Bored surfer: Heidi's make-up is making her look more feminine than she is. The masculine look is the result of her face shape. Regarding Dana, if one had to use a mother/a woman who looks like a mother for lingerie modeling, then Dana is more suitable than mommy Heidi. In reality, a woman like Maria would be the right choice. I mostly avoid porn girls. Maria, Dana and Renee are nude models.
Bored surfer: Several thousand people have read this article and the vast majority of them have not left a comment. Hence it doesn't follow that most disagree that #7 has the best looking physique. As noted above, a reader who disagreed, “-R”, elsewhere identified herself as a lesbian with a preference for masculinized women and the person posting as “Jordan” left a comment under a different [male name] alias where he described his preference for skinny women but did not describe his sexual orientation in spite of my asking him. People who disagree may be more likely to leave a comment.
Whipped honey: Slight masculinization is a correlate of the sexiness of women to men. Hetersoexual men do not necessarily confound beauty with sexiness. The assertion that "most women feel subconscious, subliminal arousal when they look at attractive androgynous women" has not been proven. I will respond to your detailed argument in this regard where it appears.
Heidi Klum is far from masculine, in the *one* picture you have to say she looks drag queenish it's pretty obviously the, well, dragish makeup. The eyebrows are too dark and go out too far and the false eyelashes just add to that.
Her face/body is much more attractive than all of your porn girl examples. "Dana" is almost laughable for the fact you believe she is better suited for lingerie modeling than Heidi Klum.
You say most will "undoubtedly" pick #7. I think #1 and #8 have (by far) the most attractive bodies, and most agree that #7 isn't the best. Yet instead of realizing that few of *your* readers prefer her, you're using excuses and reasons as to why someone is biased or incorrect.
It makes me wonder what research you've used when even your readers/commenters aren't agreeing with it.
"In societies with a high mortality and almost nothing that we would call adolescence, the median age of marriage for girls would be in the teens... So men marrying girls in their mid-teens because custom/society demands that they do for one of several possible reasons doesn’t mean that historically speaking many/most men had a preference for girls in their mid-teens."
I said attraction, not preference. Most adult men are attracted to teenaged girls even if they have a preference for adult women.
Quote:
"I have heard of varying estimates of the proportion of Catholic priests that are homosexual, from 25-50%. Even if we take your 50% figure, why is that the 2004 John Jay College of Criminal Justice report revealed that 81% of the recorded molestation allegations during 1950-2002 were of a homosexual nature if homosexuals are not overrepresented among child molesters in proportion to their numbers?"
The Catholic priesthood's taboo on marriage and fatherhood makes the Catholic priesthood not only far less attractive to straight men than to gay men (thus the Catholic priesthood population has a much higher percentage of homosexuals than the general population) but also far less attractive to straight pedophiles than to gay pedophiles, because many straight pedophiles do want to become husbands and fathers, if only to have a child at home to molest (thus the Catholic priesthood pedophile population has a much higher percentage of homosexuals than the Catholic priesthood general population). The Catholic priesthood taboo on marriage and fatherhood has this sort of "compound effect".
I'm not downloading a zip file. Period. If you want me to read the literature, post it on the website. Both Danielle and I have now asked you to post it so you can't keep claiming it isn't relevant to the discussion while you keep discussing it.
Quote:
"The basketball analogy is weak. All-white teams have beaten NBA star teams on a number of occasions in recent years, and the white European teams keep getting better whereas the NBA players are stagnant."
I made an offhand analogy regarding basketball in America. If white European men play basketball better than white American men, I wouldn't know.
Quote:
"Similarly, don’t bet against the establishment of alternative fashion industries."
I wouldn't bet against the establishment of a heterosexual fashion industry if some heterosexual men were actually TRYING to create their own fashion industry.
Quote:
"What do you mean why do I care what models homosexuals are choosing? You have read plenty of this site. Haven’t you figured out yet? Read the FAQ."
I read the FAQ. I don't believe that your primary motivation is to counteract the negative influence of excessively skinny models on women's diet and exercise habits because if it were, you would be comfortable with "masculinized" models who aren't too skinny. I realize you want a mainstream outlet for the appreciation of the kind of women you consider beautiful; I just don't understand WHY you want it. If you can find pictures of "feminine" women then why do you care whether those pictures are in the "mainstream" or not? Is it because you care what sort of women other men look at, and if so, why? And please don't just say "aesthetic disaster". My question why do you give a damn about said "aesthetic disaster"?
:question:
If "feminine" beauties are disproportionately taken up by richer men, then why can't you prove it?
Quote:
"The best proof of richer men disproportionately taking up feminine beauties can be obtained by spending some time in, say, a big mall or large general social gathering and looking at the women and then looking at the women in upscale clubs. Do it and get back to me."
I've already done it. I've spent plenty of time in shopping malls and large general social gatherings and plenty of time in upscale clubs and other monied environments. Monied environments such as upscale clubs have a much HIGHER percentage of women who look like high fashion models.
Quote:
"And did you miss the application of Bayes’ theorem? Apparently yes because you mentioned plain women being gold diggers, too. The application of Bayes’ theorem suggests that the most likely non-gold-digger for a rich man would be a not so attractive woman."
That a rich man is unlikely to find a woman who is decent (whatever that means), genuinely interested in him, and gorgeous, and so therefore chooses which category to give up on and gives up on gorgeous, does not prove plain women aren't gold diggers. Yes, a rich man improves his odds of finding a non-gold-digger wife by looking among non-georgeous women, but only becaus plain women outnumber gorgeous women and therefore the same proportion of non-gold-diggers amongst plain women is a much higher number than the same proportion of non-gold-diggers amongst gorgeous women, not because plain women are less likely to be gold diggers. And all this is a moot point unless you can prove that "masculinized" women are less likely to be gold diggers than "feminine" women, and considering how many high fashion models marry astronomically rich men, it appears that is not the case.
Quote:
"I don’t keep up with the lifestyles of rich men and am not going to waste my time looking up rich men with feminine and attractive wives. No reasonable person should dispute that feminine beauties are disproportionately taken up by richer men."
Fiat! You can't prove your claim that "feminine" beauties are disproportionately taken up by richer men, so you declare that "no reasonable person would dispute" it. Incredible!
If you don't keep up with the lifestyles of rich men then how do know they disproportionately take up the "feminine" women? If you don't keep up with their lifestyles then how do you know who they marry?
:P
Nude models have a financial incentive to lie and say they don't do porn.
Quote:
"Ask yourself, if a woman is posing nude, is an escort in real life and this is her livelihood, what stops her from having sex on camera? Most people are going to have a low opinion of her regardless of whether she does porn. What would disproportionately prevent the more feminine nude models from having sex on camera?"
Nothing disporportionately prevents the more "feminine" nude models from having sex on camera. Some of them do and some of them don't. The reason you think they are underrepresented in pornography is that you haven't seen enough pornography to know. If most of the most successful porn stars meet your definition of "masculinized", then that indicates that most heterosexual male porn fans find "masculinized" women attractive and perhaps even more attractive than "feminine" women.
Your claim is that heterosexual men watch "masculinized" women in pornography because they don't have the option of watching "feminine" women because "feminine" women are less likely to do porn. I say you are judging based on the most popular porn stars, and if you looked further, you would find that there is a huge percentage of "feminine" women in porn.
Those who do, often pretend they don't because part of their cachet as nude models is that they are in some way better or more respectable than porn stars. You buy into this mentality yourself, as you stated that Gabrielle from MC Nudes has an advantage over the woman she replaced because the replaced woman is a porn star, and you stated that you would not cast Traci Lords in a mainstream film because she is an ex-porn star. Your own statements should tell you just how much MORE stigmatized porn stars are than nude models.
Erik, if it's important to you to believe that nude models don't lie when they say they don't do porn, then have your illusions.
Erik, you still don't get it: Female *arousal* and female *desire* are two different things!
Quote:
"I didn’t lie about the Bailey and Chivers study. The authors had non-sexual stimuli as a control."
What non-sexual stimuli? The article on Bailey's and Chivers' subsequent study, to which you referred me, does not mention any non-sexual stimuli at all.
Quote:
"I didn’t focus on the human porn because it had already been covered in their first study and the find was replicated in the second one. How can you conclude that the response to the monkey/ape porn is indicative of “genital arousal”? Consider the odds. The vast majority of people with bizarre sexual interests such as zoophilia/bestiality are men. Williams and Weinberg attempted to recruit zoophiles for a study, but they could find only a handful of women and hence had to publish their study on zoophilia in men (sample size = 114). Yet, Bailey and Chivers find no man sexually responding to the monkey/ape porn but the women being genitally aroused by it? What are the odds?"
The odds that women could be aroused by primate porn even though female zoophiliacs are extremely rare are 100% because women CAN be *aroused* by primates without *desiring* primates. The odds that men could be aroused by primate porn evne though male zoophiliacs are rare (more common than female ones, but still rare) are perhaps 1% or less because men CANNOT be *aroused* by primates without *desiring* primates. Hence, all the women were slightly aroused by primate porn and none of the men were.
Erik, is the concept of separating arousal from desire too hard for you?
Quote:
"And what in the world would make women aroused by monkeys/apes?
The women in the study were not aroused by monkeys/apes per se; they were aroused by *sexuality itself*. Film footage of monkeys apes doing anything besides having sex would not have aroused them. Men are aroused by what they desire; women are aroused by SENSUAL STIMULI IN GENERAL.
Bron agrees with me, and that's saying something because she and I almost never agree, that women can be aroused by men they do not desire and women can be aroused by music, without sex or masturbation, without the presence of or visual image of another person. Women can feel arousal without desire and women can be aroused without visual stimuli.
