> [...] the images have left-right shape symmetry, but not left-right lighting symmetry.
Must be something like that casue I opened those images with PhotoShop and they seem to be symmetrical indeed.
I assumed that the lighting conditions remained the same when rendering the models.
Mind this: not only the eyes but even the eye sockets protrude/sink.
> Anyway, left-right symmetry is not an issue in Fig. 5 and neither is viewing them cross-eyed.
Of course not.
That's a little trick I use to spot small differences between almost identical pictures.
It works wonders with those "spot-the-7-differences" kind of games.
Eric, you are so obviously racist though you vehemently deny it. This is a racist website. Your masculine vs. feminine page is disgusting and creepy. You appear to be arguing that non-whites should not compete in beauty pageants with whites because their physical features are too different. Your argument is bullshit because the sole purpose of those lame ass beauty pageants is not to "pick the hottest piece of ass." Beauty Pageants usually involve "talent" competitions.
The images you used to compare white ad non-white physical features are also weird and insulting. You obviously took the time to find fuzzy, black and white pictures of tribal women and compared them to modern pictures of white glamour models. You could have found black glamour models for your first page just as easily. Why couldn't you have compared those tribal women to some mug shots? You can see the faces clearer in mug shots and they illustrate average white features perfectly.
We both know why you wouldn't even put up pictures of average white women. You wanted to be insulting just like you are insulting when you ignore Mexico, central and south america and the Caribbean in your definition of the western world. You are a white supremacist and your site sucks.
As for "brutalization," I don't see any in these particular images.
When I say brutalization I am referring to the Dolce & Gabbana ad. The poses suggest that a rape or a gang rape is about to take place.
The high level of masculine features in fashion models is not a “non-issue.” It shows that gay fashion designers are oppressing women in a way that is unsanctioned by the heterosexual men who supposedly support “hetero-patriarchy.” It also shows that it’s possible for gay people to oppress straight people.
These images aren't soley sponsered by gay men and they are certainly sanctioned by straight men. Straight, white men own most of the major fashion labels. Christian Dior and Louis Vuitton are owned by rich, straight, white male Bernard Arnault. Straight, white male Francois Pinault owns Gucci, Yves Saint Laurent, Bogetta Veneta, Alexander Mcqueen and Stella McCartney. Tom Ford partnered up with straight, white male Domenico De Sole in order to start the Tom Ford label. I gaurentee that most of the designers' financial backers are straight, white men.
These men have the power to hire and fire or withdraw their support from these prominent gay designers and appoint designers who promote "feminine" beauty. They provide the resources that these designers use to "promote their aesthetic." They are just as responsible for the message high fashion gives to women as the designers are. It would be incorrect for you or Eric to suggest that straight men have no hand in this.
I have two problems with your explanation here. First, if rich, straight white men are really so powerful as you say, powerful enough that they don’t need the men’s rights movement, they why do they even have to care about being racist, sexist, or classist? Why can’t they just continue in their evil, oppressive ways?
The richest men in the world are business men not dictators. They are much more powerful than 99.99% of individuals but they still rely on consumers to buy their products and make them richer. They don't want to be perceived in a way that may hurt their ability to make money.
The second problem is that you are assuming that all actions by rich straight white men in the favor of minorities must be putting on an act. You have supplied no evidence for this explanation, and you can use it to dismiss any positive rich straight white male behavior as self-serving.
I never assumed that all the actions by straight, rich white men were self serving. I am sure that some of the actions were carried out with pure intentions. I just think it is ridiculous to suggest that these men are being oppressed by feminists or minorities in any way. I was pointing out some reasons why some of these men institute quotas.
Let me get this straight: when men work, and sacrifice their time with their children, their health, and sometimes even their lives, for women… it is not only sexist, but just as sexist as brutalizing them? In your wacky worldview, it is “just as sexist” for the men about the HMS Birkenhead to stay on a sinking ship while loading the women and children onto the lifeboats, as it would be for a group of men to gang-rape women. It’s sexist to someone, certainly, but that someone is not women.
Wow you are certainly using some extreme examples there. HMS Birkenhead situations don't occur everyday and I certainly don't think that giving yur life for a woman is on par with gang rape.
Yes, it is misogynistic to view women as helpless and perpetually in need of protection. But let’s not pretend that in many circumstances, this view doesn’t benefit women at the cost of men. (Which would mean that it’s possible to be sexist to both men and women at the same time, another notion that feminists have a lot of trouble comprehending.)
