Sarah: I have stated that slight masculinization in women will usually not be an aesthetic problem and is a correlate of their sexiness to men.
When it comes to face shape in men, studies have shown women's preferences ranging from slight femininity to above average masculinization; there is no clear find, but the consensus is that women generally prefer above average masculine physiques in men. So it does not follow that many women prefer a little femininity in men. Women least likely to prefer some level of facial femininity in men are those who are close to ovulation and the attractive ones. I know that there are some effeminate men who become heart throbs of millions of teenage girls/young women, but these women are mostly ordinary women/plain Janes, not the feminine and attractive ones (who prefer masculine men).
I have already told you that I respond to all emails if a reply is needed. I have responded to all queries regarding how feminine a woman is except a recent email that I haven’t gotten around to yet, but this woman is not you. I haven’t received any emails from you. I also don’t believe that you sent me your pictures for analysis.
Waena/Whipped honey: Once again, the fashion industry sells highly desirable items. Naomi Wolf needs to make herself presentable in high society, i.e., well dressed at the very least, and it will be most convenient for her to purchase designer clothing and hence patronize the industry she dislikes rather than try to stitch together good looking clothes herself. So if the homosexual designers can get feminists to purchase some of their products, you bet they don’t need special marketing/selling skills to target other customers. When they use models whose looks displease/fail to impress most people, then this is not an example of good marketing, but they don’t need to market well; their domination of the industry allows them to get away with it. In your third point, you have acknowledged that here are some scenarios where marketing need not cater to the customers’ aesthetic preferences, but this goes against your earlier implicit argument that the looks of fashion models reflect marketing considerations.
I am not contradicting myself by saying that high fashion is marketed to the elite but the choice of the typical high-fashion model does not reflect the preferences of the elite. What evidence is there that the elite prefer women in the more masculine range? Most studies that have assessed people’s preference regarding femininity in women have used college students as judges, a demographic that has higher than average socioeconomic status (SES), and these studies have not revealed a correlation of femininity preferences with SES.
Where is your evidence that women are subliminally aroused by androgynous women? How is it possible to “turn on straight women” by using women?
Don’t accuse me of faulty statistical analysis. If you have a background in science, then you should realize that a 3% deviation cannot just be dismissed as statistically irrelevant. The relevance is decided by the matter under consideration. In chaotic systems, a 3% deviation in initial conditions can result in a strikingly different outcome. If you were launching a rocket toward the moon, a 3% error in some calculations will make the rocket miss the moon by a distance greater than the moon’s diameter, and so on.
It is also interesting to note that in spite of an apparently decent background in science/statistics, you have interpreted a difference between a WHR of 0.68 and 0.71 as one of 3%. 0.71 is 4.4% higher than 0.68 (taking 0.68 as base). More importantly, you have to consider the range of WHRs found in women. For instance, you don’t see WHRs of 0.3. Nearly all young adult women will fit within a WHR range of 0.6 – 1.0. A WHR difference of 0.03 will be 7.5% of this range. 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 and standard deviation of 0.04 (example here), which would make a 0.3 WHR difference equal 0.75 standard deviations. Don’t you think a 0.75 S.D. difference matters?
I have explained the difference between the reported WHR of fashion and glamour models. High-fashion models are bound to have a low circumferential waist measurement as a result of their skinniness, but their smaller breasts means that they have broader rib cages for a given hip size, and a broader rib cage will horizontally stretch the waist in front view, which is important to an hourglass approximation. This is how glamour models and high-fashion models can look much more different than what a superficial examination of crude reported circumferential measurements suggests. If you look around this site, you will also encounter information on masculinization in many Playboy centerfolds, the source of the glamour models in the table. So Playboy is hardly a source of feminine beauty in the first place.
Is emaciation responsible for masculine looks? Look at this woman and ask yourself if she looks masculine. Your images of Christian Bale don’t help assess his masculinity. Even an effeminate men can develop large muscles by taking anabolic androgenic steroids. Skeletal proportions would be a clue, but your pictures don't help. Search for more of his pictures. Take a look at his skeletal proportions (shoulder width/hip width); he isn't masculine [among men]. The picture of Gemma Ward shown above is recent, whereas the one you pointed out is an earlier picture. Gemma Ward is in her early twenties presently but started out when she was 15. Her hips are bound to grow wider, but note her broad shoulders/broad rib cage and face; how is this feminine?
Most of your “Attractive Women” gallery are in that category of uniform, cloned loveliness, one face melting into the next. Their faces have no TRACTION. They are perfect for nude or semi-nude modeling, where bodies are everything and faces are just accessories. No one will ever pay to look at pictures of them fully dressed.
I said "No one will every pay to look at pictures of them fully dressed" about *most* of the women in your "Attractive Women" gallery, not even all the women in that gallery, let alone all feminine women!
"WHAT KIND OF WOMAN FIND OTHER WOMAN SEXY AT ALL?"
Arousal and attraction are two different things. Most women are attracted primarily or exclusively to men, yet even women who who have no desire for actual sexual contact with other women can still be aroused, either consciously or unconsciously, by looking at women.
Most women are primarily or exclusively attracted to masculinity, so most women feel subconscious, subliminal arousal when they look at attractive androgynous women, but not when they look at attractive feminine women.
This woman would have had a better shape had her breasts been proportional to her body. She has a beautiful waist-to-hip ratio. However, I do agree with those who say that the woman she replaced has a better looking face.