Quote:
"They should look hideous to women. If you consider penis size, you are looking at the following average erect lengths: human (5.5 inches), chimpanzee (3 inches), gorilla (1.5 inches) and monkeys with even smaller penises. So there is no reason for women to be sexually responding to monkeys and apes.
Are you so naive that you think women cannot be aroused by that which looks hideous to them? Ever heard of HUMPHREY BOGART? The ugliest man ever to become a major Hollywood movie star - and easily one of the five most popular male sex symbols in Hollywood history. The first time I saw a photograph of Humphrey Bogart, the caption said he was the big heartthrob of the 1940's, and I thought, why? He's not even average looking! Then I saw "To Have and Have Not" and I understood. Humphrey Bogart's power over women is his irresistable voice - men's voices affect women almost as much as music affects women, because women react with their ears the way men react with their eyes - and his palpable aura of true masculinity, not machismo, which cannot be faked.
Your quotes on primate penis lengths are just plain funny. The women didn't give a damn about the primates' penis length because they were NOT attracted to the primates! Can you comprehend that? They were turned on by sexuality itself, with no desire to have sex with the primates. That is why both straight women and lesbians are turned on by pornographic films of both men and women. It is the sexuality itself that *arouses* them, regardless of whether they *desire* the participants.
Quote:
"The research is useless. Using their measure of “genital arousal,” the authors cannot distinguish homosexual from heterosexual women or zoophilic from non-zoophilic women. They have documented a genital response, not genital arousal."
The authors used the already well-known techniques for measuring female genital arousal, which always causes extremely specific physiological reactions that never occur in the absence of arousal. I'm female, and believe me, the ONLY way those physiological reactions occur is if I am aroused. There is no "genital response" that causes those reactions without arousal. The authors in their initial study found no distinction between heterosexual women and homosexual women in their *arousal* patterns - not in their *desires*! As to distinguishing between zoophilic women and non-zoophilic women, the authors never studied zoophilic women so they never had the opportunity to make a comparison. Presumably zoophilic women would have been more than just slightly aroused by the primate porn, and if so, that indicates that women of any sexual orientation can are strongly aroused by humans of either gender, but their ability to be aroused by non-humans is much weaker, though not nonexistent.
Erik, your inability to distinguish female *arousal* from female *desire* seems to borderline autistic. Your ignorance of the psychosexual differences between the genders is astounding.
Sex between teenagers and adults isn’t exactly taboo in Western societies; the age is important. The age of consent is usually not greater than 18 and is 14 or 15 in some places. The lower cutoffs are not indicative of normal preferences though, especially in the past. In societies with a high mortality and almost nothing that we would call adolescence, the median age of marriage for girls would be in the teens. This doesn’t mean that that most men in such societies will have a preference for, say, girls in their mid-teens. When the median age of marriage for females was in the early teens in Rome because of high mortality, the typical reason for marriage was economic, political or carrying on the family bloodline, not romantic love. So men marrying girls in their mid-teens because custom/society demands that they do for one of several possible reasons doesn’t mean that historically speaking many/most men had a preference for girls in their mid-teens. On the other hand, the typical historical reference of homosexual behavior is in the context of sex with boys ranging from pre-puberty to early-/mid-adolescence, mostly documented within the priesthood or military and resulted from the preferences of the pederastic adults.
I have heard of varying estimates of the proportion of Catholic priests that are homosexual, from 25-50%. Even if we take your 50% figure, why is that the 2004 John Jay College of Criminal Justice report revealed that 81% of the recorded molestation allegations during 1950-2002 were of a homosexual nature if homosexuals are not overrepresented among child molesters in proportion to their numbers?
Before you rant against the fraternal birth order evidence and the results of the cluster analysis, you need to read the literature. Here it is and it won’t take a lot of your time.
The basketball analogy is weak. All-white teams have beaten NBA star teams on a number of occasions in recent years, and the white European teams keep getting better whereas the NBA players are stagnant. Watch what happens. Similarly, don’t bet against the establishment of alternative fashion industries.
What do you mean why do I care what models homosexuals are choosing? You have read plenty of this site. Haven’t you figured out yet? Read the FAQ.
Whipped honey: Young, well-endowed women with sufficient supporting connective tissue development can have semi-circular breast lower halves. Estrogens are not the only factors behind breast size. Some women with naturally large breasts do not necessarily have very wide hips just as some feminine women with very wide hips also have small breasts. So, it does not follow that Gabrielle/Karin has breast implants.
The explanation for porn stars being disproportionately masculinized is that feminine women are less inclined toward promiscuity, and this doesn’t conflict with my showing nude models. If you look at the early nude models, you will often encounter masculinized women because they were basically prostitute types; regular women wouldn’t pose nude then. Times have changed. There is some but not excessive stigma against women posing nude in Western societies. So this makes it possible for one to be more successful at obtaining pictures of feminine nude models. Even so, I have gone through thousands of nude models to feature the 55 or so nude women in the attractive women section. The correlation between “low moral character”/prostitution/promiscuity and nude modeling is much weaker now in Western societies, and many nude models are not promiscuous in real life, especially if they are feminine. Ask yourself, if a woman is posing nude, is an escort in real life and this is her livelihood, what stops her from having sex on camera? Most people are going to have a low opinion of her regardless of whether she does porn. What would disproportionately prevent the more feminine nude models from having sex on camera?
Most porn stars do not have gigantic/cartoonish breast implants. Most of them have reasonably sized ones, and your bringing class into the issue is again irrelevant. Some women who decide to make a living through nudity/porn work may decide to get exaggerated implants to cater to a certain niche, namely, men into humongous breasts, but upper class women would be less likely to be doing porn in the first place, so getting humongous breast implants to cater to a niche among men would not be an issue.
The best proof of richer men disproportionately taking up feminine beauties can be obtained by spending some time in, say, a big mall or large general social gathering and looking at the women and then looking at the women in upscale clubs. Do it and get back to me.
There is plenty of evidence that upper class men are less likely to be lifetime-exclusive heterosexual than men in general; to mention a few, including random and population-based samples:
Quote:
Fay RE, Turner CF, Klassen AD, et al. Prevalence and patterns of same-gender sexual contact among men. Science 1989;243(4889):338-48.
Binson D, Michaels S, Stall R, et al. Prevalence and social distribution of men who have sex with men: United States and Its Urban Centers. J Sex Res 1995;32(3):245-54.
Remafedi G, Resnick M, Blum R, et al. Demography of sexual orientation in adolescents. Pediatrics 1992;89(4 Pt 2):714-21.
Grulich AE, de Visser RO, Smith AMA, et al. Sex in Australia: homosexual experience and recent homosexual encounters. Aust NZ J Public Health 2003;27(2):155–63.
I am not backpedaling when saying that richer men are also selecting women on criteria apart from looks. This should be obvious. And did you miss the application of Bayes’ theorem? Apparently yes because you mentioned plain women being gold diggers, too. The application of Bayes’ theorem suggests that the most likely non-gold-digger for a rich man would be a not so attractive woman.
I don’t keep up with the lifestyles of rich men and am not going to waste my time looking up rich men with feminine and attractive wives. No reasonable person should dispute that feminine beauties are disproportionately taken up by richer men.
Danielle: You think I would be putting a virus in the zip file? If I wanted to use malware, I could drop a malicious cookie into visitors’ browsers, but what purpose would this serve? Scan the zip file before opening it. Posting it as a blog entry doesn’t make sense because it is not a topic that this site needs to be addressing at length.
Whipped honey: Homosexual designers are operating under monopoly-like conditions when it comes to the choice of female models because there is a single fashion industry that they dominate; what explains the domination is a separate issue. There are no alternative industries that they need to suppress.
The purpose of cigarette ads is to associate smoking with class, hipness, coolness and glamour, all desirable conditions, not having nicotine-dependent individuals avoid withdrawal symptoms. By analogy, the purpose of a lingerie ad would be to suggest that if you purchase this lingerie, you will acquire the appeal of this woman, which is what your man wants. It is in this sense that the use of masculinized models is inappropriate since the woman’s fantasy is to be highly desired by her partner, but her partner prefers feminine women.
I didn’t lie about the Bailey and Chivers study. The authors had non-sexual stimuli as a control. I didn’t focus on the human porn because it had already been covered in their first study and the find was replicated in the second one. How can you conclude that the response to the monkey/ape porn is indicative of "genital arousal"? Consider the odds. The vast majority of people with bizarre sexual interests such as zoophilia/bestiality are men. Williams and Weinberg attempted to recruit zoophiles for a study, but they could find only a handful of women and hence had to publish their study on zoophilia in men (sample size = 114). Yet, Bailey and Chivers find no man sexually responding to the monkey/ape porn but the women being genitally aroused by it? What are the odds? And what in the world would make women aroused by monkeys/apes? They should look hideous to women. If you consider penis size, you are looking at the following average erect lengths: human (5.5 inches), chimpanzee (3 inches), gorilla (1.5 inches) and monkeys with even smaller penises. So there is no reason for women to be sexually responding to monkeys and apes.
The research is useless. Using their measure of “genital arousal,” the authors cannot distinguish homosexual from heterosexual women or zoophilic from non-zoophilic women. They have documented a genital response, not genital arousal.
Danielle: The supermodels were heavier than the sub-18 BMI models. Don’t take my word for it; just look at them. Apart from Cindy Crawford, look up pictures of Christy Turlington and Stephanie Seymour. They were heavier than the norm.
