"WhippedHoney, thanks so much, I seriously feel a ton better. I have serious insecurity about having a “12 year old” figure, growing up in a family of curvy women...so thank you
Melisande, I had serious insecurity about having a "Russ Meyer movie" figure, growing up in a family of knife-edge-thin women.
The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence.
Some men find your girlish figure extremely sexy. Not all men. There is no female body type that is sexy to all men, because men disagree with each other. Attractiveness is very subjective, despite Erik's insistence that attractiveness can be measured in mathematical formulas.
Erik's insistence that the measure of female beauty is the physical signs of high female hormones and low male hormones means his eyes are permanently closed to the beauty of women with more moderate or mixed hormonal combinations.
Erik's bafflement when he is confronted with evidence that most men do not agree with him is hilarious. The Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue sells like a house on fire because straight men find those models sexy as hell, but Erik says the swimsuit models look like "transvestites" and "eunuch". So why do straight men buy it?
Quote:
The more interesting point is that the annual Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue is oriented toward heterosexual men, and it sells briskly, which underscores the need for this site. If the masses of heterosexual men knew any better, they would seek alternative publications for pictures of attractive women.
See, the only reason straight men buy the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue with all those butch she-males in bikinis is that they don't KNOW where to find pictures of more hormonally feminized women! It couldn't POSSIBLY be because many straight men actually like women with some androgyny! No... No... NO!!!
PROOF THAT HETEROSEXUAL WOMEN ARE AROUSED BY OTHER WOMEN, PART II
Erik, you are now flat-out lying about Bayley's and Chivers' research results.
"Your study by Bailey, Chivers and others doesn’t prove that heterosexual women are sexually aroused by women. These authors did a subsequent study where they exposed women to footage of monkeys or apes having sex and also non-sexual stimuli. Guess what happened? The women displayed “sexual arousal” to the monkey porn but not the non-sexual stimuli."
Eighteen heterosexual women and 18 heterosexual men viewed seven sexual film stimuli, six human films and one nonhuman primate film
Erik, how did you turn "sexual film stimuli, six human films" into "non-sexual stimuli"?
Quote:
Women showed small increases in genital arousal to the nonhuman stimulus and large increases in genital arousal to both human male and female stimuli. Men did not show any genital arousal to the nonhuman stimulus and demonstrated a category-specific pattern of arousal to the human stimuli that corresponded to their stated sexual orientation.
Erik, how did you turn "Women showed... large increases in genital arousal to both human male and female stimuli" into "women displayed 'sexual arousal' to the monkey porn but not the non-sexual stimuli"?
"Are you going to say that women are aroused by monkeys and apes, too?"
The women in the study showed "small increases in genital arousal" when watching primate porn, so apparently, the answer is yes, but only a little.
"The fact is that the vaginal response in these studies cannot be described as indicative of genital/sexual arousal, though the authors unjustifiably use this label; it is just a genital response not indicative of sexual arousal."
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
Erik, you just made me laugh out loud. The study measured and documented the known, verifiable physiological signs of female genital sexual arousal, but because the women were slightly turned on by something you don't like the idea of women being turned on by, primate porn, you decide their measured, documented genital arousal is "just a genital response not indicative of sexual arousal"?
The men were not at all aroused by primate porn, but the women were slightly aroused by it; further proof of the conclusion of the first study: Men are aroused only by whatever they want to have sex with, but women are aroused even by things they don't want to have sex with.
I am happy that at least Erik is saying I'm attractive. WhippedHoney, thanks so much, I seriously feel a ton better. I have serious insecurity about having a "12 year old" figure, growing up in a family of curvy women...so thank you :-)
The Difference Between a Product's Marketing Appeal and a Product's Real Purpose of Use
Erik wrote:
"How can you believe what you wrote about what women want in a lingerie model? Women wear lingerie in private, and do I need to state what the typical purpose is? Do you seriously believe that having lingerie models with masculine characteristics so that they suggest a reserved sexuality that is unavailable to the average male is in anyway consistent with the typical purpose of wearing lingerie?"
Erik, your mistake is that you assume that marketing always works by presenting the product for its actual purpose of use. Marketing often works by presenting the product for the buyer's fantasy, which may have little or nothing to do with the product's purpose of use.
For example, the Virginia Slims women's cigarette advertising campaign with the slogan "You've come a long way, baby" showed black and white photographs of scenes of life in the 19th or early 20th centuries contrasted with color photographs of contemporary women enjoying current technology or opportunity. The marketing appeal was the buyer's fantasy that her smoking habit proved she was modern and liberated and so much freer than her female ancestors. Of course, the real purpose of use of cigarettes is to enable nicotine addicts to avoid the horrible withdrawal, but who would buy a brand of cigarettes with ads that say, "You better smoke now before you start getting headaches and cold sweats, baby"?