I have read a few feminist passages that state that the patriarchy hurts both men and women and limits the potential of both groups. Its annoying to see people treat feminists like a monolith when they are anything but. People who call themselves feminists have widely differing views and it is foolish of you to act like you know what they all have trouble comprehending.
Another example is that in the context of genocide, women (though sometimes brutalized and raped) are often spared, while the men are simply murdered in large numbers. In the Srebrenica massacre in Kosovo where 7-8 thousand were killed, the U.N. peacekeepers had evacuated as many women as possible, while leaving the men behind to die at the hands of the Serbs. Were the U.N. peacekeepers being sexist to the women of Srebrenica, or to the men?
Another extreme example! I don't see how this contradicts my statement that seeing women as helpless fawns is just as problamatic as seeing them as evil. These men, who were the sons, fathers and brothers of these women were left to die because they were men and that isnt problamatic?
The point is that the existence of affirmative action is counter-evidence to the claim that white men are “the money and the law.” If Joe White Guy gets denied a job in favor of a less qualified minority, how is he “the money and the law?” I think what you mean to argue is that the people who are “the money and the law” are disproportionately white and male, which is true (though that law isn’t always used to the advantage of their class, such as with sexual harassment law). It is not rich white men who have to pay the price of affirmative action: poor and middle-class whites pay it for them.
This isnt counter-evidence at all. You agreed that white men are overrepresented among the wealty and politically powerful. I was not suggesting that all white men are equally powerful or all have equal status. The average white male isnt as powerful as the average billionaire and I never suggested nor do I believe that they have to "pay the price" of affirative action.
Okay. I am a heterosexual male, and if believing Alessandra is more attractive than your "more feminine" models is in fact wrong than I don't want to be right. I'd sell my soul to be with Alessandra. THAT'S how beautiful she is. You can say VS fashion models are masculine all you want but many men are still going to say they are extremely attractive.
I have come to the conclusion that you only find predominantly white voluptuous woman attractive and everyone else unappealing in every way. I Also find this site quite shallow. You actually went as far as describing Alessandra as "heterosexual male repellant." In no way is she repelling to me I can tell you that. I'd PAY to get near her.
What is the purpose of this site anyway? To describe your ideal woman? To get society to conform to your ideal womans looks? The only legitimate purpose would be to help women feel good about themselves. Which it fails to do, because this site just like society is telling women what to look like, not to embrace themselves for who they are. I can tell you're an intelligent person, so you should know that every man has their own idea of "feminine beauty." There is no single women deemed "perfection" by all men and never will be. Just like you and I have conflictions of who is beautiful and who is not. Some men like their woman tall, some like them short etc, and it's always going to be that way.
You pick on fashion models a lot, and it seems you feel they are destroying the world somehow. They are not, they are merely represenatives of the typical/average male fantasy woman in a given society. That is why they are paid millions of dollars, and your "more feminine" models are not.
I fail to see a legitimate purpose in this site. And yes I saw the "discrimination against unattractive women" page, but the rest of this site just makes that page seem hypocriticale.
I feel that many feel the most attractive would be 1 and 8 based not on how feminine but on how physically fit. A woman that looks physically fit will automatically look the most attractive. Different ethnic groups feel that there are different indications of health and so different variations of attractiveness.
Also, the woman deemed as "feminine" were evaluated at my local high school and college as "unattractive" in general while some "masculine" woman were ranked higher. I think the "masculine" woman are more attractive because they are healthier and not for being masculine.
This article completely disproves your entire site on what is deemed attractive to heterosexual males. As a true scientific researcher, I advise that you shouldn't make starkingly broad generalizations without scientific studies or evidence to back you up. Also, it's not a good idea to refer to yourself as a reference--that's just hearsay in the scientific world. Although, you make a convincing attempt at it with supporting references, it's nearly laughable.
The real psychology is that it's hard for you to come to grips with the truth of the fallacy of your site because you have obviously devoted a lot of time to this theory. And I expect that you will continue to do so. Just as the stubborn as the 2004 Bush voters who maintain their support for him. The misconception of your site results from clearly incorrect reasoning. Credit must be given, however, for bringing up a rather interesting, yet false, hypothesis. Thanks for stimulating my mind for a moment.