I gave you two studies depicting changes in attitudes toward homosexuality in the second half of the twentieth century, largely in favor of homosexuals. One hardly needs to cite them. The push for same-sex marriage, domestic partner benefits, hate crimes legislation and anti-discrimination ordinances pertaining to homosexuals and bisexuals seen in recent years were not observed to anywhere the same degree in the 1980s and 1990s. Then, there are also polls asking people on their views regarding homosexuality, and the views have become more favorable with time. And, the issue isn’t so much acceptance of homosexuality but tolerance of it.
I don’t know what you mean by a drastic change in high-fashion models between the 1990s and present. Look at the two cited studies on BMI. There is no drastic change in body weight. You are just letting imagery of the supermodels mislead you. Models have changed over time, but you ignore the possible reasons behind the 20th century curvilinear trend in the femininity of fashion models.
The face picture of Claudia Schiffer that I posted is larger than the face size in most of her pictures posted by you. I generally make it a point to post clear and large pictures of women’s faces unless I cannot find them. As far as the pictures of Africans go, most of the pictures you are talking about are on the first page of the section addressing aesthetics in international beauty pageants, and none of these pictures are part of the argument. Other pictures in this section illustrate various points; they don’t form the basis of the arguments. Showing models at their softest and harshest is something that has been part of your exchange with Bron. My point is that a feminine woman cannot be made to look masculine at any angle. Hence, if I can clearly show a masculine face shape in a model, and it is unlikely that this is due to digital editing, then she isn’t feminine.
I have clearly explained my criticism of Dove’s ads. No point in repeating it.
Of course amateur photography is easily photoshopped, but is it being so? The pictures of these women are posted in large sets. If one is using photoshop to alter shape, then one will have to do so consistently across the entire set. You expect them to have the time and resources or even the inclination to do it? And why would they leave a few freckles and fine wrinkles here and there? When it comes to airbrushing, there is no comparison between professional pictures of high-fashion models and the pictures of the nude models I have been showing.
Erik, Prove Rich Men Choose "Feminine" Women, Because I Don't Think They Do"
Quote:
"It is not true that “in all times and places throughout human history, beauty has been defined in part as the physical signs of higher socioeconomic status (SES).” In Rome, the influx of Northern European slaves made the men flip for the light-haired, fair, fine-skinned and fine-featured Germanic women, and lots of native women ended up jealous, prompting a number of them to artificially lighten their hair and skin."
Erik, I said "in part". Not an absolute rule. Of course there are exceptions to every rule, but in general, the physical signs of higher SES are considered more beautiful.
Quote:
"How can you conclude that Gabrielle’s breasts are fake?"
The signs that Gabrielle's breasts are fake:
1. The lower halves of her breasts are exact semi-circles, not a natural shape.
2. The extreme disproportionality of her breast size to her hip width; women with that much estrogen have wider hips.
Gabrielle's implants are well done in some ways, no roundness on top, no excessively high placement too close to her collarbone, no nipples pointing upwards, almost well done enough to pass for real, if not for those two giveaways. I know everything there is to know about natural breast development, having grown a big pair myself, and Gabrielle's are fake.
Quote:
"You can look up more pictures of her if you wish."
I judged Gabrielle on the first pictures you posted on this page. She looks better in the link you posted in this comment, mainly because she is clothed and posed in such a way that the implants don't really show.
Quote:
"Non-overweight masculinized women are bound to disproportionately have small breasts, porn stars tend to be masculinized women, and they need to look more feminine for the male viewership."
Here's why I don't buy that.
You claim fashion models are "masculinized" because the fashion industry is dominated by homosexual men. So what's your explanation for why porn stars are "masculinized"? You cannot possibly claim the heterosexual porn industry is dominated by homosexual men!
Why would heterosexual men pay to look at "masculinized" female porn stars? If you claim that most men who look at heterosexual pornography are "not lifetime exclusive heterosexuals" or "narrowly escaped nonheterosexuality", then considering that the porn industry makes more profit than the legitimate film, television and music industries combined, what you are really claiming is that the MAJORITY of men are "not lifetime exclusive heterosexuals" - which would contradict your claim that most men are lifetime exclusive heterosexuals - or that most men "narrowly escaped nonheterosexuality" - which would mean that you, Erik, who *claim* you have no trouble escaping nonheterosexuality, do not represent the majority of men.
If you say heterosexual men pay to look at "masculinized" female porn stars because somewhat "masculinized" women are more likely to be promiscuous and therefore more likely to do porn, then you contradict yourself because most of your "Attractive Women" gallery, including Gabrielle, are "nude models" who are quite willing to be photographed for public display with their genitalia showing, something NO non-promiscuous woman would EVER do. And many "nude models" secretly moonlight as porn stars and escort service prostitutes using different names, including one close friend of mine, so if you buy that "I'm just a nude model I don't do porn" nonsense, you're kidding yourself.
Quote:
"Naturally, upper class women will be less inclined to be porn stars, but class is not an issue behind the high frequency of breast implants among porn stars."
The reason for the high frequency of breast implants among porn stars is that, according to Jenna Jameson who should know, it is now almost impossible for a porn star to get top billing and box cover without breast implants. It has become a job requirement regardless of the woman's physical type. Yes, class is not an issue behind the high frequency of breast implants among porn stars, and that's not what I said; I said class is an issue behind the high frequency of *disproportional cartoon-character* implants among porn stars. Many legitimate film actresses get breast implants as well, but they are statistically less likely to come from the lower class than porn stars, and so most of them have the taste to choose implants at a fairly proportional size.
And no, porn stars don't need those exaggeratedly huge, ridiculous implants for the male viewership. Men's favorite size in implants is said to be C cups.
Quote:
"Do I need to cite proof that feminine beauties are disproportionately taken up by richer men?"
Yes, you do.
The entire crux of your argument is men are NATURALLY programmed to prefer women women who are "feminine" as you define it; if that is true, then the rich men who can have their pick of women would generally choose the more feminine ones. So prove it!
Quote:
"Granted that not all rich men have hot wives, but in individual cases, there could be a number of reasons why: the man may not be a lifetime-exclusive heterosexual,
Unless you have statistical, not anecdotal, evidence that rich men are less likely than middle-class or poor men to be lifetime exclusive heterosexuals, there is no valid basis for using the "not exclusive lifetime heterosexual" excuse for the total absence of any evidence for your claim that rich men tend to marry "feminine" women.
the man wasn’t rich/famous before he met his wife,
All the men I listed were rich/famous before they met their wives. Almost all men who are not born rich/famous but become so, are married to a woman they met after they became rich/famous because once they get rich/famous they trade in the first wife for a younger model.
Quote:
"the man fell in love with his wife for reasons such as personality/compatibility (looks are not the basis for a long-term-stable relationship),"
You are backpedaling. You said "feminine" women are disproportionately taken by richer men; now the richer men choose a woman on the basis of something other than looks. If the ones who choose "feminine" women are the majority, at least give me some anecdotal evidence.
Quote:
"or a super-rich man is wise enough to avoid the good looking gold diggers and go for a woman that is genuinely interested in him."
Plain women are gold diggers too, and rich men know that very well. No rich man is naive enough to think that he can avoid gold diggers by avoiding good looking women.
Erik, consider that your claim that richer men are more likely to choose "feminine" women might be mistaken. You haven't managed to produce any solid evidence of it, not even anecdotal evidence.
I listed eight very rich men with at least $100 million and non-"feminine" wives whom they married after they got rich and who have never been rumored to be anything other than heterosexual. Here are some more:
Billionaire Peter Brandt and his wife Stephanie Seymour
Canadian media mogul David Thomson, 10th richest man in the world, and his fiancee actress Kelly Rowan
Rock star Paul McCartney and his wife Linda
Rock star John Lennon and his wife Yoko Ono
Rock star George Harrison and his wife Olivia
Rock star
Rock star Keith Richards and his wife Patti Hansen
Rock star Sting and his wife Trudi Styler
Rock star Steven Tyler and his wife Theresa
Director Steven Speilberg and his wife Kate Capshaw
Actor Tom Hanks and his wife Rita Wilson
Actor Harrison Ford and his fiancee Calista Flockhart
Actor Clint Eastwood and his wife Dina Ruiz
Actor Paul Neuman and his wife Joanne Woodward
Actor Robert Deniro and his wife Grace Hightower
Prince Felipe of Spain and his wife Princess Letizia
Prince Michael of Kent and his wife Princess Michael
8+14, that's 22 so far.
And I could think of many more if I were willing to spend the time.
Can you come up with a list of even just 10 men who have at least $100 million who are married to "feminine" women?
:bug:
WHAT IS WRONG WITH BEING ATTRACTED TO TEENAGED BOYS?
Sexual attraction to postpubescents is biologically and psychologically NORMAL. Where the law draws the line has no effect on nature. Sex between adults and teenagers became a taboo only in the twentieth century, and primarily in the most technologized countries.
Throughout human history until very recently, postpubescents were considered adults. Postpubescents entered the work force as farm workers, laborers, and apprentices in the trades and crafts. Historically the average age of brides was 13-17 and most marriages were between adult men and teenaged girls.
The industrial revolution changed everything. The explosion of jobs not dependent on higher physical strength made it possible, for the first time in world history, for huge numbers of women to support themselves financially without inheritances or land ownership or going straight from dependence on their fathers to dependence on their husbands. Increasing technological sophistication required lengthier training to enter the work force and elongated financial, educational, social and legal childhood, but biological childhood still ended at 12 to 14.
Prior to the invention of paternity tests, the only way a man could be certain a child was his was if the mother had never had sex with anyone else, and ensuring a bride's virginity and a wife's fidelity was relatively easy when females were married in their early teens and financially helpless to go anywhere or do anything without their husbands' permission. In the new world of longer education, later marriages and freer women, parents sought to control their daughters' virginity by passing age of consent laws to criminalize sex with postpubescent unmarried girls, and so a man who had sex with teenaged girls was suddenly redefined as a pervert. Only much later, when American law began shedding gender discrimination, were age of consent laws expanded to include boys.