The fantasy of the elite or aspiring-elite woman who buys lingerie is that she is a kind of sexual rare flower, both highly desirable and exclusively available only to men she deems worthy of her. Her man's fantasy may be just the opposite, he may fantasize that his woman in lingerie is a prostitute and he's customer number 512, but the one who buys the lingerie is usually her, not him, so the marketing targets her fantasy, not his.
bron, I know that you don't think Claudia Schiffer is attractive but I am not seeing any evidence of "cyclops eyes" in any of her photos or videos. She has strong features like many models do, that includes a prominent jaw. I don't think her jaw takes anything away from her overall attractiveness. She looks like warm dog food now but I think she used to be rather good looking. Full frontal pictures of her face are very common as well.
The tip of christy's nose doesn't touch her upper lip. The angle of that picture makes her nose and her lips look close to each other but everyone's lips streches closer to their noses when they smile widely.
If the tip of her nose came close to touching her lips you would be able to see that in these images.
I think she is pretty.
I don't hate Erik's "models" but I do think most of them are plain or ugly. I don't think very much of their bodies. Most of them are curvy but I think someone's body can look good whether or not they have a tiny waist. I don't usually like the "soft" look on women. It looks weak and is rather uninteresting.
"Sales are not a measure of effective marketing when you are operating under monopoly-like conditions and selling necessities or close."
mo·nop·o·ly
1 : exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action
2 : exclusive possession or control
3 : a commodity controlled by one party
4 : one that has a monopoly
To prove that homosexual designers have a monopoly, you would have to prove that they have legal priveleges that heterosexual designers don't have, or that they have command of the supply or exclusive possession or control of either the necessities for fashion design, such as fabrics and garment factories, or the necessities for fashion marketing, such as advertising space in magazines and television commercials. They have none of those things.
The term monopoly has been distorted to mean market dominance, and that is not what it means. Dominating a market through preventing the competition from having access to sufficient amounts of the necessities for producing and effectively selling the product is a monopoly. Dominating a market through producing goods more in demand than one's competitor's goods is not a monopoly.
What exactly do homosexual designers have exclusive ownership, command of supply, or exclusive possession or control of - besides their own TALENT? More talent is NOT a monopoly!
And I don't know which words Lagerfeld used, I didn't read it in English, but the article said how he insulted her, and that people on the streets and in pubs DON'T DARE to give remarks about her looks, she is too rich.
Danielle:
First photo you posted now, is scary enough for me.
Vast majority of Claudia's photos were showing the same angle as your third photo with cigar. A little girl, my sister collected them,every one she saw and I remember, she posed the same on every photo, frontal was very rare.She saw her as goddess. At the end of 1990s, Claudia came into our country, we could see her in person. Then this girl said that she just can't understand what she saw in her, that she wasn't beautiful at all. I never saw a difference. Danielle, honestly, CLAUDIA IS SCARY. HER EYES ARE EXTREMELY CLOSE TOGETHER, How much closer could they be?? I am not saying she is the exception of human kind, but that is not beauty. Other people notice it too. And she has double chin. Every other person I knew at that time said SHE ISN'T BEAUTIFUL AT ALL, true, they said she isn't ugly either.And she was really big at that time, household name, everyone knew her, and were oblivious of other supermodels.
Don't talk to me about Cindy, I saw enough of her in live shows , she looks like cow, half of her face is her jaw. Macho. And large group of people take what you give them, they are no reference for me. One commenter on youtube asked: "who is she,... I hear much of her,... she looks like some ex celebrity prostitute." (something like that)
I always thought Erik's women are ugly,or unattractive, with some exceptions, but I also think that you hate them so much, that you don't see they are no uglier than supermodels, they look at least softer, more gracile. And many of them have super bodies.
Whipped honey: Buyers are not prompted to buy clothes because fashion imagery makes them uncomfortable. It should be clear that marketing skills are of little relevance when you are selling well-desired items and people do not have alternatives. In the case of clothing, pleasing imagery will generally be more likely to prompt a buyer to purchase the clothes than displeasing imagery. The choice of models does not reflect marketing considerations, period. Sales are not a measure of effective marketing when you are operating under monopoly-like conditions and selling necessities or close.
The point about college students wasn’t just their higher than average SES, but that there is no indication of a correlation between femininity preferences and SES in the college student samples. Some college students are very rich, others middle class and some even lower class. There is no evidence that college students from rich backgrounds generally prefer masculinized women.
How can you believe what you wrote about what women want in a lingerie model? Women wear lingerie in private, and do I need to state what the typical purpose is? Do you seriously believe that having lingerie models with masculine characteristics so that they suggest a reserved sexuality that is unavailable to the average male is in anyway consistent with the typical purpose of wearing lingerie?