Sarah: Please do not do yourself the disservice of asking Erik to assess your feminity. Erik's self-proclaimed expertise on femininity is a charade dependent on one of the easiest tricks in data analysis chicanery: presenting minor deviations from the norm as if they were extremes.
I have been a semiconductor fabricator statistical process control analyst, so I know statistical extrapolation distortion when I see it. Anyone who works in data analysis and interprets data the way Erik does will very quickly get fired.
Erik's "science" consists of presenting the physical signs of female testosterone levels that are *moderately* higher than the mean and female estrogen levels that are *moderately* lower lower than the mean as proof of "masculinization". Look at the actual numbers in his data and you will find that the range of variation is small.
For example, on this page, he states:
"WHRs of 0.71 and 0.68 may not sound that different, but see the discussion of the data provided by Tovee et al. in Table 1 here."
If you follow the link on the word "here", there is no real explanation for why WHRs (waist-to-hip ratios) that are only 3 percentage points apart should be considered very different.
A variation of three percentage points from the mean is statistically irrelevant and WITHIN NORMAL RANGE. Almost every "masculinized" woman I have seen so far on this website is WITHIN NORMAL RANGE.
The only reason some, not all, of the "masculinized" fashion models on this website actually look masculine is that they are emaciated and severe malnourishment destroys the outward signs of secondary sex characteristics in both men and women.
Likewise, contrast Gemma Ward at different weights:
Healthy weight, feminine Gemma Ward in the left-hand photograph in the first set of photographs on this page, vs: Excessively skinny, boyish Gemma Ward
Gemma Ward shows signs of hormonal masculinity, but only when her hormones are combined with excessively low body weight does she actually *look* overtly masculine. Erik is counting on you not to figure out the difference and therefore believe that a woman who is moderately hormonally masculine is MASCULINE.
In statistics this is called failing to control for variables, and it automatically renders the conclusions inaccurate and scientifically useless.
Take it from me as a former statistics professional who worked for IBM and Toshiba: Erik's numbers may be true for all I know, but Erik's interpretation of the MEANING of those numbers is 100% lies. And like most dishonest statisticians, Erik relies on excessive windbag wordiness (yes, every set of numbers really *needs* a whole frigging soliloquy of elaborate explanation) to make the reader weary of trying to follow his train of thought and hide the fact that he's talking out of his ass.
Some would rather doom females
To be starving, hungry creatures
Than observe the obvious details
Of masculine fashion model features.
Sex symbols of Sports Illustrated
Look like transvestites,
And Victoria's Secret must be possessed, right?
Because their models' beauty is overrated
By guys fooled by Photoshop, makeup and lights
Who the fashion world won't deign to give
A feminine aesthetic alternative.
Feminists have a lot of nerve
To blame straight men for these norms
"Heteropatriarchy" is demonized,
Though men prefer female forms
Adorned by curves,
Instead of masculinized.
Models are sexy? Sexy to whom?
Not to the exclusive straight guys in the room
Other explanations are ineffectual
Of course the source is homosexual.
Insecure women are dutiful
At starving themselves to be
What gay men, not straight men, see
As aesthetic and beautiful.
So these ladies eventually deserve
To know the nature of the type of beauty
They attempt to serve
(Hint: developmentally disturbed)
Before they lose that booty.
Though it's seemingly a feminist sin
To please straight men by looking feminine
And better to please men who are fruity
Who exalt women excessively thin.
Love queers, or loathe queers,
The solution is the same
Quit playing on your straight peers
This gay fashion game,
You've been going on for years
While straight men take the blame.
We need a minimum of BMI
That models must maintain
In order for them to qualify,
Instead of starving themselves in shame.
Magazine modeling, pageants, and lingerie,
Should really look for reference
Not to notions that are gay,
But to heterosexual preference.
"This woman looks like she belongs in “Pink Flamingos”."
Never watched the movie, but if it has anything to do with The Hilton Flamingo (which I doubt it does), I can totally see Gabrielle working as a cigarette lady in the casino. Her body is suitable enough for her to be a showgirl, but they always have to smile and this woman looks as if her face would crack in a million peices if she tried smiling with those lips of hers.
Oh, Erik. Lighten up. No one really believes this Chico dude visits your site. He's too busy shopping for more flashy yellow shirts with his cousin Ricky Martin.
I'm not too sure what you meant by your last sentence, but 34-24-34 are reasonably feminine measurements.
My point is, I know plenty of women who wear size 0 but are still curvy 'like a cola bottle.'
My friend has measurements of appx. 33-23-33, and although she's not obviously curvy, you can tell she has an hourglass figure when she's in a bikini and what not. She also wears a size 0, and even 00 at times.
Measurements of 33-23-33 and 36-26-36 are not that different at all. In fact, the one with the first set of measurements has a smaller WHR than the latter.
Woldn't you agree as well that even 'life-time heterosexual men' would find some masculinity in women as attractive?
Think about it. Many women find a little femininity in men as highly attractive. George Clooney, for example, and Ryan Philippe (not too sure about his name but the man who was married to Reese Witherspoon).
Erik,are you saying that the women who find these men attractive are not 'life-time heterosexual women'?