Eyes Can't Resist Beautiful People The study is detailed in the September issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
Whether we’re looking for someone to date or sizing up a potential rival, our eyes irresistibly lock on to good-looking people, a new study finds.
Participants, all heterosexual men and women, fixated on highly attractive people within the first half-second of seeing them. Single folks ogled the opposite sex, of course. But those in committed relationships more often eyed beautiful people of the same sex.
“If we’re interested in finding a mate, our attention gets quickly and automatically stuck on attractive members of the opposite sex,” explained study leader Jon Maner of Florida State University. “If we’re jealous and worried about our partner cheating on us, attention gets quickly and automatically stuck on attractive people of our own sex because they are our competitors.”
Maner's research is based on the idea that evolution has primed our brains to subconsciously latch on to signs of physical attractiveness in others, both to find a mate and to guard him or her from potential competitors.
But this evolutionary trick is not without potential romantic peril. Even some people in committed relationships had trouble tearing their eyes away from attractive members of the opposite sex. On the other hand, fixating on attractive people of the same sex as rivals could contribute to feelings of insecurity.
Maner found that men prone to jealousy kept a close eye on attractive potential rivals.
“When it comes to concerns about infidelity, men are very attentive to highly attractive guys because presumably their wives or girlfriends may be too,” he said.
Maner's experiments, which flashed pictures of attractive men and women and average-looking men and women in front of participants and measured the time it took to shift their attention away from the image, surprisingly showed little difference between the sexes.
“Women paid just as much attention to men as men did to women,” Maner said.
____________________________________________________
Support article below, implies "masculinized" characteristics based on their simplicities compared to feminized characteristics (which in the plastic surgery world are more complex) are preferred among most people.
Beauty Boils Down to a Simple Average
By Sara Goudarzi, LiveScience Staff Writer
posted: 28 September 2006 08:35 am ET
Johnny Depp may be easy on the eyes, but in reality he is just easy on the mind, a new study suggests.
While eyes are the vehicles for receiving visual images, the brain decides how attractive those images are. Attractiveness appears to be related to how easy you can wrap your brain around a face.
"A stimulus becomes attractive if it falls into the average of what you've seen and is therefore simple for your brain to process," said study author Piotr Winkielman, of the University of California, San Diego. "In our experiments, we show that we can make an arbitrary pattern likeable just by preparing the mind to recognize it quickly."
The average effect
Often times, we are shocked when someone who appears quite average is deemed beautiful by society. This phenomenon, known as the beauty-in-averageness effect, was illustrated by previous research in which a composite of 16 faces—essentially an average of all those faces—was deemed more favorable than any of those faces individually.
Prototypes are easy for the brain to process as measured by the speed with which people are able to characterize what they're looking at, the researchers suggest in the current issue of the journal Psychological Science.
"What you like is a function of what your mind has been trained on," Winkielman said.
Why the typical rule
An explanation behind why the average beauty gets a second look is that averageness is a sign of health and fitness—a quality that attracts the opposite sex for successful breeding. Unusually protuberant eyes might be a clue to disease, for example—and so is a kind of shorthand for the value of a potential mate, the researchers said.
But this explanation fails when it comes to inanimate objects or animals of other species that provide no mating potential for humans.
Winkielman and colleagues set up an experiment in which they used objects free of reproductive benefits: dots and geometric patterns. They prepared each participant's brain by getting them used to a prototype and then asked them to rate variations of the same pattern.
"As predicted, participants categorized patterns more quickly and judged them as more attractive when the patterns were closer to their respective prototypes," the researchers write. "Critically, the less time it took participants to classify a pattern, the more attractive they judged it."
The researchers repeated the experiment but this time hooked up electrodes to the faces of the participants to detect if they smiled or frowned when they saw the images. Once again, images that were similar to the prototypes induced a more positive response.
"The mental mechanism appears to be extremely simple: facilitate processing of certain objects and they ring a louder bell," Winkielman said. "This parsimonious explanation accounts for cultural differences in beauty—and historical differences in beauty as well—because beauty basically depends on what you've been exposed to and what is therefore easy on your mind."
Karolina is a tall model. Most tall women have large feet. Its perfectly natural and normal for tall people to have long limbs and large feet and hands.
Narrow shoulders are NOT attractive on anyone and they arent presentable on models who need to look skinny. Broader shoulders look more balanced on someone who has wide hips. If Karolina had narrower shoulders she would look more bottom heavy. Look at tall, skinny Tiiu Kuik.