Heterosexual women are no more subliminally aroused by masculinization in women because they are attracted to masculine characteristics in men than heterosexual men are subliminally attracted to feminine characteristics in men because they are attractive to feminine women. It appears that you have a homosexual component to your attractions and are extrapolating it to others. You have described yourself as being into S&M. Homosexual and bisexual women are overrepresented among those into S&M.
Your study by Bailey, Chivers and others doesn’t prove that heterosexual women are sexually aroused by women. These authors did a subsequent study where they exposed women to footage of monkeys or apes having sex and also non-sexual stimuli. Guess what happened? The women displayed “sexual arousal” to the monkey porn but not the non-sexual stimuli. Are you going to say that women are aroused by monkeys and apes, too? The fact is that the vaginal response in these studies cannot be described as indicative of genital/sexual arousal, though the authors unjustifiably use this label; it is just a genital response not indicative of sexual arousal.
Your references to the subconscious recording of everyday events, recovery of past memory through hypnosis and subliminal programming have been debunked in the psychological literature. Start with the work of Elizabeth Loftus.
I have a typo in the statistics part, namely writing 0.3 instead of 0.03, which you have noted, but this is a minor issue. Of course you were taking the whole 100-point range into account when describing the difference as a 3% difference, but what is the point of considering this range? What proportion of women have a WHR below 0.5? The entire 100-point range is meaningless. And when I talked about the normally distributed range, I was talking about a Gaussian distribution/bell curve, not the colloquial normality that you have inferred! What kind of a statistician are you?
I have never described a 0.72 WHR as outside the normal range or something that is masculine. Among women, a WHR of 0.72 would fall below the 50th percentile and couldn’t be described as something in the masculine range. The reported average WHRs of the top-50 fashion models shown within this site is about 0.7, but do these women look feminine on average? You do not infer masculinization from a single feature but overall looks. I have also pointed out the issue of a low waist circumference by virtue of thinness and a broad rib cage stretching out the waist in front view in high-fashion models, i.e., the circumferential measurements should be interpreted with caution. I haven’t been equating just about any level of above average masculinization with developmental or statistical abnormality. However, a 0.75 S.D. higher average WHR in the case of fashion models is obviously more masculine than in ethnicity-matched glamour models.
Bron, it's clear that you don't like how the supermodels looked. I find it funny that you had so much negative stuff to say about the looks of the supers and very little to say about Erik's "attractive women".
I don't believe that the majority or even a large group of people find Cindy Crawford, Christy Turlington and Claudia Schiffer unattractive. Cindy and Claudia were superstars both in the high fashion world and in the general media.
Calling someone an "apparition form the past" isn't really insulting maybe you meant aberration.
I don't know why Christy's "sloppy nose and fat lips" would not be visible in an almost full frontal picture of her face.
Claudia took plenty of pictures from different angles.
Her eyes aren't extremely close together. They aren't much closer than the eyes of Erik's "models".
Brenda, I have seen the other pictures of Anna S. and I don't think she is very pretty.
I've always considered her to be the most attractive woman on earth.
She has it all, funny personality, brains, an amazing face, an athletic body, and a beautiful and natural chest (I’m so glad she didn’t “ruin” herself with implants).
You people need to rethink your standards if you don't find her attractive.
Hey Danielle, you should really click the link to Anna S.'s photos because even if that photo of hers you posted is crappy, she really is pretty. You should not judge her looks based on that single photo without seeing all of her other better looking photos.
Whipped Honey:
I still miss something, that research you posted prooves what I already knew, and I apologize if I disengaged myself from it; namely that 'heterosexual women tend to become sexually arouse by both male and female erotica'... so, by female erotica, that I can trace in my mind, regardless of how subtle it may be: because images of nudity remind a person of sexual act, and that is understandable, even if it isn't so apparent, but subtle reminder and so forth subtle arousal, but that is when you see desirable, beautiful, healthy human shape. Androgynous female bodies in lingerie are not erotic images for me, and that research prooves nothing in the sense that heterosexual women get more aroused by androgynous women than by feminine ones. Quite the opposite.
I must sound naive to you, but you should know that I've read a lot of literature about subconsciousness years ago and I know what that is, and I also know, that it does manifest itself. So being the quiet, meditative person, I am acquainted with self analysis, 'self examining of heart'; and every physiological change of mood, emotional disturbance or mental itch, that is not conscious, I break down and analyse, every chance I get (if I have a peace and quiet), and must say I successfuly trace the source steming from subconsciousness.
In my previous post I mistyped the link in the first paragraph. It should read like this:
Erik calls you “somewhat masculinized” because his definition of “masculinized” is flat-out insane. For instance, Erik stated here...