Quote:
"It is not just gay fashion designers but homosexual and bisexual men in general that are often attracted to underage boys, much more often than heterosexual men are attracted to underage girls."
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Most of the marriages in world history were between adult men and underaged girls; they just didn't call them underaged yet. Pretending that attraction to teenagers is much more common in homosexual men than in heterosexual men is antihistorical and ludicrous.
Quote:
There is massive evidence from history (most homosexuality in history has been in a pederastic context), child molesting priests (great majority go after boys),
According to Father Donald Cozzens, an author, psychologist, and Catholic seminary president, 50% of Roman Catholic priests have a homosexual orientation, so it is inevitable that the great majority of Catholic priest pedophiles will go after boys. Protestant ministers are allowed to become husbands and fathers, and so Protestant ministers are far more likely to be heterosexual than Catholic priests are, so it is inevitable that the great majority of Protestant minister pedophiles go after girls. You've proved nothing.
The Catholic priesthood's celibacy vow provides a cover-up for pedophiles who need to hide their sexual activities and explain why they don't have sex with adults, which is why gay Catholic priests have a higher rate of pedophilia than either gay men in general or Protestant ministers in general.
Quote:
"fraternal birth order evidence showing that male homosexual pedophiles and male homosexuals attracted to adult men belong to the same broad sexual orientation group,"
All that proves, if it is true, is that male homosexuals have similar fraternal birth order patterns regardless of whether they are pedophiles or non-pedophiles. It doesn't prove that the homosexual pedophiles are a greater percentage of all homosexual men than the heterosexual pedophiles are of all heterosexual men.
Quote:
evidence from cluster analysis showing a clear association between same-sex attraction and sexual interest in children, etc.
I've already disproved all your other "evidence", so if you want me to take seriously this "cluster analysis", explain it here. I'm not going to read the literature; the burden of proof is on you.
Yes, most successful fashion designers are homosexuals. Erik, your fantasy of a fashion industry run by heterosexual men is like a basketball league full of white guys. Market dominance through greater talent is not a monopoly; it's simply the law of supply and demand. Perhaps the particular artistic talent required for designing women's clothes is incompatible with heterosexual male psychology.
Yes, most homosexual fashion designers are attracted to teenaged boys because most adult men of any sexual orientation are attracted to teenagers. So? Hell, I'm sometimes attracted to late adolescent boys, but I don't sleep with them.
Yes, some homosexual fashion designers want the female models to look somewhat like teenaged boys. So? You can buy the clothes without admiring the models. Why do you care?
:question:
Whipped honey: Of course some correlates of beauty will be associated with the upper SES groups, but your example of tanning has already been addressed within this site and is tangential to the discussion. It is not true that “in all times and places throughout human history, beauty has been defined in part as the physical signs of higher socioeconomic status (SES).” In Rome, the influx of Northern European slaves made the men flip for the light-haired, fair, fine-skinned and fine-featured Germanic women, and lots of native women ended up jealous, prompting a number of them to artificially lighten their hair and skin.
How can you conclude that Gabrielle’s breasts are fake? I don’t like fake breasts, and generally avoid putting women with implants in the attractive women section. I have three photosets of her and it is not clear whether she has breast implants; I don’t think she has them. I am waiting to come across additional photosets to hopefully clear this issue. Don’t tell me that your conclusion is based on the large size. There are non-obese women with naturally even larger breasts.
You can look up more pictures of her if you wish. I believe her real name is Karin S. The S may be Sýkorová or Spolnikova. She is also sometimes referred to as Alicja Passtel or Ala Passtel. See some pictures of Gabrielle/Karin S. from a mainstream setting; there is absolutely nothing whatsoever that is lower class about her face/body.
The explanation of a high frequency of breast implants among porn stars is simple. Non-overweight masculinized women are bound to disproportionately have small breasts, porn stars tend to be masculinized women, and they need to look more feminine for the male viewership. Naturally, upper class women will be less inclined to be porn stars, but class is not an issue behind the high frequency of breast implants among porn stars.
I have not implied that thinness automatically makes it impossible for a woman to look lower class. I have been talking about probabilistic social class. Multiple considerations suggest that the feminine beauties I have been showing will predominantly come from middle class and higher backgrounds.
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, but in individual cases, there could be a number of reasons why: the man may not be a lifetime-exclusive heterosexual, the man wasn’t rich/famous before he met his wife, the man fell in love with his wife for reasons such as personality/compatibility (looks are not the basis for a long-term-stable relationship), or a super-rich man is wise enough to avoid the good looking gold diggers and go for a woman that is genuinely interested in him. To elaborate on the last point, if you are a famous multi-millionaire/billionaire, you could potentially get a huge number of drop-dead gorgeous women to marry you, but they would typically be after your money and a divorce will be expensive. So what is the wise thing to do? Get a decent woman who is genuinely interested in you; if needed, plenty of bombshells can be had on the side. To explain further, there are some decent women, some women who are genuinely interested in you, and a few very attractive woman, i.e., the probability of finding a long-term-stable female partner who satisfies all three conditions is low, and hence you will not see very attractive women with some very rich men – simple Bayesian logic (which a wise rich man would know) rather than a number of lifetime-exclusive heterosexual rich men disagreeing with “my idea” of feminine beauty.
What kind of people I would cast in a mainstream movie is relevant. You mentioned John Waters in the context of making selections similar to mine. But I wouldn’t make his selections. An ex-porn star will generally not be suitable for a mainstream movie, and I didn’t say Traci Lords isn’t feminine. I addressed whether Joey Heatherton and Amy Locane are feminine, not whether they are attractive. Of course most men will find these women attractive; I myself have called some somewhat masculinized women attractive, but these are not examples of feminine beauties.
Erik, I would look at your "evidence" of homos being more likely to want to screw children but I don't want to download a file called "ped.zip" unto my computer. You're a weirdo and I don't trust you. You should put that "info" up as a blog entry.
Danielle: I have a sense of humor, but it is not a sick one.
Whipped honey: Of course women are not naïve enough to believe that putting on the clothes of a model will give them the model’s appeal, but it would be a step toward acquiring some of the woman’s appeal. This should be a basic marketing consideration. What of envy and jealously? If an attractive clothes model makes a potential buyer jealous of her beauty, is the buyer less likely to buy the clothes the model is displaying? The proper way of dealing with a competitor or a woman that induces envy/jealously is to at least acquire what she has if not something better, and acquiring her clothing/jewelry would be a step in the right direction.
Your argument assumes that model selection is based on female psychology and marketing considerations. What about the thinness issue? Many women find the typical thinness of high-fashion models disturbing. A woman with a masculine physique and normal weight would not induce jealously in the typical woman. Why not use such models? Why use a lot of very thin models? Does it make sense that the disturbing thinness of the models would increase the likelihood of women buying clothes? What about the age issue? The fashion industry has a penchant for teenage girls. Is this because teenage girls are less likely to induce jealousy and hence increase the likelihood that women will buy clothes?
Have you heard of Occam’s Razor? Is it difficult to put two and two together? The industry is dominated by homosexual men. There is a massive amount of evidence showing much higher rates of sexual interest in children among homosexual/bisexual men compared to heterosexual men. The combination of masculinization, thinness and youth in the typical female high-fashion model makes the central tendency among the models approach the looks of boys in their early adolescence. Designer clothing is highly desirable, which gives the designers a broad license to use the kind of models they prefer. What is the simplest explanation of models’ looks? What is the most powerful explanation of models’ looks and 20th century trends in models’ femininity? Ask yourself these questions. See if you can provide a simple, elegant explanation of these questions in terms of female psychology and marketing considerations.
If Alice Dellal has a face that attracts your attention and makes you examine her clothing, how does this help sales? You will consider buying the clothes only if you like them. Have you heard of the halo effect? If you don’t like Alice Dellal’s looks, would it help make you evaluate her clothes in a better light? If you were to pick a fashion magazine to look at the clothes, would it serve the magazine poorly to overwhelmingly use feminine women? Will it make you less likely to examine the clothes?
Lula: Who has argued that “women have to look ultra feminised and men have to look masculine”? Not me. What do you mean “everyone starts with two X chromosomes”? The typical man has a single X chromosome from the very beginning (fertilized egg).
It is not necessary to know the true number of pedophiles to assess the proportion of heterosexuals and nonheterosexuals among those sexually interested in children. It is also not necessary to strictly rely on reported cases of child molestations to assess this question; one could anonymously assess people on whether they were molested as children and if so then ask them about the sex of the perpetrator(s). The conclusion of homosexual and bisexual individuals being much more likely to be sexually interested in children compared to heterosexuals is based on multiple lines of evidence.
I don’t believe that there is any culture that has glorified incestuous marriage as the norm. Any such culture wouldn’t survive for long. If you are interested in history, then look up historical descriptions of homosexual behavior; the typical description is in the context of pederasty.
Nobody here has made “a rather large jump from there being gay fashion designers to them all being paedophile-oriented and predatory.”
"“Most homosexuals are not sexually attracted to children, but a much greater proportion of them are attracted to children than heterosexuals (ref: here and here).”
Oh, and just to add to this. Lol, tell that to all the civilisations down the ages such as the ancient Egyptians that glorified not only in incestuous marriages as the norm but also what we would now call underage marriages. Whole cultures were based on this attitude.
So again, I believe these figures are misleading and not indicative of fuller picture throughout human history. And yes I agree that gays and straights can be paedophiles, although most right-thinking gays and straights are not going to be.