Oh, by the way Erik, do you respond to all emails that question you about the sender's femininity? Or are you just interested in women who want to send you nudes of themselves to post on your site? Maybe that is why you skipped my message. I sent photos but they were mostly of my face. I deleted my sent box so I no longer have the last message I sent. It was a while ago, mostly when I thought you had more crediblity in judging femininity.
I never said SHE was pastey, but the majority of the women in your attractive women section are. Either that, or they have uneven, blotchy skin.
And from the one time I briefly skimmed through some of your 'scientific' studies, they showed that high cheekbones and small lips were a sign of masculinity.
I know what feminine is when I see it, and this girl isn't it.
1. The purpose of marketing is to sell the product and make a profit - not to make people like the marketing. Whether homosexual designers are "excelling at marketing/selling" has nothing to do with whether "plenty of people dislike many aspects of how the industry markets its products". Naomi Wolf, author of "The Beauty Myth", is a perfect example of the fact that very often the people who hate fashion marketing the most absolutely refuse to stop buying the product. It's ridiculous to claim that designers who sell their clothes and make huge profits are not good at marketing just because many people don't "like" the marketing.
2. The typical person wishes to be well dressed according to the standards of his/her demographic: socioeconomic/regional/generational/urban vs suburban vs small town. The products of the fashion industry are marketed to the *niche market* for the particular product. Karl Lagerfeld does not care about the general public because the general public can't afford his clothes. You contradict yourself in admitting that high fashion is marketed to the elite and then claiming that the choice of the typical high-fashion model does not reflect the need to cater to the elite.
3. Marketing doesn't have to cater to the buyer's aesthetic preferences in order to make the buyer buy. Whether or not women who buy lingerie like the way the models look, they're buying anyway.
4. "Most women are not subconsciously/subliminally aroused by androgynous women; see the previous point" which was "most men and most women aesthetically judge women similarly."
Erik, I wrote about what causes women's AROUSAL - not women's AESTHETIC preferences. If you can't see the difference, then you don't realize that one of the basic differences between male and female sexuality is that men's arousal depends heavily on aesthetics and women's arousal is far less dependent on aesthetics. Humphrey Bogart was borderline ugly and far sexier than 90% of the handsome men I have seen.
Most heterosexual women may have an aesthetic preference for feminine women but they are subliminally aroused by androgynous women. Only lesbians, and not even all lesbians, are subliminally aroused by feminine women.
The secret of Victoria's Secret's success is that they choose models who turn straight women on.
Whipped honey: Here is why I am not scared of anything you think scares me.
1. Nonhetersoexual men are not entitled to dominate the fashion industry; one has to earn domination. I agree that the domination is due to the homosexual designers being good at designing, but not due to their excelling at marketing/selling. Plenty of people dislike many aspects of how the industry markets its products, especially the issue of very thin models. If one dominates a business and sells highly desirable items, then one doesn’t have to be good at marketing/selling.
I haven’t pretended to be a champion of women’s self-esteem.
2. The typical person wishes to be well dressed. The products of the fashion industry are marketed to the general public. High fashion caters to the elite, and I do not need to specifically mention that high-fashion merchandize marketing should aim to appease the elite since it is obvious that one markets to potential clients. The choice of the typical high-fashion model does not reflect the need to market to the elite.
3. Agreed that lingerie is sold to women. However, most men and most women aesthetically judge women similarly. In other words, catering to the central tendency of the aesthetic preferences of heterosexual women is the same as catering to the central tendency of the aesthetic preferences of heterosexual men.
4. Most women are not subconsciously/subliminally aroused by androgynous women; see the previous point.
Other points
I haven’t argued that I am primarily motivated by the health of excessively skinny models and the girls and women they influence. I am primarily motivated by aesthetic considerations. This site is aimed toward promoting feminine beauty.
I haven’t been criticizing broad shoulders, big rib cages and flattened backsides. It is necessary for me to point out these features in many models and beauty pageant contestants to bring attention to their masculinization.
I strongly disagree that no one would pay to see feminine beauty in clothes. This is easily disproven by pictures. This shall be the topic of a future article.
When describing feminine features, I haven’t argued that a short nose, petite height or tiny hands and tiny feet are feminine. Height is largely irrelevant to femininity, and femininity is characterized by a slightly shorter nose relative to face size and smaller hands and feet for a given height.
A sadomasochist orientation is an unambiguous, textbook example of a mental illness. I have previously run into sadomasochists defining mental illnesses in terms of a severe impairment or more obvious psychiatric conditions such as psychoses (colloquially referred to as lunacy or derangement). This is nonsense. There are plenty of non-psychotic mental illnesses and far from major impairment, some mental illnesses may even correspond to enhanced cognitive abilities.
In deciding what conditions constitute mental illnesses, one considers criteria such as statistical prevalence, nature of the condition as in most plausible origin, correlates such as comorbidity and whether the condition by itself poses a risk to the person who has it or others. A sadistic, masochistic or sadomasochistic orientation is uncommon, bizarre, apparently results from prenatal developmental disturbances, is accompanied by increased likelihood of psychiatric morbidity and brain abnormalities, occurs more frequently among people with other bizarre sexual interests, and by itself poses a risk to others (sadists), self (masochists) or both self and others (sadomasochist) regardless of whether the acts are consensual. Whereas any of these correlates by themselves wouldn’t classify the condition as a mental illness, taken together, there is no doubt that a sadistic/masochistic/sadomasochistic orientation is a mental illness. I have no problems acknowledging that people with such an orientation can be mentally lucid, emotionally stable, happy and even productive members of society, but they cannot be healthy because they are mentally ill.