Erik calls you "somewhat masculinized" because his definition of "masculinized" is flat-out insane. For instance, Erik stated
[http://www.femininebeauty.info/news.php/weblog/comments/lagerfeld/#c2171]here[/url] in the comments of his blog entry titled "Karl “models have skinny bones” Lagerfeld rejects three models for being too skinny!" dated Thursday, October 11, 2007:
Quote:
If you were to sample, say, female college students, a good baseline reference for fashion vs. glamour model comparisons, you may get something like a normally distributed WHR range of 0.64-0.84 with a mean of 0.74
Erik calls models with a WHR (waist-hip ratio) of 0.71 "masculinized" because he has decided that the arbitrary maximum WHR to be considered feminine is 0.68. He admits that among female college students, whom he he considers a "good baseline" for comparisons, there is a "normally distributed WHR range of 0.64-0.84 with a mean of 0.74".
Translation:
Erik says the normal range of WHR is 0.64 to 0.84 and the mean WHR is 0.74, yet he defines the maximum WHR to be considered feminine as 0.68 and he considers a WHR of 0.71 to be "masculinized" even though it is both WELL WITHIN THE NORMAL RANGE and MORE FEMININE THAN THE MEAN!
Erik labels perfectly normal women "masculinized" by defining feminine as FAR more feminine than the mean, so that even many women who are more feminine than the mean are labeled "masculinized".
Erik said to you, Melisande, "You may be more “girly” than others you know, especially if they happen to be mostly nude models, strippers and women appearing in adult movies since such women are disproportionately masculinized women." Why the hell do heterosexual men pay to look at female strippers and female adult film performers who are "masculinized" - unless perhaps most heterosexual men do not consider these women "masculinized" because they do not agree with Erik's arbitrary definition of feminine.
Erik needs women to be far more feminine than the mean because he suffers from borderline hysterical homosexual anxiety. Read enough of this website and you'll find many references to "men who narrowly escape nonheterosexuality". Oh, the terror!
Erik's belief that sex appeal can be measured in mathematical formulas makes me wonder if he's a bespectacled geek who spends all his time in the lab and has very little experience with actual human females.
what is attractive is sunbject to taste like everything - music, art etc.
I too agree that some models are mannish looking - Rachel Hunter is a good example - but all this peudo science and "eunuch references" are just unnecessary - you dont like these girls ok - others do. Who cares if the fashion industry is run by gays? Fashion is ridiculous and ireelevant.
I suggest you use your obvious intelect for something worthwhile.
(But thanks for Corinna - my favourite!)
That bunch of supermodels from 1990s were never as pretty as on those covers from previous post. NEVER. They were not remotely as girlie. Claudia made trillions of photos and on every photo she is showing the same angle of her face, just to hide her ugly chin and make her hideous eyes less apparent, they are so close together as if they are going to melt into single eye and she can become cyclopes' bride. Cyndy always looked as cow, manly, ugly face. Couldn't stand the sight of her. And Christy has really fat lips and sloppy nose, (which is not visible on that photo above), it also reminds me of some kind of bovine. So overrated, all of them. I remember I've read somewhere, that even Lagerfeld, who pushed Claudia previously, later called her 'APPARITION FROM THE PAST' (or monster, I am not sure, that is rendering from my language). Photos of their faces from link are much more accurate and they show their pathetic looks.
Erik, honey you don't argue facts. You present hypotheses based on misrepresented data.
These are not facts:
"Gay Designers are pederasts"
"Gay designers have influenced the aesthetic of beauty pageants and Hollywood"
"The General public would prefer the looks of the slags in the "attractive women" section over Victoria's Secret models"
"VS models look like boys/eunuchs/transsexuals/transvestites"
"Psychotic Shamans are responsible for extreme body modification"
"The high fashion industry is a monopoly"
"High fashion models are getting skinnier because gay designers are making their presence more obvious"
"Lifetime exclusive heterosexuals would not find (insert model's name) attractive"
^^^^^^^
These are not facts. These are hypotheses. You have not proven any of these statements.
PS. Your "poems" are terrible. Please stop embarassing yourself.
LOL @ Erik using a cheesy ass music video made by some gay, latino dude as an example of what straight men find attractive! LOL! I am convinced that if Erik took over the high fashion industry every runway show would make Stefane Monzon look brilliant. I bet he would go scouting for models among prostitutes at truck stops.
Melisande
"WhippedHoney, thanks so much, I seriously feel a ton better. I have serious insecurity about having a “12 year old” figure, growing up in a family of curvy women...so thank you
Melisande, I had serious insecurity about having a "Russ Meyer movie" figure, growing up in a family of knife-edge-thin women.
The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence.