It is a rather large jump from there being gay fashion designers to them all being paedophile-oriented and predatory. There may be a few. And there's nothing to stop older men being attracted to younger ones (and vice versa), but most of these model guys are of age and capable of making their own choices. I do think some coersion for favour may happen, I am not blind, but it will go on in the straight side of the business and in many other industries, acting for example (the casting couch) for both straight and gay people. It happens, but I think you have to assume most people will be decent as in most cases. They can't spend their lives being predators or word would soon spread and they would lose employees to rivals.
Where did the idea come from that women have to look ultra feminised and men have to look masculine anyway?
This has puzzled me and I think it may be modern conditioning. Some people are naturally androgynous looking and let's not forget everyone starts with two X chromosomes. It seems to be taken generally as an insulting or odd thing if males look feminine, (childish) example 'OMG, he looks so gaaaaaay', as if a./ it's unnatural and b./ they are somehow weaker than their more masculine-looking, square-jawed contemporaries. It is also an inverted dig at women as being weaker or lesser thean men in general although I don't even think people know they are doing/thinking it. It just seems to be the way people are conditioned to think in our modern times, without ever questioning where these 'rules' come from or why they are there.
Sorry, deviating from the main point but it just fascinates me that we have these set boundaries in general.
As for this:
"Most homosexuals are not sexually attracted to children, but a much greater proportion of them are attracted to children than heterosexuals (ref: here and here)."
I disagree. Because the true numbers of paedophiles out there are not known. And what about all the childhood rapes and abuses by straight fathers and stepfathers of daughters that never ever even get on record because these children are too frightened to report it. There must have been millions down the ages. I think any figures are misleading and not representative of a larger more unreported picture.
The premise of your site is interesting. However, I still think that "striking" looks have some value in attracting men. To say that men who are attracted to the likes of Penelope Cruz or Amanda Peet have gay tendencies is just unfounded. Ok, MAYBE bisexual men will be more attracted to these types than to the super feminine women you depict, and so what? And European men not liking women with dark complexions and robust features? I find the opposite is true, these days, and though perhaps deep down they do find their own women more attractive, it is still possible to find women of all races attractive.
There have also been studies done that said women with "slightly" masculinized faces were seen as more faithful by men, though you report that masculinized women are promiscuous (!)
I will agree with you that people of a certain race can hardly compare themselves with those of a different race. To do so is sad because it imposes a set of unrealistic standards that shouldn't be there. However, I will add that it's important not to say that one race is "less attractive" than another race, for that same reason.
Bored surfer: Heidi's make-up is making her look more feminine than she is. The masculine look is the result of her face shape. Regarding Dana, if one had to use a mother/a woman who looks like a mother for lingerie modeling, then Dana is more suitable than mommy Heidi. In reality, a woman like Maria would be the right choice. I mostly avoid porn girls. Maria, Dana and Renee are nude models.
Bored surfer: Several thousand people have read this article and the vast majority of them have not left a comment. Hence it doesn't follow that most disagree that #7 has the best looking physique. As noted above, a reader who disagreed, “-R”, elsewhere identified herself as a lesbian with a preference for masculinized women and the person posting as “Jordan” left a comment under a different [male name] alias where he described his preference for skinny women but did not describe his sexual orientation in spite of my asking him. People who disagree may be more likely to leave a comment.
Whipped honey: Slight masculinization is a correlate of the sexiness of women to men. Hetersoexual men do not necessarily confound beauty with sexiness. The assertion that "most women feel subconscious, subliminal arousal when they look at attractive androgynous women" has not been proven. I will respond to your detailed argument in this regard where it appears.
Heidi Klum is far from masculine, in the *one* picture you have to say she looks drag queenish it's pretty obviously the, well, dragish makeup. The eyebrows are too dark and go out too far and the false eyelashes just add to that.
Her face/body is much more attractive than all of your porn girl examples. "Dana" is almost laughable for the fact you believe she is better suited for lingerie modeling than Heidi Klum.
You say most will "undoubtedly" pick #7. I think #1 and #8 have (by far) the most attractive bodies, and most agree that #7 isn't the best. Yet instead of realizing that few of *your* readers prefer her, you're using excuses and reasons as to why someone is biased or incorrect.
It makes me wonder what research you've used when even your readers/commenters aren't agreeing with it.
Argh. One last time (hopefully) please de-italicize me.
Quote:
I said attraction, not preference. Most adult men are attracted to teenaged girls even if they have a preference for adult women.
Quote:
The Catholic priesthood's taboo on marriage and fatherhood makes the Catholic priesthood not only far less attractive to straight men than to gay men (thus the Catholic priesthood population has a much higher percentage of homosexuals than the general population) but also far less attractive to straight pedophiles than to gay pedophiles, because many straight pedophiles do want to become husbands and fathers, if only to have a child at home to molest (thus the Catholic priesthood pedophile population has a much higher percentage of homosexuals than the Catholic priesthood general population). The Catholic priesthood taboo on marriage and fatherhood has this sort of "compound effect".
I'm not downloading a zip file. Period. If you want me to read the literature, post it on the website. Both Danielle and I have now asked you to post it so you can't keep claiming it isn't relevant to the discussion while you keep discussing it.
Quote:
I made an offhand analogy regarding basketball in America. If white European men play basketball better than white American men, I wouldn't know.
Quote:
I wouldn't bet against the establishment of a heterosexual fashion industry if some heterosexual men were actually TRYING to create their own fashion industry.
Quote:
I read the FAQ. I don't believe that your primary motivation is to counteract the negative influence of excessively skinny models on women's diet and exercise habits because if it were, you would be comfortable with "masculinized" models who aren't too skinny. I realize you want a mainstream outlet for the appreciation of the kind of women you consider beautiful; I just don't understand WHY you want it. If you can find pictures of "feminine" women then why do you care whether those pictures are in the "mainstream" or not? Is it because you care what sort of women other men look at, and if so, why? And please don't just say "aesthetic disaster". My question why do you give a damn about said "aesthetic disaster"?
:question:
If "feminine" beauties are disproportionately taken up by richer men, then why can't you prove it?
Quote:
I've already done it. I've spent plenty of time in shopping malls and large general social gatherings and plenty of time in upscale clubs and other monied environments. Monied environments such as upscale clubs have a much HIGHER percentage of women who look like high fashion models.
Quote:
That a rich man is unlikely to find a woman who is decent (whatever that means), genuinely interested in him, and gorgeous, and so therefore chooses which category to give up on and gives up on gorgeous, does not prove plain women aren't gold diggers. Yes, a rich man improves his odds of finding a non-gold-digger wife by looking among non-georgeous women, but only becaus plain women outnumber gorgeous women and therefore the same proportion of non-gold-diggers amongst plain women is a much higher number than the same proportion of non-gold-diggers amongst gorgeous women, not because plain women are less likely to be gold diggers. And all this is a moot point unless you can prove that "masculinized" women are less likely to be gold diggers than "feminine" women, and considering how many high fashion models marry astronomically rich men, it appears that is not the case.
Quote:
Fiat! You can't prove your claim that "feminine" beauties are disproportionately taken up by richer men, so you declare that "no reasonable person would dispute" it. Incredible!
If you don't keep up with the lifestyles of rich men then how do know they disproportionately take up the "feminine" women? If you don't keep up with their lifestyles then how do you know who they marry?
:P
Nude models have a financial incentive to lie and say they don't do porn.
Quote:
Nothing disporportionately prevents the more "feminine" nude models from having sex on camera. Some of them do and some of them don't. The reason you think they are underrepresented in pornography is that you haven't seen enough pornography to know. If most of the most successful porn stars meet your definition of "masculinized", then that indicates that most heterosexual male porn fans find "masculinized" women attractive and perhaps even more attractive than "feminine" women.
Your claim is that heterosexual men watch "masculinized" women in pornography because they don't have the option of watching "feminine" women because "feminine" women are less likely to do porn. I say you are judging based on the most popular porn stars, and if you looked further, you would find that there is a huge percentage of "feminine" women in porn.
Those who do, often pretend they don't because part of their cachet as nude models is that they are in some way better or more respectable than porn stars. You buy into this mentality yourself, as you stated that Gabrielle from MC Nudes has an advantage over the woman she replaced because the replaced woman is a porn star, and you stated that you would not cast Traci Lords in a mainstream film because she is an ex-porn star. Your own statements should tell you just how much MORE stigmatized porn stars are than nude models.
Erik, if it's important to you to believe that nude models don't lie when they say they don't do porn, then have your illusions.
Erik, you still don't get it: Female *arousal* and female *desire* are two different things!
Quote:
What non-sexual stimuli? The article on Bailey's and Chivers' subsequent study, to which you referred me, does not mention any non-sexual stimuli at all.
Quote:
The odds that women could be aroused by primate porn even though female zoophiliacs are extremely rare are 100% because women CAN be *aroused* by primates without *desiring* primates. The odds that men could be aroused by primate porn evne though male zoophiliacs are rare (more common than female ones, but still rare) are perhaps 1% or less because men CANNOT be *aroused* by primates without *desiring* primates. Hence, all the women were slightly aroused by primate porn and none of the men were.
Erik, is the concept of separating arousal from desire too hard for you?
Quote:
The women in the study were not aroused by monkeys/apes per se; they were aroused by *sexuality itself*. Film footage of monkeys apes doing anything besides having sex would not have aroused them. Men are aroused by what they desire; women are aroused by SENSUAL STIMULI IN GENERAL.
Bron agrees with me, and that's saying something because she and I almost never agree, that women can be aroused by men they do not desire and women can be aroused by music, without sex or masturbation, without the presence of or visual image of another person. Women can feel arousal without desire and women can be aroused without visual stimuli.