I also have never stated that I believe homosexuals to be mentally ill. It is clear that psychiatric morbidity is much more common among homosexuals and bisexuals than among heterosexuals, but this does not make nonheterosexuals mentally ill.
I haven’t been saying that there will be an aesthetic disaster; there already is an aesthetic disaster.
You have misunderstood my aims. I do not wish for sexualized/glamour/fashion imagery of masculinized/androgynous women to disappear. I wish that there should be a mainstream outlet for feminine beauty appreciation. If there is a single major beauty pageant that focuses on feminine beauty, other beauty pageants can function like they do today for all I care. Similarly, I would like to see alternative fashion industries rather than the present one obliterated/transformed.
Der Wanderer: Danielle, “not from Twisty’s” and “whipped honey” are different people. The lowlife who has been bothering me with multiple aliases and foul comments is 8D, not these individuals.
Sarah: I don’t despise homosexuals. Blaming the culprits does not imply that one dislikes the entire community that the culprits belong to.
Danielle:
Quote:
“Karl Largerfeld often says one thing but then does something completely different.”
In other words, bro is being deceptive. Too bad some people fall for it.
Whereas Gemma could have voluntarily skipped Milan, judging by “fat” Gemma Ward above, it is certainly plausible that she was forced out for being “too fat.”
What do you mean that new Russian zombies feel the need to be rail thin? They have to be or else they will lose their jobs. Of course models have been becoming thinner for a while; it is the homosexuals making their presence in the industry more obvious. The issue with adolescent boys isn’t how they typically look since the homosexual designers obviously don’t like fatties. The issue is how boys in their early adolescence normally look. They are normally thin and gangly, and Lily Donaldson is certainly closer to such looks than the other two.
Not from Twisty’s: As far as women are concerned, in Western societies, there is greater stigma against obesity than against thinness. Obese white women have it worse than you, though given the much greater numbers of the obese, there are many scenarios where the obese will not be made fun of in their face.
It is interesting to hear that you have 20% body fat. This means that your musculoskeletal build is on the slight side, apart from your being leg long. Your growing taller past age 20 is also consistent with developing under below average estrogen levels.
If you wanted me to post something on naturally skinny women, then you should write an essay on your story and views, email it to me, and I will post it. It would help greatly if you also attach your pictures. If you are concerned about privacy, blot out/blur your face before sending the pictures or I will do it for you.
Who said anything about Heatherette being people’s bane?
Is it poor comprehension or are you a person who is sane?
It is high time you understand the problem, I certainly pray,
that the culprits are deviates euphemistically referred to as gay,
and their great sin is to standards for the fashion world carve,
namely, models who look like they have been forced to starve,
apart from being young and masculine, so that they function as toys
for the designers who prefer them to look like adolescent boys.
Saying “mentally ill designers” doesn’t paint them all with the same brush;
it doesn’t imply “designers are mentally ill”; you better learn this in a rush.
Der Wanderer: I agree that she has disproportionately large breasts, but wouldn’t you like to personally weigh each of her mammaries? I think she is a better choice than the woman she has replaced, and I will likely replace her with a better looking woman in the future.
Sarah: You should give up trying to judge facial femininity; it is a waste of your time. The woman is also tanned, so no point in bringing up pasty white complexions.
Danielle: I am not saying that this woman is suitable for lingerie modeling. Her breasts are too large.
What do I care who he is related to? What does it matter whether he is straight? He is not talking about women who are 34-24-34, but specifically about very thin high fashion-models in the neighborhood of these measurements.
LOL! You should not have enabled comments for this post Erik. Your poor taste in women is being called into question again. The woman you replaced actually looks better than this Gabrielle. How do you expect to compete with Victoria's Secret? All I can do is sit back and laugh at your delusions.
Sarah, I also think that Der Arschloch has some some of attraction to Erik. He certainly seems compelled to defend Erik's lame arguments to anyone who disagrees with them. His insults are genrally quite pathetic and his examples are irrelevant and useless but he tries. Trying but failing should count for something.
Der Wanderer, don't you get it by now? Erik is into freaky looking girls. The more disproportionate, the better. The more trollish, the better. The more retarded/inbred looking, the better.
Take a look at Sonia Blake. DAMN SHE'S FINE!!!! She's the next Marilyn Monroe.
Sarah: I have stated that slight masculinization in women will usually not be an aesthetic problem and is a correlate of their sexiness to men.
When it comes to face shape in men, studies have shown women's preferences ranging from slight femininity to above average masculinization; there is no clear find, but the consensus is that women generally prefer above average masculine physiques in men. So it does not follow that many women prefer a little femininity in men. Women least likely to prefer some level of facial femininity in men are those who are close to ovulation and the attractive ones. I know that there are some effeminate men who become heart throbs of millions of teenage girls/young women, but these women are mostly ordinary women/plain Janes, not the feminine and attractive ones (who prefer masculine men).
I have already told you that I respond to all emails if a reply is needed. I have responded to all queries regarding how feminine a woman is except a recent email that I haven’t gotten around to yet, but this woman is not you. I haven’t received any emails from you. I also don’t believe that you sent me your pictures for analysis.