Some men find your girlish figure extremely sexy. Not all men. There is no female body type that is sexy to all men, because men disagree with each other. Attractiveness is very subjective, despite Erik's insistence that attractiveness can be measured in mathematical formulas.
Erik's insistence that the measure of female beauty is the physical signs of high female hormones and low male hormones means his eyes are permanently closed to the beauty of women with more moderate or mixed hormonal combinations.
Erik's bafflement when he is confronted with evidence that most men do not agree with him is hilarious. The Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue sells like a house on fire because straight men find those models sexy as hell, but Erik says the swimsuit models look like "transvestites" and "eunuch". So why do straight men buy it?
Quote:
See, the only reason straight men buy the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue with all those butch she-males in bikinis is that they don't KNOW where to find pictures of more hormonally feminized women! It couldn't POSSIBLY be because many straight men actually like women with some androgyny! No... No... NO!!!
Sorry, neotenic/neotenous is the proper adjectival form.
Wow, I completely messed up the formatting on my previous post. I somehow even managed to underline my by-line! How did I do that?
Sorry. I would add a blush-with-embarrassment smiley, but even the smileys won't work for me.
Adriana Lima's face is a bit manish, agreed, but in a subtle way.
Her claim to femininity is based on these features:
- Big eyes
- Small jaw
- Full lips
That gives her a neotenia-ish look.
What happens when we remove those features?
Shit happens! :p
PROOF THAT HETEROSEXUAL WOMEN ARE AROUSED BY OTHER WOMEN, PART II
Erik, you are now flat-out lying about Bayley's and Chivers' research results.
"Your study by Bailey, Chivers and others doesn’t prove that heterosexual women are sexually aroused by women. These authors did a subsequent study where they exposed women to footage of monkeys or apes having sex and also non-sexual stimuli. Guess what happened? The women displayed “sexual arousal” to the monkey porn but not the non-sexual stimuli."
Here is the truth about Bayley's and Chivers' subsequent study:
Quote:
Erik, how did you turn "sexual film stimuli, six human films" into "non-sexual stimuli"?
Quote:
Erik, how did you turn "Women showed... large increases in genital arousal to both human male and female stimuli" into "women displayed 'sexual arousal' to the monkey porn but not the non-sexual stimuli"?
"Are you going to say that women are aroused by monkeys and apes, too?"
The women in the study showed "small increases in genital arousal" when watching primate porn, so apparently, the answer is yes, but only a little.
"The fact is that the vaginal response in these studies cannot be described as indicative of genital/sexual arousal, though the authors unjustifiably use this label; it is just a genital response not indicative of sexual arousal."
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
Erik, you just made me laugh out loud. The study measured and documented the known, verifiable physiological signs of female genital sexual arousal, but because the women were slightly turned on by something you don't like the idea of women being turned on by, primate porn, you decide their measured, documented genital arousal is "just a genital response not indicative of sexual arousal"?
The men were not at all aroused by primate porn, but the women were slightly aroused by it; further proof of the conclusion of the first study: Men are aroused only by whatever they want to have sex with, but women are aroused even by things they don't want to have sex with.
I am happy that at least Erik is saying I'm attractive. WhippedHoney, thanks so much, I seriously feel a ton better. I have serious insecurity about having a "12 year old" figure, growing up in a family of curvy women...so thank you :-)
The Difference Between a Product's Marketing Appeal and a Product's Real Purpose of Use
Erik wrote:
"How can you believe what you wrote about what women want in a lingerie model? Women wear lingerie in private, and do I need to state what the typical purpose is? Do you seriously believe that having lingerie models with masculine characteristics so that they suggest a reserved sexuality that is unavailable to the average male is in anyway consistent with the typical purpose of wearing lingerie?"
Erik, your mistake is that you assume that marketing always works by presenting the product for its actual purpose of use. Marketing often works by presenting the product for the buyer's fantasy, which may have little or nothing to do with the product's purpose of use.
For example, the Virginia Slims women's cigarette advertising campaign with the slogan "You've come a long way, baby" showed black and white photographs of scenes of life in the 19th or early 20th centuries contrasted with color photographs of contemporary women enjoying current technology or opportunity. The marketing appeal was the buyer's fantasy that her smoking habit proved she was modern and liberated and so much freer than her female ancestors. Of course, the real purpose of use of cigarettes is to enable nicotine addicts to avoid the horrible withdrawal, but who would buy a brand of cigarettes with ads that say, "You better smoke now before you start getting headaches and cold sweats, baby"?