Quote:
Are you so naive that you think women cannot be aroused by that which looks hideous to them? Ever heard of HUMPHREY BOGART? The ugliest man ever to become a major Hollywood movie star - and easily one of the five most popular male sex symbols in Hollywood history. The first time I saw a photograph of Humphrey Bogart, the caption said he was the big heartthrob of the 1940's, and I thought, why? He's not even average looking! Then I saw "To Have and Have Not" and I understood. Humphrey Bogart's power over women is his irresistable voice - men's voices affect women almost as much as music affects women, because women react with their ears the way men react with their eyes - and his palpable aura of true masculinity, not machismo, which cannot be faked.
Your quotes on primate penis lengths are just plain funny. The women didn't give a damn about the primates' penis length because they were NOT attracted to the primates! Can you comprehend that? They were turned on by sexuality itself, with no desire to have sex with the primates. That is why both straight women and lesbians are turned on by pornographic films of both men and women. It is the sexuality itself that *arouses* them, regardless of whether they *desire* the participants.
Quote:
The authors used the already well-known techniques for measuring female genital arousal, which always causes extremely specific physiological reactions that never occur in the absence of arousal. I'm female, and believe me, the ONLY way those physiological reactions occur is if I am aroused. There is no "genital response" that causes those reactions without arousal. The authors in their initial study found no distinction between heterosexual women and homosexual women in their *arousal* patterns - not in their *desires*! As to distinguishing between zoophilic women and non-zoophilic women, the authors never studied zoophilic women so they never had the opportunity to make a comparison. Presumably zoophilic women would have been more than just slightly aroused by the primate porn, and if so, that indicates that women of any sexual orientation can are strongly aroused by humans of either gender, but their ability to be aroused by non-humans is much weaker, though not nonexistent.
Erik, your inability to distinguish female *arousal* from female *desire* seems to borderline autistic. Your ignorance of the psychosexual differences between the genders is astounding.
Whipped honey: Preview before posting.
Sex between teenagers and adults isn’t exactly taboo in Western societies; the age is important. The age of consent is usually not greater than 18 and is 14 or 15 in some places. The lower cutoffs are not indicative of normal preferences though, especially in the past. In societies with a high mortality and almost nothing that we would call adolescence, the median age of marriage for girls would be in the teens. This doesn’t mean that that most men in such societies will have a preference for, say, girls in their mid-teens. When the median age of marriage for females was in the early teens in Rome because of high mortality, the typical reason for marriage was economic, political or carrying on the family bloodline, not romantic love. So men marrying girls in their mid-teens because custom/society demands that they do for one of several possible reasons doesn’t mean that historically speaking many/most men had a preference for girls in their mid-teens. On the other hand, the typical historical reference of homosexual behavior is in the context of sex with boys ranging from pre-puberty to early-/mid-adolescence, mostly documented within the priesthood or military and resulted from the preferences of the pederastic adults.
I have heard of varying estimates of the proportion of Catholic priests that are homosexual, from 25-50%. Even if we take your 50% figure, why is that the 2004 John Jay College of Criminal Justice report revealed that 81% of the recorded molestation allegations during 1950-2002 were of a homosexual nature if homosexuals are not overrepresented among child molesters in proportion to their numbers?
Before you rant against the fraternal birth order evidence and the results of the cluster analysis, you need to read the literature. Here it is and it won’t take a lot of your time.
The basketball analogy is weak. All-white teams have beaten NBA star teams on a number of occasions in recent years, and the white European teams keep getting better whereas the NBA players are stagnant. Watch what happens. Similarly, don’t bet against the establishment of alternative fashion industries.
What do you mean why do I care what models homosexuals are choosing? You have read plenty of this site. Haven’t you figured out yet? Read the FAQ.
Whipped honey: Young, well-endowed women with sufficient supporting connective tissue development can have semi-circular breast lower halves. Estrogens are not the only factors behind breast size. Some women with naturally large breasts do not necessarily have very wide hips just as some feminine women with very wide hips also have small breasts. So, it does not follow that Gabrielle/Karin has breast implants.
The explanation for porn stars being disproportionately masculinized is that feminine women are less inclined toward promiscuity, and this doesn’t conflict with my showing nude models. If you look at the early nude models, you will often encounter masculinized women because they were basically prostitute types; regular women wouldn’t pose nude then. Times have changed. There is some but not excessive stigma against women posing nude in Western societies. So this makes it possible for one to be more successful at obtaining pictures of feminine nude models. Even so, I have gone through thousands of nude models to feature the 55 or so nude women in the attractive women section. The correlation between “low moral character”/prostitution/promiscuity and nude modeling is much weaker now in Western societies, and many nude models are not promiscuous in real life, especially if they are feminine. Ask yourself, if a woman is posing nude, is an escort in real life and this is her livelihood, what stops her from having sex on camera? Most people are going to have a low opinion of her regardless of whether she does porn. What would disproportionately prevent the more feminine nude models from having sex on camera?
Most porn stars do not have gigantic/cartoonish breast implants. Most of them have reasonably sized ones, and your bringing class into the issue is again irrelevant. Some women who decide to make a living through nudity/porn work may decide to get exaggerated implants to cater to a certain niche, namely, men into humongous breasts, but upper class women would be less likely to be doing porn in the first place, so getting humongous breast implants to cater to a niche among men would not be an issue.
The best proof of richer men disproportionately taking up feminine beauties can be obtained by spending some time in, say, a big mall or large general social gathering and looking at the women and then looking at the women in upscale clubs. Do it and get back to me.
There is plenty of evidence that upper class men are less likely to be lifetime-exclusive heterosexual than men in general; to mention a few, including random and population-based samples:
Quote:
I am not backpedaling when saying that richer men are also selecting women on criteria apart from looks. This should be obvious. And did you miss the application of Bayes’ theorem? Apparently yes because you mentioned plain women being gold diggers, too. The application of Bayes’ theorem suggests that the most likely non-gold-digger for a rich man would be a not so attractive woman.
I don’t keep up with the lifestyles of rich men and am not going to waste my time looking up rich men with feminine and attractive wives. No reasonable person should dispute that feminine beauties are disproportionately taken up by richer men.
Danielle: You think I would be putting a virus in the zip file? If I wanted to use malware, I could drop a malicious cookie into visitors’ browsers, but what purpose would this serve? Scan the zip file before opening it. Posting it as a blog entry doesn’t make sense because it is not a topic that this site needs to be addressing at length.
Whipped honey: Homosexual designers are operating under monopoly-like conditions when it comes to the choice of female models because there is a single fashion industry that they dominate; what explains the domination is a separate issue. There are no alternative industries that they need to suppress.
The purpose of cigarette ads is to associate smoking with class, hipness, coolness and glamour, all desirable conditions, not having nicotine-dependent individuals avoid withdrawal symptoms. By analogy, the purpose of a lingerie ad would be to suggest that if you purchase this lingerie, you will acquire the appeal of this woman, which is what your man wants. It is in this sense that the use of masculinized models is inappropriate since the woman’s fantasy is to be highly desired by her partner, but her partner prefers feminine women.
I didn’t lie about the Bailey and Chivers study. The authors had non-sexual stimuli as a control. I didn’t focus on the human porn because it had already been covered in their first study and the find was replicated in the second one. How can you conclude that the response to the monkey/ape porn is indicative of "genital arousal"? Consider the odds. The vast majority of people with bizarre sexual interests such as zoophilia/bestiality are men. Williams and Weinberg attempted to recruit zoophiles for a study, but they could find only a handful of women and hence had to publish their study on zoophilia in men (sample size = 114). Yet, Bailey and Chivers find no man sexually responding to the monkey/ape porn but the women being genitally aroused by it? What are the odds? And what in the world would make women aroused by monkeys/apes? They should look hideous to women. If you consider penis size, you are looking at the following average erect lengths: human (5.5 inches), chimpanzee (3 inches), gorilla (1.5 inches) and monkeys with even smaller penises. So there is no reason for women to be sexually responding to monkeys and apes.
The research is useless. Using their measure of “genital arousal,” the authors cannot distinguish homosexual from heterosexual women or zoophilic from non-zoophilic women. They have documented a genital response, not genital arousal.
Danielle: The supermodels were heavier than the sub-18 BMI models. Don’t take my word for it; just look at them. Apart from Cindy Crawford, look up pictures of Christy Turlington and Stephanie Seymour. They were heavier than the norm.
I gave you two studies depicting changes in attitudes toward homosexuality in the second half of the twentieth century, largely in favor of homosexuals. One hardly needs to cite them. The push for same-sex marriage, domestic partner benefits, hate crimes legislation and anti-discrimination ordinances pertaining to homosexuals and bisexuals seen in recent years were not observed to anywhere the same degree in the 1980s and 1990s. Then, there are also polls asking people on their views regarding homosexuality, and the views have become more favorable with time. And, the issue isn’t so much acceptance of homosexuality but tolerance of it.
I don’t know what you mean by a drastic change in high-fashion models between the 1990s and present. Look at the two cited studies on BMI. There is no drastic change in body weight. You are just letting imagery of the supermodels mislead you. Models have changed over time, but you ignore the possible reasons behind the 20th century curvilinear trend in the femininity of fashion models.
The face picture of Claudia Schiffer that I posted is larger than the face size in most of her pictures posted by you. I generally make it a point to post clear and large pictures of women’s faces unless I cannot find them. As far as the pictures of Africans go, most of the pictures you are talking about are on the first page of the section addressing aesthetics in international beauty pageants, and none of these pictures are part of the argument. Other pictures in this section illustrate various points; they don’t form the basis of the arguments. Showing models at their softest and harshest is something that has been part of your exchange with Bron. My point is that a feminine woman cannot be made to look masculine at any angle. Hence, if I can clearly show a masculine face shape in a model, and it is unlikely that this is due to digital editing, then she isn’t feminine.
