-looking women, and hence you can paraphrase Bayesian logic in terms of the likely femininity of a suitable choice for a rich man.
Not from Twisty’s: I would not recommend that you equate feminine features with pedomorphic ones. Feminine maturation makes a woman deviate away from the norm in children. Just because the deviation on some counts is less than that in men, it does not follow that “feminine” should be labeled “pedomorphic.” Gabrielle’s overall face shape should be seen in this context, which shows the expansion of the cheekbones resulting from feminization, not robusticity.
8D: Of course you would rather have sex with me than with Melisande. I didn’t think you were a homosexual. I can put your mouth to good use.
Danielle: What do you mean models are not that important? Whatever importance they have, they are the main variables being addressed. I am assuming that the alternatives will be comparable with respect to quality of designs/creativity.
Bow wow wow yippie yay yippie yay...
Sayeth the God of wisdom, Danielle hey,
thou could be learned and wise, what say?...
and see the writing on the wall doth portray
that the designers of the type known as gay
will not for long choose models light as hay;
a well-informed public will for a boycott bay
and there’ll be alternatives to make ‘em sway.
Chill and relax, do not let your nerves fray.
Come, why don’t you in bed with me lay?
The pup wageth in agreement, aye, aye!
Bow wow wow yippie yay yippie yay...
Erik, I agree and disagree with you
I agree that homosexual men dominate the fashion industry, but not by monopoly; by superior talent.
I disagree with your belief that a successful heterosexual fashion industry is possible. The near-absolute homosexual dominance of the fashion industry indicates that there is some link between fashion design talent and male homosexual psychology.
I agree with your belief that the homosexual designers want the models to look like adolescent boys because of their own attraction to adolescent boys.
I disagree with your belief that high fashion models look like boys because of their natural attributes. Some (not all) of the high fashion models look like boys because the designers require them to starve themselves until all outward signs of female secondary sex characteristics are stripped off their bodies. These same high fashion models at a HEALTHY WEIGHT would look feminine and lovely.
ha ha wrote: "whipped honey and danielle, you both rock for OWNING erik, he can’t come up with any counter arguments because he knows he’s beat. you two ROCK."
Thank you, ha ha.
Here are pictures of Natasha Poly that I was meaning to post.
Emaciated models were popping up in the late nineties but it is becoming normal for the newest girls to look like death. This girl probably booked the most shows out of every other model this season:
Olga Shearer
I think the difference between the looks of high fashion models of the eighties and nineties and the looks of girls like this is pretty drastic. Even more established models like Lily Donaldson, Kim Noorda and Natasha Poly are starting to waste away. I find it unattractive and disturbing.
Some people believe Muicca Prada started the trend of booking "very frail, very pale and very thin" models for shows. It may be more than that but your explanations are really ridiculous and unsatisfying and they reek of homophobia. It would be better if you knew more about the industry you are analyzing. Stop using models.com as your source for verything model related.
Erik, I cannot judge the BMIs of the supers by just looking at pictures of them. These women were all VERY thin. If you are offering no proof other than "just look at them" then I won't take your opinion seriously.
You have not established that there is a significant correlation between the greater tolerance of homosexuality and an increasing masculinization of fashion models. You are continously presenting that hypothesis as if it is a fact. It is not a fact. 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. The only consistancy of your arguments is your underlying homophobia.
First you say models are getting thinner because of tolerance of homosexuality now you are syaing that they haven't really gotten thinner at all? Please stop writing bullshit. The NEWEST top models who have just arrived LOOK very different from the supers. The supermodels looked like women. These new girls look like sullen, ugly russian children. This new development is the one I am adressing. I have no problem with the thinness of the models of the nineties and even the early 2000s.
You posted one picture of an older Claudia Schiffer's face from one angle where her hair partially obscures her face. My pictures are not much smaller with regards to her face and you can see her features clearly. I was going to post larger pictures of her face but they needed to be resized and I couldn't be bothered to do that. If these "masculine" models can be made to look "feminine" then what is your problem? "Feminine" beauty is being honored by those photographs. You are just a self hating queer that needs to find a milion different reasons why you are different from "teh evil gay pederast designers".
You are trying to give excuses for why your slut models look like shit but it's not working. Your models look like shit because the men who access those sites are not interested in their facial beauty. They are interested in jacking off at the sight of their asses and titties. If men were really interested in their faces then they would be airbrushed within an inch of their lives.
High fashion models elicit a different reaction in potential consumers. They can look feminine or masculine and they look good with clothes ON. The same cannot be said for those fugbeasts that you call "attractive women".
Pages