The fantasy of the elite or aspiring-elite woman who buys lingerie is that she is a kind of sexual rare flower, both highly desirable and exclusively available only to men she deems worthy of her. Her man's fantasy may be just the opposite, he may fantasize that his woman in lingerie is a prostitute and he's customer number 512, but the one who buys the lingerie is usually her, not him, so the marketing targets her fantasy, not his.
bron, I know that you don't think Claudia Schiffer is attractive but I am not seeing any evidence of "cyclops eyes" in any of her photos or videos. She has strong features like many models do, that includes a prominent jaw. I don't think her jaw takes anything away from her overall attractiveness. She looks like warm dog food now but I think she used to be rather good looking. Full frontal pictures of her face are very common as well.
The tip of christy's nose doesn't touch her upper lip. The angle of that picture makes her nose and her lips look close to each other but everyone's lips streches closer to their noses when they smile widely.
If the tip of her nose came close to touching her lips you would be able to see that in these images.
I think she is pretty.
I don't hate Erik's "models" but I do think most of them are plain or ugly. I don't think very much of their bodies. Most of them are curvy but I think someone's body can look good whether or not they have a tiny waist. I don't usually like the "soft" look on women. It looks weak and is rather uninteresting.
Homosexual Designers Do Not Have a Monopoly
"Sales are not a measure of effective marketing when you are operating under monopoly-like conditions and selling necessities or close."
mo·nop·o·ly
1 : exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action
2 : exclusive possession or control
3 : a commodity controlled by one party
4 : one that has a monopoly
To prove that homosexual designers have a monopoly, you would have to prove that they have legal priveleges that heterosexual designers don't have, or that they have command of the supply or exclusive possession or control of either the necessities for fashion design, such as fabrics and garment factories, or the necessities for fashion marketing, such as advertising space in magazines and television commercials. They have none of those things.
The term monopoly has been distorted to mean market dominance, and that is not what it means. Dominating a market through preventing the competition from having access to sufficient amounts of the necessities for producing and effectively selling the product is a monopoly. Dominating a market through producing goods more in demand than one's competitor's goods is not a monopoly.
What exactly do homosexual designers have exclusive ownership, command of supply, or exclusive possession or control of - besides their own TALENT? More talent is NOT a monopoly!
sloppy
http://www.zabra.si/tmp_web/freaks/1.jpg
tip of her nose touching her upper lip
http://www.zabra.si/tmp_web/freaks/tip.jpg
not pretty
http://www.zabra.si/tmp_web/freaks/fa001.jpg
http://www.zabra.si/tmp_web/freaks/christy.jpg
handsome guy
http://www.zabra.si/tmp_web/freaks/handsomeguy.jpg
http://www.zabra.si/tmp_web/freaks/05.jpg
http://www.zabra.si/tmp_web/freaks/2.jpg
what is this chin
http://www.zabra.si/tmp_web/freaks/square.jpg
And I don't know which words Lagerfeld used, I didn't read it in English, but the article said how he insulted her, and that people on the streets and in pubs DON'T DARE to give remarks about her looks, she is too rich.
Oh ignore that double chin, it is something else, very square chin maybe, looks very robust sometimes.
Danielle:
First photo you posted now, is scary enough for me.
Vast majority of Claudia's photos were showing the same angle as your third photo with cigar. A little girl, my sister collected them,every one she saw and I remember, she posed the same on every photo, frontal was very rare.She saw her as goddess. At the end of 1990s, Claudia came into our country, we could see her in person. Then this girl said that she just can't understand what she saw in her, that she wasn't beautiful at all. I never saw a difference. Danielle, honestly, CLAUDIA IS SCARY. HER EYES ARE EXTREMELY CLOSE TOGETHER, How much closer could they be?? I am not saying she is the exception of human kind, but that is not beauty. Other people notice it too. And she has double chin. Every other person I knew at that time said SHE ISN'T BEAUTIFUL AT ALL, true, they said she isn't ugly either.And she was really big at that time, household name, everyone knew her, and were oblivious of other supermodels.
Don't talk to me about Cindy, I saw enough of her in live shows , she looks like cow, half of her face is her jaw. Macho. And large group of people take what you give them, they are no reference for me. One commenter on youtube asked: "who is she,... I hear much of her,... she looks like some ex celebrity prostitute." (something like that)
I always thought Erik's women are ugly,or unattractive, with some exceptions, but I also think that you hate them so much, that you don't see they are no uglier than supermodels, they look at least softer, more gracile. And many of them have super bodies.
Maybe I will post some pictures
Whipped honey: Buyers are not prompted to buy clothes because fashion imagery makes them uncomfortable. It should be clear that marketing skills are of little relevance when you are selling well-desired items and people do not have alternatives. In the case of clothing, pleasing imagery will generally be more likely to prompt a buyer to purchase the clothes than displeasing imagery. The choice of models does not reflect marketing considerations, period. Sales are not a measure of effective marketing when you are operating under monopoly-like conditions and selling necessities or close.