Waena/Whipped honey: Once again, the fashion industry sells highly desirable items. Naomi Wolf needs to make herself presentable in high society, i.e., well dressed at the very least, and it will be most convenient for her to purchase designer clothing and hence patronize the industry she dislikes rather than try to stitch together good looking clothes herself. So if the homosexual designers can get feminists to purchase some of their products, you bet they don’t need special marketing/selling skills to target other customers. When they use models whose looks displease/fail to impress most people, then this is not an example of good marketing, but they don’t need to market well; their domination of the industry allows them to get away with it. In your third point, you have acknowledged that here are some scenarios where marketing need not cater to the customers’ aesthetic preferences, but this goes against your earlier implicit argument that the looks of fashion models reflect marketing considerations.
I am not contradicting myself by saying that high fashion is marketed to the elite but the choice of the typical high-fashion model does not reflect the preferences of the elite. What evidence is there that the elite prefer women in the more masculine range? Most studies that have assessed people’s preference regarding femininity in women have used college students as judges, a demographic that has higher than average socioeconomic status (SES), and these studies have not revealed a correlation of femininity preferences with SES.
Where is your evidence that women are subliminally aroused by androgynous women? How is it possible to “turn on straight women” by using women?
Don’t accuse me of faulty statistical analysis. If you have a background in science, then you should realize that a 3% deviation cannot just be dismissed as statistically irrelevant. The relevance is decided by the matter under consideration. In chaotic systems, a 3% deviation in initial conditions can result in a strikingly different outcome. If you were launching a rocket toward the moon, a 3% error in some calculations will make the rocket miss the moon by a distance greater than the moon’s diameter, and so on.
It is also interesting to note that in spite of an apparently decent background in science/statistics, you have interpreted a difference between a WHR of 0.68 and 0.71 as one of 3%. 0.71 is 4.4% higher than 0.68 (taking 0.68 as base). More importantly, you have to consider the range of WHRs found in women. For instance, you don’t see WHRs of 0.3. Nearly all young adult women will fit within a WHR range of 0.6 – 1.0. A WHR difference of 0.03 will be 7.5% of this range. 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 and standard deviation of 0.04 (example here), which would make a 0.3 WHR difference equal 0.75 standard deviations. Don’t you think a 0.75 S.D. difference matters?
I have explained the difference between the reported WHR of fashion and glamour models. High-fashion models are bound to have a low circumferential waist measurement as a result of their skinniness, but their smaller breasts means that they have broader rib cages for a given hip size, and a broader rib cage will horizontally stretch the waist in front view, which is important to an hourglass approximation. This is how glamour models and high-fashion models can look much more different than what a superficial examination of crude reported circumferential measurements suggests. If you look around this site, you will also encounter information on masculinization in many Playboy centerfolds, the source of the glamour models in the table. So Playboy is hardly a source of feminine beauty in the first place.
Is emaciation responsible for masculine looks? Look at this woman and ask yourself if she looks masculine. Your images of Christian Bale don’t help assess his masculinity. Even an effeminate men can develop large muscles by taking anabolic androgenic steroids. Skeletal proportions would be a clue, but your pictures don't help. Search for more of his pictures. Take a look at his skeletal proportions (shoulder width/hip width); he isn't masculine [among men]. The picture of Gemma Ward shown above is recent, whereas the one you pointed out is an earlier picture. Gemma Ward is in her early twenties presently but started out when she was 15. Her hips are bound to grow wider, but note her broad shoulders/broad rib cage and face; how is this feminine?
ERIK, PLEASE DO NOT TWIST MY WORDS
"A reader said that no one would pay to see feminine women in clothes."
What I said was, in the blog entry
Karl “models have skinny bones” Lagerfeld rejects three models for being too skinny!:
Most of your “Attractive Women” gallery are in that category of uniform, cloned loveliness, one face melting into the next. Their faces have no TRACTION. They are perfect for nude or semi-nude modeling, where bodies are everything and faces are just accessories. No one will ever pay to look at pictures of them fully dressed.
I said "No one will every pay to look at pictures of them fully dressed" about *most* of the women in your "Attractive Women" gallery, not even all the women in that gallery, let alone all feminine women!
"WHAT KIND OF WOMAN FIND OTHER WOMAN SEXY AT ALL?"
Arousal and attraction are two different things. Most women are attracted primarily or exclusively to men, yet even women who who have no desire for actual sexual contact with other women can still be aroused, either consciously or unconsciously, by looking at women.
Most women are primarily or exclusively attracted to masculinity, so most women feel subconscious, subliminal arousal when they look at attractive androgynous women, but not when they look at attractive feminine women.
This woman would have had a better shape had her breasts been proportional to her body. She has a beautiful waist-to-hip ratio. However, I do agree with those who say that the woman she replaced has a better looking face.
WHAT KIND OF WOMAN FIND OTHER WOMAN SEXY AT ALL?
Even if I would it would be in terms of wanting some sexy traits for myself,and those would never be androgynous.
BEAUTIFUL AND SEXY ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS TO WOMEN.
MOST WOMEN FIND MORE FEMININE WOMEN MORE BEAUTIFUL.
MOST WOMEN FIND MORE ANDROGYNOUS WOMEN SEXIER.
Straight men do not understand this because to straight men, beautiful = sexy.
Erik's Statistical Analysis is 100% Bullsh!t, One Correction
I should have written:
Healthy weight, feminine Gemma Ward in the RIGHT-hand photograph in the first set of photographs on this page, vs:
Of course, the lef-hand photograph in the first set of photographs on this page is Lily Donaldson looking like she's about to drop dead.