I have clearly explained my criticism of Dove’s ads. No point in repeating it.
Of course amateur photography is easily photoshopped, but is it being so? The pictures of these women are posted in large sets. If one is using photoshop to alter shape, then one will have to do so consistently across the entire set. You expect them to have the time and resources or even the inclination to do it? And why would they leave a few freckles and fine wrinkles here and there? When it comes to airbrushing, there is no comparison between professional pictures of high-fashion models and the pictures of the nude models I have been showing.
Erik, please de-bold me. Except for the first line of my previous post. I swear I'll get the hang of this.
:red:
Erik, Prove Rich Men Choose "Feminine" Women, Because I Don't Think They Do"
Quote:
Erik, I said "in part". Not an absolute rule. Of course there are exceptions to every rule, but in general, the physical signs of higher SES are considered more beautiful.
Quote:
The signs that Gabrielle's breasts are fake:
1. The lower halves of her breasts are exact semi-circles, not a natural shape.
2. The extreme disproportionality of her breast size to her hip width; women with that much estrogen have wider hips.
Gabrielle's implants are well done in some ways, no roundness on top, no excessively high placement too close to her collarbone, no nipples pointing upwards, almost well done enough to pass for real, if not for those two giveaways. I know everything there is to know about natural breast development, having grown a big pair myself, and Gabrielle's are fake.
Quote:
I judged Gabrielle on the first pictures you posted on this page. She looks better in the link you posted in this comment, mainly because she is clothed and posed in such a way that the implants don't really show.
Quote:
Here's why I don't buy that.
You claim fashion models are "masculinized" because the fashion industry is dominated by homosexual men. So what's your explanation for why porn stars are "masculinized"? You cannot possibly claim the heterosexual porn industry is dominated by homosexual men!
Why would heterosexual men pay to look at "masculinized" female porn stars? If you claim that most men who look at heterosexual pornography are "not lifetime exclusive heterosexuals" or "narrowly escaped nonheterosexuality", then considering that the porn industry makes more profit than the legitimate film, television and music industries combined, what you are really claiming is that the MAJORITY of men are "not lifetime exclusive heterosexuals" - which would contradict your claim that most men are lifetime exclusive heterosexuals - or that most men "narrowly escaped nonheterosexuality" - which would mean that you, Erik, who *claim* you have no trouble escaping nonheterosexuality, do not represent the majority of men.
If you say heterosexual men pay to look at "masculinized" female porn stars because somewhat "masculinized" women are more likely to be promiscuous and therefore more likely to do porn, then you contradict yourself because most of your "Attractive Women" gallery, including Gabrielle, are "nude models" who are quite willing to be photographed for public display with their genitalia showing, something NO non-promiscuous woman would EVER do. And many "nude models" secretly moonlight as porn stars and escort service prostitutes using different names, including one close friend of mine, so if you buy that "I'm just a nude model I don't do porn" nonsense, you're kidding yourself.
Quote:
The reason for the high frequency of breast implants among porn stars is that, according to Jenna Jameson who should know, it is now almost impossible for a porn star to get top billing and box cover without breast implants. It has become a job requirement regardless of the woman's physical type. Yes, class is not an issue behind the high frequency of breast implants among porn stars, and that's not what I said; I said class is an issue behind the high frequency of *disproportional cartoon-character* implants among porn stars. Many legitimate film actresses get breast implants as well, but they are statistically less likely to come from the lower class than porn stars, and so most of them have the taste to choose implants at a fairly proportional size.
And no, porn stars don't need those exaggeratedly huge, ridiculous implants for the male viewership. Men's favorite size in implants is said to be C cups.
Quote:
Yes, you do.
The entire crux of your argument is men are NATURALLY programmed to prefer women women who are "feminine" as you define it; if that is true, then the rich men who can have their pick of women would generally choose the more feminine ones. So prove it!
Quote:
Unless you have statistical, not anecdotal, evidence that rich men are less likely than middle-class or poor men to be lifetime exclusive heterosexuals, there is no valid basis for using the "not exclusive lifetime heterosexual" excuse for the total absence of any evidence for your claim that rich men tend to marry "feminine" women.
the man wasn’t rich/famous before he met his wife,
All the men I listed were rich/famous before they met their wives. Almost all men who are not born rich/famous but become so, are married to a woman they met after they became rich/famous because once they get rich/famous they trade in the first wife for a younger model.
Quote:
You are backpedaling. You said "feminine" women are disproportionately taken by richer men; now the richer men choose a woman on the basis of something other than looks. If the ones who choose "feminine" women are the majority, at least give me some anecdotal evidence.
Quote:
Plain women are gold diggers too, and rich men know that very well. No rich man is naive enough to think that he can avoid gold diggers by avoiding good looking women.
Erik, consider that your claim that richer men are more likely to choose "feminine" women might be mistaken. You haven't managed to produce any solid evidence of it, not even anecdotal evidence.
I listed eight very rich men with at least $100 million and non-"feminine" wives whom they married after they got rich and who have never been rumored to be anything other than heterosexual. Here are some more:
Billionaire Peter Brandt and his wife Stephanie Seymour
Canadian media mogul David Thomson, 10th richest man in the world, and his fiancee actress Kelly Rowan
Rock star Paul McCartney and his wife Linda
Rock star John Lennon and his wife Yoko Ono
Rock star George Harrison and his wife Olivia
Rock star
Rock star Keith Richards and his wife Patti Hansen
Rock star Sting and his wife Trudi Styler
Rock star Steven Tyler and his wife Theresa
Director Steven Speilberg and his wife Kate Capshaw
Actor Tom Hanks and his wife Rita Wilson
Actor Harrison Ford and his fiancee Calista Flockhart
Actor Clint Eastwood and his wife Dina Ruiz
Actor Paul Neuman and his wife Joanne Woodward
Actor Robert Deniro and his wife Grace Hightower
Prince Felipe of Spain and his wife Princess Letizia
Prince Michael of Kent and his wife Princess Michael
8+14, that's 22 so far.
And I could think of many more if I were willing to spend the time.
Can you come up with a list of even just 10 men who have at least $100 million who are married to "feminine" women?
:bug:
Oops. Erik, please fix my formatting. I'll try not to do it again.
:red:
WHAT IS WRONG WITH BEING ATTRACTED TO TEENAGED BOYS?
Sexual attraction to postpubescents is biologically and psychologically NORMAL. Where the law draws the line has no effect on nature. Sex between adults and teenagers became a taboo only in the twentieth century, and primarily in the most technologized countries.
Throughout human history until very recently, postpubescents were considered adults. Postpubescents entered the work force as farm workers, laborers, and apprentices in the trades and crafts. Historically the average age of brides was 13-17 and most marriages were between adult men and teenaged girls.
The industrial revolution changed everything. The explosion of jobs not dependent on higher physical strength made it possible, for the first time in world history, for huge numbers of women to support themselves financially without inheritances or land ownership or going straight from dependence on their fathers to dependence on their husbands. Increasing technological sophistication required lengthier training to enter the work force and elongated financial, educational, social and legal childhood, but biological childhood still ended at 12 to 14.
Prior to the invention of paternity tests, the only way a man could be certain a child was his was if the mother had never had sex with anyone else, and ensuring a bride's virginity and a wife's fidelity was relatively easy when females were married in their early teens and financially helpless to go anywhere or do anything without their husbands' permission. In the new world of longer education, later marriages and freer women, parents sought to control their daughters' virginity by passing age of consent laws to criminalize sex with postpubescent unmarried girls, and so a man who had sex with teenaged girls was suddenly redefined as a pervert. Only much later, when American law began shedding gender discrimination, were age of consent laws expanded to include boys.
Quote:
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Most of the marriages in world history were between adult men and underaged girls; they just didn't call them underaged yet. Pretending that attraction to teenagers is much more common in homosexual men than in heterosexual men is antihistorical and ludicrous.
Quote:
According to Father Donald Cozzens, an author, psychologist, and Catholic seminary president, 50% of Roman Catholic priests have a homosexual orientation, so it is inevitable that the great majority of Catholic priest pedophiles will go after boys. Protestant ministers are allowed to become husbands and fathers, and so Protestant ministers are far more likely to be heterosexual than Catholic priests are, so it is inevitable that the great majority of Protestant minister pedophiles go after girls. You've proved nothing.
The Catholic priesthood's celibacy vow provides a cover-up for pedophiles who need to hide their sexual activities and explain why they don't have sex with adults, which is why gay Catholic priests have a higher rate of pedophilia than either gay men in general or Protestant ministers in general.
Quote:
All that proves, if it is true, is that male homosexuals have similar fraternal birth order patterns regardless of whether they are pedophiles or non-pedophiles. It doesn't prove that the homosexual pedophiles are a greater percentage of all homosexual men than the heterosexual pedophiles are of all heterosexual men.
Quote:
I've already disproved all your other "evidence", so if you want me to take seriously this "cluster analysis", explain it here. I'm not going to read the literature; the burden of proof is on you.
Yes, most successful fashion designers are homosexuals. Erik, your fantasy of a fashion industry run by heterosexual men is like a basketball league full of white guys. Market dominance through greater talent is not a monopoly; it's simply the law of supply and demand. Perhaps the particular artistic talent required for designing women's clothes is incompatible with heterosexual male psychology.
Yes, most homosexual fashion designers are attracted to teenaged boys because most adult men of any sexual orientation are attracted to teenagers. So? Hell, I'm sometimes attracted to late adolescent boys, but I don't sleep with them.