The point about college students wasn’t just their higher than average SES, but that there is no indication of a correlation between femininity preferences and SES in the college student samples. Some college students are very rich, others middle class and some even lower class. There is no evidence that college students from rich backgrounds generally prefer masculinized women.
How can you believe what you wrote about what women want in a lingerie model? Women wear lingerie in private, and do I need to state what the typical purpose is? Do you seriously believe that having lingerie models with masculine characteristics so that they suggest a reserved sexuality that is unavailable to the average male is in anyway consistent with the typical purpose of wearing lingerie?
Heterosexual women are no more subliminally aroused by masculinization in women because they are attracted to masculine characteristics in men than heterosexual men are subliminally attracted to feminine characteristics in men because they are attractive to feminine women. It appears that you have a homosexual component to your attractions and are extrapolating it to others. You have described yourself as being into S&M. Homosexual and bisexual women are overrepresented among those into S&M.
Your study by Bailey, Chivers and others doesn’t prove that heterosexual women are sexually aroused by women. These authors did a subsequent study where they exposed women to footage of monkeys or apes having sex and also non-sexual stimuli. Guess what happened? The women displayed “sexual arousal” to the monkey porn but not the non-sexual stimuli. Are you going to say that women are aroused by monkeys and apes, too? The fact is that the vaginal response in these studies cannot be described as indicative of genital/sexual arousal, though the authors unjustifiably use this label; it is just a genital response not indicative of sexual arousal.
Your references to the subconscious recording of everyday events, recovery of past memory through hypnosis and subliminal programming have been debunked in the psychological literature. Start with the work of Elizabeth Loftus.
I have a typo in the statistics part, namely writing 0.3 instead of 0.03, which you have noted, but this is a minor issue. Of course you were taking the whole 100-point range into account when describing the difference as a 3% difference, but what is the point of considering this range? What proportion of women have a WHR below 0.5? The entire 100-point range is meaningless. And when I talked about the normally distributed range, I was talking about a Gaussian distribution/bell curve, not the colloquial normality that you have inferred! What kind of a statistician are you?
I have never described a 0.72 WHR as outside the normal range or something that is masculine. Among women, a WHR of 0.72 would fall below the 50th percentile and couldn’t be described as something in the masculine range. The reported average WHRs of the top-50 fashion models shown within this site is about 0.7, but do these women look feminine on average? You do not infer masculinization from a single feature but overall looks. I have also pointed out the issue of a low waist circumference by virtue of thinness and a broad rib cage stretching out the waist in front view in high-fashion models, i.e., the circumferential measurements should be interpreted with caution. I haven’t been equating just about any level of above average masculinization with developmental or statistical abnormality. However, a 0.75 S.D. higher average WHR in the case of fashion models is obviously more masculine than in ethnicity-matched glamour models.
Bron, it's clear that you don't like how the supermodels looked. I find it funny that you had so much negative stuff to say about the looks of the supers and very little to say about Erik's "attractive women".
I don't believe that the majority or even a large group of people find Cindy Crawford, Christy Turlington and Claudia Schiffer unattractive. Cindy and Claudia were superstars both in the high fashion world and in the general media.
Calling someone an "apparition form the past" isn't really insulting maybe you meant aberration.
I don't know why Christy's "sloppy nose and fat lips" would not be visible in an almost full frontal picture of her face.
Claudia took plenty of pictures from different angles.
Her eyes aren't extremely close together. They aren't much closer than the eyes of Erik's "models".
Brenda, I have seen the other pictures of Anna S. and I don't think she is very pretty.
Wait, so I'm gay for liking Rebecca Romijn?
I've always considered her to be the most attractive woman on earth.
She has it all, funny personality, brains, an amazing face, an athletic body, and a beautiful and natural chest (I’m so glad she didn’t “ruin” herself with implants).
You people need to rethink your standards if you don't find her attractive.
Hey Danielle, you should really click the link to Anna S.'s photos because even if that photo of hers you posted is crappy, she really is pretty. You should not judge her looks based on that single photo without seeing all of her other better looking photos.
Whipped Honey:
I still miss something, that research you posted prooves what I already knew, and I apologize if I disengaged myself from it; namely that 'heterosexual women tend to become sexually arouse by both male and female erotica'... so, by female erotica, that I can trace in my mind, regardless of how subtle it may be: because images of nudity remind a person of sexual act, and that is understandable, even if it isn't so apparent, but subtle reminder and so forth subtle arousal, but that is when you see desirable, beautiful, healthy human shape. Androgynous female bodies in lingerie are not erotic images for me, and that research prooves nothing in the sense that heterosexual women get more aroused by androgynous women than by feminine ones. Quite the opposite.