Erik's Statistical Analysis is 100% Bullsh!t
Sarah: Please do not do yourself the disservice of asking Erik to assess your feminity. Erik's self-proclaimed expertise on femininity is a charade dependent on one of the easiest tricks in data analysis chicanery: presenting minor deviations from the norm as if they were extremes.
I have been a semiconductor fabricator statistical process control analyst, so I know statistical extrapolation distortion when I see it. Anyone who works in data analysis and interprets data the way Erik does will very quickly get fired.
Erik's "science" consists of presenting the physical signs of female testosterone levels that are *moderately* higher than the mean and female estrogen levels that are *moderately* lower lower than the mean as proof of "masculinization". Look at the actual numbers in his data and you will find that the range of variation is small.
For example, on this page, he states:
"WHRs of 0.71 and 0.68 may not sound that different, but see the discussion of the data provided by Tovee et al. in Table 1 here."
If you follow the link on the word "here", there is no real explanation for why WHRs (waist-to-hip ratios) that are only 3 percentage points apart should be considered very different.
A variation of three percentage points from the mean is statistically irrelevant and WITHIN NORMAL RANGE. Almost every "masculinized" woman I have seen so far on this website is WITHIN NORMAL RANGE.
The only reason some, not all, of the "masculinized" fashion models on this website actually look masculine is that they are emaciated and severe malnourishment destroys the outward signs of secondary sex characteristics in both men and women.
Actor Christian Bale for his role in "The Machinist" starved his 6 foot, 1 and one quarter inch frame down to 120 pounds, and so he lost all muscle mass and looked girly:
Emaciated, effeminate Christian Bale
Healthy, masculine Christian Bale
Likewise, contrast Gemma Ward at different weights:
Healthy weight, feminine Gemma Ward in the left-hand photograph in the first set of photographs on this page, vs:
Excessively skinny, boyish Gemma Ward
Gemma Ward shows signs of hormonal masculinity, but only when her hormones are combined with excessively low body weight does she actually *look* overtly masculine. Erik is counting on you not to figure out the difference and therefore believe that a woman who is moderately hormonally masculine is MASCULINE.
In statistics this is called failing to control for variables, and it automatically renders the conclusions inaccurate and scientifically useless.
Take it from me as a former statistics professional who worked for IBM and Toshiba: Erik's numbers may be true for all I know, but Erik's interpretation of the MEANING of those numbers is 100% lies. And like most dishonest statisticians, Erik relies on excessive windbag wordiness (yes, every set of numbers really *needs* a whole frigging soliloquy of elaborate explanation) to make the reader weary of trying to follow his train of thought and hide the fact that he's talking out of his ass.
Some would rather doom females
To be starving, hungry creatures
Than observe the obvious details
Of masculine fashion model features.
Sex symbols of Sports Illustrated
Look like transvestites,
And Victoria's Secret must be possessed, right?
Because their models' beauty is overrated
By guys fooled by Photoshop, makeup and lights
Who the fashion world won't deign to give
A feminine aesthetic alternative.
Feminists have a lot of nerve
To blame straight men for these norms
"Heteropatriarchy" is demonized,
Though men prefer female forms
Adorned by curves,
Instead of masculinized.
Models are sexy? Sexy to whom?
Not to the exclusive straight guys in the room
Other explanations are ineffectual
Of course the source is homosexual.
Insecure women are dutiful
At starving themselves to be
What gay men, not straight men, see
As aesthetic and beautiful.
So these ladies eventually deserve
To know the nature of the type of beauty
They attempt to serve
(Hint: developmentally disturbed)
Before they lose that booty.
Though it's seemingly a feminist sin
To please straight men by looking feminine
And better to please men who are fruity
Who exalt women excessively thin.
Love queers, or loathe queers,
The solution is the same
Quit playing on your straight peers
This gay fashion game,
You've been going on for years
While straight men take the blame.
We need a minimum of BMI
That models must maintain
In order for them to qualify,
Instead of starving themselves in shame.
Magazine modeling, pageants, and lingerie,
Should really look for reference
Not to notions that are gay,
But to heterosexual preference.
"This woman looks like she belongs in “Pink Flamingos”."
Never watched the movie, but if it has anything to do with The Hilton Flamingo (which I doubt it does), I can totally see Gabrielle working as a cigarette lady in the casino. Her body is suitable enough for her to be a showgirl, but they always have to smile and this woman looks as if her face would crack in a million peices if she tried smiling with those lips of hers.
Plus, showgirls have to be somewhat attractive.
Oh, Erik. Lighten up. No one really believes this Chico dude visits your site. He's too busy shopping for more flashy yellow shirts with his cousin Ricky Martin.
I'm not too sure what you meant by your last sentence, but 34-24-34 are reasonably feminine measurements.
My point is, I know plenty of women who wear size 0 but are still curvy 'like a cola bottle.'
My friend has measurements of appx. 33-23-33, and although she's not obviously curvy, you can tell she has an hourglass figure when she's in a bikini and what not. She also wears a size 0, and even 00 at times.
Measurements of 33-23-33 and 36-26-36 are not that different at all. In fact, the one with the first set of measurements has a smaller WHR than the latter.
23/33 = appx. .69
26/36 = appx. .72
"Youth AIDS, GLAAD, Vienna Life Ball, The Hetrick Martin Institute, the Human Rights Campaign, etc."