Yes, some homosexual fashion designers want the female models to look somewhat like teenaged boys. So? You can buy the clothes without admiring the models. Why do you care?
:question:
Whipped honey: Of course some correlates of beauty will be associated with the upper SES groups, but your example of tanning has already been addressed within this site and is tangential to the discussion. It is not true that “in all times and places throughout human history, beauty has been defined in part as the physical signs of higher socioeconomic status (SES).” In Rome, the influx of Northern European slaves made the men flip for the light-haired, fair, fine-skinned and fine-featured Germanic women, and lots of native women ended up jealous, prompting a number of them to artificially lighten their hair and skin.
How can you conclude that Gabrielle’s breasts are fake? I don’t like fake breasts, and generally avoid putting women with implants in the attractive women section. I have three photosets of her and it is not clear whether she has breast implants; I don’t think she has them. I am waiting to come across additional photosets to hopefully clear this issue. Don’t tell me that your conclusion is based on the large size. There are non-obese women with naturally even larger breasts.
You can look up more pictures of her if you wish. I believe her real name is Karin S. The S may be Sýkorová or Spolnikova. She is also sometimes referred to as Alicja Passtel or Ala Passtel. See some pictures of Gabrielle/Karin S. from a mainstream setting; there is absolutely nothing whatsoever that is lower class about her face/body.
The explanation of a high frequency of breast implants among porn stars is simple. Non-overweight masculinized women are bound to disproportionately have small breasts, porn stars tend to be masculinized women, and they need to look more feminine for the male viewership. Naturally, upper class women will be less inclined to be porn stars, but class is not an issue behind the high frequency of breast implants among porn stars.
I have not implied that thinness automatically makes it impossible for a woman to look lower class. I have been talking about probabilistic social class. Multiple considerations suggest that the feminine beauties I have been showing will predominantly come from middle class and higher backgrounds.
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, but in individual cases, there could be a number of reasons why: the man may not be a lifetime-exclusive heterosexual, the man wasn’t rich/famous before he met his wife, the man fell in love with his wife for reasons such as personality/compatibility (looks are not the basis for a long-term-stable relationship), or a super-rich man is wise enough to avoid the good looking gold diggers and go for a woman that is genuinely interested in him. To elaborate on the last point, if you are a famous multi-millionaire/billionaire, you could potentially get a huge number of drop-dead gorgeous women to marry you, but they would typically be after your money and a divorce will be expensive. So what is the wise thing to do? Get a decent woman who is genuinely interested in you; if needed, plenty of bombshells can be had on the side. To explain further, there are some decent women, some women who are genuinely interested in you, and a few very attractive woman, i.e., the probability of finding a long-term-stable female partner who satisfies all three conditions is low, and hence you will not see very attractive women with some very rich men – simple Bayesian logic (which a wise rich man would know) rather than a number of lifetime-exclusive heterosexual rich men disagreeing with “my idea” of feminine beauty.
What kind of people I would cast in a mainstream movie is relevant. You mentioned John Waters in the context of making selections similar to mine. But I wouldn’t make his selections. An ex-porn star will generally not be suitable for a mainstream movie, and I didn’t say Traci Lords isn’t feminine. I addressed whether Joey Heatherton and Amy Locane are feminine, not whether they are attractive. Of course most men will find these women attractive; I myself have called some somewhat masculinized women attractive, but these are not examples of feminine beauties.
Erik, I would look at your "evidence" of homos being more likely to want to screw children but I don't want to download a file called "ped.zip" unto my computer. You're a weirdo and I don't trust you. You should put that "info" up as a blog entry.
Danielle: I have a sense of humor, but it is not a sick one.
Whipped honey: Of course women are not naïve enough to believe that putting on the clothes of a model will give them the model’s appeal, but it would be a step toward acquiring some of the woman’s appeal. This should be a basic marketing consideration. What of envy and jealously? If an attractive clothes model makes a potential buyer jealous of her beauty, is the buyer less likely to buy the clothes the model is displaying? The proper way of dealing with a competitor or a woman that induces envy/jealously is to at least acquire what she has if not something better, and acquiring her clothing/jewelry would be a step in the right direction.
Your argument assumes that model selection is based on female psychology and marketing considerations. What about the thinness issue? Many women find the typical thinness of high-fashion models disturbing. A woman with a masculine physique and normal weight would not induce jealously in the typical woman. Why not use such models? Why use a lot of very thin models? Does it make sense that the disturbing thinness of the models would increase the likelihood of women buying clothes? What about the age issue? The fashion industry has a penchant for teenage girls. Is this because teenage girls are less likely to induce jealousy and hence increase the likelihood that women will buy clothes?
Have you heard of Occam’s Razor? Is it difficult to put two and two together? The industry is dominated by homosexual men. There is a massive amount of evidence showing much higher rates of sexual interest in children among homosexual/bisexual men compared to heterosexual men. The combination of masculinization, thinness and youth in the typical female high-fashion model makes the central tendency among the models approach the looks of boys in their early adolescence. Designer clothing is highly desirable, which gives the designers a broad license to use the kind of models they prefer. What is the simplest explanation of models’ looks? What is the most powerful explanation of models’ looks and 20th century trends in models’ femininity? Ask yourself these questions. See if you can provide a simple, elegant explanation of these questions in terms of female psychology and marketing considerations.
If Alice Dellal has a face that attracts your attention and makes you examine her clothing, how does this help sales? You will consider buying the clothes only if you like them. Have you heard of the halo effect? If you don’t like Alice Dellal’s looks, would it help make you evaluate her clothes in a better light? If you were to pick a fashion magazine to look at the clothes, would it serve the magazine poorly to overwhelmingly use feminine women? Will it make you less likely to examine the clothes?
Lula: Who has argued that “women have to look ultra feminised and men have to look masculine”? Not me. What do you mean “everyone starts with two X chromosomes”? The typical man has a single X chromosome from the very beginning (fertilized egg).
It is not necessary to know the true number of pedophiles to assess the proportion of heterosexuals and nonheterosexuals among those sexually interested in children. It is also not necessary to strictly rely on reported cases of child molestations to assess this question; one could anonymously assess people on whether they were molested as children and if so then ask them about the sex of the perpetrator(s). The conclusion of homosexual and bisexual individuals being much more likely to be sexually interested in children compared to heterosexuals is based on multiple lines of evidence.
I don’t believe that there is any culture that has glorified incestuous marriage as the norm. Any such culture wouldn’t survive for long. If you are interested in history, then look up historical descriptions of homosexual behavior; the typical description is in the context of pederasty.
Nobody here has made “a rather large jump from there being gay fashion designers to them all being paedophile-oriented and predatory.”
"“Most homosexuals are not sexually attracted to children, but a much greater proportion of them are attracted to children than heterosexuals (ref: here and here).”
Oh, and just to add to this. Lol, tell that to all the civilisations down the ages such as the ancient Egyptians that glorified not only in incestuous marriages as the norm but also what we would now call underage marriages. Whole cultures were based on this attitude.
So again, I believe these figures are misleading and not indicative of fuller picture throughout human history. And yes I agree that gays and straights can be paedophiles, although most right-thinking gays and straights are not going to be.
It is a rather large jump from there being gay fashion designers to them all being paedophile-oriented and predatory. There may be a few. And there's nothing to stop older men being attracted to younger ones (and vice versa), but most of these model guys are of age and capable of making their own choices. I do think some coersion for favour may happen, I am not blind, but it will go on in the straight side of the business and in many other industries, acting for example (the casting couch) for both straight and gay people. It happens, but I think you have to assume most people will be decent as in most cases. They can't spend their lives being predators or word would soon spread and they would lose employees to rivals.
Where did the idea come from that women have to look ultra feminised and men have to look masculine anyway?
This has puzzled me and I think it may be modern conditioning. Some people are naturally androgynous looking and let's not forget everyone starts with two X chromosomes. It seems to be taken generally as an insulting or odd thing if males look feminine, (childish) example 'OMG, he looks so gaaaaaay', as if a./ it's unnatural and b./ they are somehow weaker than their more masculine-looking, square-jawed contemporaries. It is also an inverted dig at women as being weaker or lesser thean men in general although I don't even think people know they are doing/thinking it. It just seems to be the way people are conditioned to think in our modern times, without ever questioning where these 'rules' come from or why they are there.
Sorry, deviating from the main point but it just fascinates me that we have these set boundaries in general.
As for this:
"Most homosexuals are not sexually attracted to children, but a much greater proportion of them are attracted to children than heterosexuals (ref: here and here)."
I disagree. Because the true numbers of paedophiles out there are not known. And what about all the childhood rapes and abuses by straight fathers and stepfathers of daughters that never ever even get on record because these children are too frightened to report it. There must have been millions down the ages. I think any figures are misleading and not representative of a larger more unreported picture.
The premise of your site is interesting. However, I still think that "striking" looks have some value in attracting men. To say that men who are attracted to the likes of Penelope Cruz or Amanda Peet have gay tendencies is just unfounded. Ok, MAYBE bisexual men will be more attracted to these types than to the super feminine women you depict, and so what? And European men not liking women with dark complexions and robust features? I find the opposite is true, these days, and though perhaps deep down they do find their own women more attractive, it is still possible to find women of all races attractive.
There have also been studies done that said women with "slightly" masculinized faces were seen as more faithful by men, though you report that masculinized women are promiscuous (!)
I will agree with you that people of a certain race can hardly compare themselves with those of a different race. To do so is sad because it imposes a set of unrealistic standards that shouldn't be there. However, I will add that it's important not to say that one race is "less attractive" than another race, for that same reason.
LOL! Erik, you have no sense of humor!
Pages