I must sound naive to you, but you should know that I've read a lot of literature about subconsciousness years ago and I know what that is, and I also know, that it does manifest itself. So being the quiet, meditative person, I am acquainted with self analysis, 'self examining of heart'; and every physiological change of mood, emotional disturbance or mental itch, that is not conscious, I break down and analyse, every chance I get (if I have a peace and quiet), and must say I successfuly trace the source steming from subconsciousness.
In my previous post I mistyped the link in the first paragraph. It should read like this:
Erik calls you “somewhat masculinized” because his definition of “masculinized” is flat-out insane. For instance, Erik stated
here...
MELISANDE, PLEASE READ THIS
Erik calls you "somewhat masculinized" because his definition of "masculinized" is flat-out insane. For instance, Erik stated
[http://www.femininebeauty.info/news.php/weblog/comments/lagerfeld/#c2171]here[/url] in the comments of his blog entry titled "Karl “models have skinny bones” Lagerfeld rejects three models for being too skinny!" dated Thursday, October 11, 2007:
Quote:
Erik calls models with a WHR (waist-hip ratio) of 0.71 "masculinized" because he has decided that the arbitrary maximum WHR to be considered feminine is 0.68. He admits that among female college students, whom he he considers a "good baseline" for comparisons, there is a "normally distributed WHR range of 0.64-0.84 with a mean of 0.74".
Translation:
Erik says the normal range of WHR is 0.64 to 0.84 and the mean WHR is 0.74, yet he defines the maximum WHR to be considered feminine as 0.68 and he considers a WHR of 0.71 to be "masculinized" even though it is both WELL WITHIN THE NORMAL RANGE and MORE FEMININE THAN THE MEAN!
Erik labels perfectly normal women "masculinized" by defining feminine as FAR more feminine than the mean, so that even many women who are more feminine than the mean are labeled "masculinized".
Erik said to you, Melisande, "You may be more “girly” than others you know, especially if they happen to be mostly nude models, strippers and women appearing in adult movies since such women are disproportionately masculinized women." Why the hell do heterosexual men pay to look at female strippers and female adult film performers who are "masculinized" - unless perhaps most heterosexual men do not consider these women "masculinized" because they do not agree with Erik's arbitrary definition of feminine.
Erik needs women to be far more feminine than the mean because he suffers from borderline hysterical homosexual anxiety. Read enough of this website and you'll find many references to "men who narrowly escape nonheterosexuality". Oh, the terror!
Erik's belief that sex appeal can be measured in mathematical formulas makes me wonder if he's a bespectacled geek who spends all his time in the lab and has very little experience with actual human females.
what is attractive is sunbject to taste like everything - music, art etc.
I too agree that some models are mannish looking - Rachel Hunter is a good example - but all this peudo science and "eunuch references" are just unnecessary - you dont like these girls ok - others do. Who cares if the fashion industry is run by gays? Fashion is ridiculous and ireelevant.
I suggest you use your obvious intelect for something worthwhile.
(But thanks for Corinna - my favourite!)
Welshman
That bunch of supermodels from 1990s were never as pretty as on those covers from previous post. NEVER. They were not remotely as girlie. Claudia made trillions of photos and on every photo she is showing the same angle of her face, just to hide her ugly chin and make her hideous eyes less apparent, they are so close together as if they are going to melt into single eye and she can become cyclopes' bride. Cyndy always looked as cow, manly, ugly face. Couldn't stand the sight of her. And Christy has really fat lips and sloppy nose, (which is not visible on that photo above), it also reminds me of some kind of bovine. So overrated, all of them. I remember I've read somewhere, that even Lagerfeld, who pushed Claudia previously, later called her 'APPARITION FROM THE PAST' (or monster, I am not sure, that is rendering from my language). Photos of their faces from link are much more accurate and they show their pathetic looks.
Erik, honey you don't argue facts. You present hypotheses based on misrepresented data.
These are not facts:
"Gay Designers are pederasts"
"Gay designers have influenced the aesthetic of beauty pageants and Hollywood"
"The General public would prefer the looks of the slags in the "attractive women" section over Victoria's Secret models"
"VS models look like boys/eunuchs/transsexuals/transvestites"
"Psychotic Shamans are responsible for extreme body modification"
"The high fashion industry is a monopoly"
"High fashion models are getting skinnier because gay designers are making their presence more obvious"
"Lifetime exclusive heterosexuals would not find (insert model's name) attractive"
^^^^^^^
These are not facts. These are hypotheses. You have not proven any of these statements.
PS. Your "poems" are terrible. Please stop embarassing yourself.
LOL @ Erik using a cheesy ass music video made by some gay, latino dude as an example of what straight men find attractive! LOL! I am convinced that if Erik took over the high fashion industry every runway show would make Stefane Monzon look brilliant. I bet he would go scouting for models among prostitutes at truck stops.
here are 3 more of my little angel.
Pages