What is wrong with trying to help those with AIDS and supporting human rights?
Woldn't you agree as well that even 'life-time heterosexual men' would find some masculinity in women as attractive?
Think about it. Many women find a little femininity in men as highly attractive. George Clooney, for example, and Ryan Philippe (not too sure about his name but the man who was married to Reese Witherspoon).
Erik,are you saying that the women who find these men attractive are not 'life-time heterosexual women'?
Oh, by the way Erik, do you respond to all emails that question you about the sender's femininity? Or are you just interested in women who want to send you nudes of themselves to post on your site? Maybe that is why you skipped my message. I sent photos but they were mostly of my face. I deleted my sent box so I no longer have the last message I sent. It was a while ago, mostly when I thought you had more crediblity in judging femininity.
I never said SHE was pastey, but the majority of the women in your attractive women section are. Either that, or they have uneven, blotchy skin.
And from the one time I briefly skimmed through some of your 'scientific' studies, they showed that high cheekbones and small lips were a sign of masculinity.
I know what feminine is when I see it, and this girl isn't it.
Erik, learn the basics of marketing
1. The purpose of marketing is to sell the product and make a profit - not to make people like the marketing. Whether homosexual designers are "excelling at marketing/selling" has nothing to do with whether "plenty of people dislike many aspects of how the industry markets its products". Naomi Wolf, author of "The Beauty Myth", is a perfect example of the fact that very often the people who hate fashion marketing the most absolutely refuse to stop buying the product. It's ridiculous to claim that designers who sell their clothes and make huge profits are not good at marketing just because many people don't "like" the marketing.
2. The typical person wishes to be well dressed according to the standards of his/her demographic: socioeconomic/regional/generational/urban vs suburban vs small town. The products of the fashion industry are marketed to the *niche market* for the particular product. Karl Lagerfeld does not care about the general public because the general public can't afford his clothes. You contradict yourself in admitting that high fashion is marketed to the elite and then claiming that the choice of the typical high-fashion model does not reflect the need to cater to the elite.
3. Marketing doesn't have to cater to the buyer's aesthetic preferences in order to make the buyer buy. Whether or not women who buy lingerie like the way the models look, they're buying anyway.
4. "Most women are not subconsciously/subliminally aroused by androgynous women; see the previous point" which was "most men and most women aesthetically judge women similarly."
Erik, I wrote about what causes women's AROUSAL - not women's AESTHETIC preferences. If you can't see the difference, then you don't realize that one of the basic differences between male and female sexuality is that men's arousal depends heavily on aesthetics and women's arousal is far less dependent on aesthetics. Humphrey Bogart was borderline ugly and far sexier than 90% of the handsome men I have seen.
Most heterosexual women may have an aesthetic preference for feminine women but they are subliminally aroused by androgynous women. Only lesbians, and not even all lesbians, are subliminally aroused by feminine women.
The secret of Victoria's Secret's success is that they choose models who turn straight women on.
Whipped honey: Here is why I am not scared of anything you think scares me.
1. Nonhetersoexual men are not entitled to dominate the fashion industry; one has to earn domination. I agree that the domination is due to the homosexual designers being good at designing, but not due to their excelling at marketing/selling. Plenty of people dislike many aspects of how the industry markets its products, especially the issue of very thin models. If one dominates a business and sells highly desirable items, then one doesn’t have to be good at marketing/selling.
I haven’t pretended to be a champion of women’s self-esteem.
2. The typical person wishes to be well dressed. The products of the fashion industry are marketed to the general public. High fashion caters to the elite, and I do not need to specifically mention that high-fashion merchandize marketing should aim to appease the elite since it is obvious that one markets to potential clients. The choice of the typical high-fashion model does not reflect the need to market to the elite.
3. Agreed that lingerie is sold to women. However, most men and most women aesthetically judge women similarly. In other words, catering to the central tendency of the aesthetic preferences of heterosexual women is the same as catering to the central tendency of the aesthetic preferences of heterosexual men.
4. Most women are not subconsciously/subliminally aroused by androgynous women; see the previous point.
Other points
I haven’t argued that I am primarily motivated by the health of excessively skinny models and the girls and women they influence. I am primarily motivated by aesthetic considerations. This site is aimed toward promoting feminine beauty.
I haven’t been criticizing broad shoulders, big rib cages and flattened backsides. It is necessary for me to point out these features in many models and beauty pageant contestants to bring attention to their masculinization.
I strongly disagree that no one would pay to see feminine beauty in clothes. This is easily disproven by pictures. This shall be the topic of a future article.
When describing feminine features, I haven’t argued that a short nose, petite height or tiny hands and tiny feet are feminine. Height is largely irrelevant to femininity, and femininity is characterized by a slightly shorter nose relative to face size and smaller hands and feet for a given height.
I have explained that this site is targeting people of European ancestry, and hence the focus on white women. My argument isn’t that non-white women are less attractive; see a detailed explanation of why there are no non-white women in the attractive women section.
A sadomasochist orientation is an unambiguous, textbook example of a mental illness. I have previously run into sadomasochists defining mental illnesses in terms of a severe impairment or more obvious psychiatric conditions such as psychoses (colloquially referred to as lunacy or derangement). This is nonsense. There are plenty of non-psychotic mental illnesses and far from major impairment, some mental illnesses may even correspond to enhanced cognitive abilities.
In deciding what conditions constitute mental illnesses, one considers criteria such as statistical prevalence, nature of the condition as in most plausible origin, correlates such as comorbidity and whether the condition by itself poses a risk to the person who has it or others. A sadistic, masochistic or sadomasochistic orientation is uncommon, bizarre, apparently results from prenatal developmental disturbances, is accompanied by increased likelihood of psychiatric morbidity and brain abnormalities, occurs more frequently among people with other bizarre sexual interests, and by itself poses a risk to others (sadists), self (masochists) or both self and others (sadomasochist) regardless of whether the acts are consensual. Whereas any of these correlates by themselves wouldn’t classify the condition as a mental illness, taken together, there is no doubt that a sadistic/masochistic/sadomasochistic orientation is a mental illness. I have no problems acknowledging that people with such an orientation can be mentally lucid, emotionally stable, happy and even productive members of society, but they cannot be healthy because they are mentally ill.
I also have never stated that I believe homosexuals to be mentally ill. It is clear that psychiatric morbidity is much more common among homosexuals and bisexuals than among heterosexuals, but this does not make nonheterosexuals mentally ill.
I haven’t been saying that there will be an aesthetic disaster; there already is an aesthetic disaster.
You have misunderstood my aims. I do not wish for sexualized/glamour/fashion imagery of masculinized/androgynous women to disappear. I wish that there should be a mainstream outlet for feminine beauty appreciation. If there is a single major beauty pageant that focuses on feminine beauty, other beauty pageants can function like they do today for all I care. Similarly, I would like to see alternative fashion industries rather than the present one obliterated/transformed.
Der Wanderer: Danielle, “not from Twisty’s” and “whipped honey” are different people. The lowlife who has been bothering me with multiple aliases and foul comments is 8D, not these individuals.
Sarah: I don’t despise homosexuals. Blaming the culprits does not imply that one dislikes the entire community that the culprits belong to.
Danielle:
Quote:
In other words, bro is being deceptive. Too bad some people fall for it.
Whereas Gemma could have voluntarily skipped Milan, judging by “fat” Gemma Ward above, it is certainly plausible that she was forced out for being “too fat.”
What do you mean that new Russian zombies feel the need to be rail thin? They have to be or else they will lose their jobs. Of course models have been becoming thinner for a while; it is the homosexuals making their presence in the industry more obvious. The issue with adolescent boys isn’t how they typically look since the homosexual designers obviously don’t like fatties. The issue is how boys in their early adolescence normally look. They are normally thin and gangly, and Lily Donaldson is certainly closer to such looks than the other two.
Not from Twisty’s: As far as women are concerned, in Western societies, there is greater stigma against obesity than against thinness. Obese white women have it worse than you, though given the much greater numbers of the obese, there are many scenarios where the obese will not be made fun of in their face.
It is interesting to hear that you have 20% body fat. This means that your musculoskeletal build is on the slight side, apart from your being leg long. Your growing taller past age 20 is also consistent with developing under below average estrogen levels.
If you wanted me to post something on naturally skinny women, then you should write an essay on your story and views, email it to me, and I will post it. It would help greatly if you also attach your pictures. If you are concerned about privacy, blot out/blur your face before sending the pictures or I will do it for you.
Who said anything about Heatherette being people’s bane?
Is it poor comprehension or are you a person who is sane?
It is high time you understand the problem, I certainly pray,
that the culprits are deviates euphemistically referred to as gay,
and their great sin is to standards for the fashion world carve,
namely, models who look like they have been forced to starve,
apart from being young and masculine, so that they function as toys
for the designers who prefer them to look like adolescent boys.
Saying “mentally ill designers” doesn’t paint them all with the same brush;
it doesn’t imply “designers are mentally ill”; you better learn this in a rush.
Der Wanderer: I agree that she has disproportionately large breasts, but wouldn’t you like to personally weigh each of her mammaries? I think she is a better choice than the woman she has replaced, and I will likely replace her with a better looking woman in the future.
Sarah: You should give up trying to judge facial femininity; it is a waste of your time. The woman is also tanned, so no point in bringing up pasty white complexions.
Danielle: I am not saying that this woman is suitable for lingerie modeling. Her breasts are too large.
Do not impersonate others.
What do I care who he is related to? What does it matter whether he is straight? He is not talking about women who are 34-24-34, but specifically about very thin high fashion-models in the neighborhood of these measurements.
LOL! You should not have enabled comments for this post Erik. Your poor taste in women is being called into question again. The woman you replaced actually looks better than this Gabrielle. How do you expect to compete with Victoria's Secret? All I can do is sit back and laugh at your delusions.
Sarah, I also think that Der Arschloch has some some of attraction to Erik. He certainly seems compelled to defend Erik's lame arguments to anyone who disagrees with them. His insults are genrally quite pathetic and his examples are irrelevant and useless but he tries. Trying but failing should count for something.
This woman looks like she belongs in "Pink Flamingos".
Well I'm a hereosexual male, but I just love pretty TS males.. seeing them parading in sexy underwear is a real big turn on !
Der Wanderer, don't you get it by now? Erik is into freaky looking girls. The more disproportionate, the better. The more trollish, the better. The more retarded/inbred looking, the better.
Take a look at Sonia Blake. DAMN SHE'S FINE!!!! She's the next Marilyn Monroe.
Pages