She looks very hippy because of her body structure.
You keep saying that Karolina's ass is "flattened" when its only small. She is a thin white woman. What kind of ass do you want her to have? Most white girls have butts that expand horizontally not outward.
First off, I respect the amount of time and energy you have put into your research, particularly the effects of estrogens and androgens on facial and body development. I have heard about the ideal WHR indicating high fertility and its evolutionary significance in being attractive to men. However, I think some of your conclusions are a bit off.
Most men agree that fashion models are too skinny for their tastes (runway models in particular) and already appreciate curvy women. However, most of the women under the attractive women section may have feminine, attractive bodies, but their faces look very young. Facially, high fashion models may lean towards the adolescent boy look as you say, but the feminine examples you have provided look like adolescent girls (maybe some of them are, but I assume none are under 18 for legal purposes). Perhaps a better conclusion is that the kind of men you call lifelong-specific heterosexuals are actually inclined to pedophilia? In evolutionary terms, being attracted to slightly immature females wouldn't be a complete disadvantage, so it makes sense. I am not trying to flame you as a lot of people have, but I have consulted several male friends and gotten this response.
It also needs to be stated that in the modeling industry, there are plenty of attractive applicants and only the ones who stand out are going to get high end contracts; modeling isn't just about being attractive, a model must also stand apart from the crowd and many VS models do just that. This goes hand in hand with mens' apparent preference for exotic looks.
Erik you wrote the line "anya is feminine but not extremely feminine because her breasts are not big enough. An extremely feminien woman cannot have a below average feminine appearance with respect to any important aspect relevent to a feminine appearance" Does this mean a woman has to have huge breasts as they are percieved as feminine in order to be classed as extrememly feminine? as that is a point you argue against earlier with anna song or do you mean that a extrememly feminine woman has to have at least one physical feature to the extreme that is percieved as feminine in order to be classed as extremely feminine?
Erik said: If you believe that the masculinity of fashion models is related to women increasingly participating in formerly male-dominated jobs, then you need to look at video game female characters. What is more stereotypically masculine than combat? These female characters kick butt and are often dressed to kill, but they are typically very feminine looking. I am a great fan of women shown with swords, knives, guns and futuristic weapons (example), and these images cannot be beaten in my opinion if the women look very feminine.
A good example is the Dead or Alive series. Unfortunately, when they made the movie, they chose actresses who were less feminine and cute than the women of the game (of course the images in the game are an unrealistic ideal, but the actresses chosen weren't even in the right direction to approach the ideal).
well, they are not too short, when thin and proportionate, petite girls look even better and so do clothes on such mannequins. My observation is not uncommon and is patent, when people are not brainwashed with reccuring phrases.
you can see models that usually work in italy on this site: whynotmodels.com and click "in town".that agency is one of the most important in Italy and if you go out in Milan you can see very often models like them.The models I saw in the street are similar to the models(and you can see very often also models of that agency in the centre of Milan)of that agency.sometimes I thinck that the agencies don't tell the troth about the mesureaments of their models, the models are shorter than in the composites...ex:laetitia casta in the composite is 171 cm but she's 164 cm tall...
5'5 is very short to be model...I didn't see models short like devon aoky...but the majority I saw is 172 to 176 cm ...I see also models 185 cm tall but they are not the majority...
Monica has the better body but her face is less symmetric then elle's. Also Elle as well as other high fashion models tend to have a more "hard" look while this Monica exhibits a "soft" look. That is to say a bit more toned body.
I think another good comparison would be Adriana Sage vs. Adriana Lima. Porn career aside just looking at Ms. Sage you can tell she stands out compared to most women considered beautiful, but she's no Victoria Secrets model! At best a Hollywood starlet (based on looks alone).
> [...] the images have left-right shape symmetry, but not left-right lighting symmetry.
Must be something like that casue I opened those images with PhotoShop and they seem to be symmetrical indeed.
I assumed that the lighting conditions remained the same when rendering the models.
Mind this: not only the eyes but even the eye sockets protrude/sink.
> Anyway, left-right symmetry is not an issue in Fig. 5 and neither is viewing them cross-eyed.
Of course not.
That's a little trick I use to spot small differences between almost identical pictures.
It works wonders with those "spot-the-7-differences" kind of games.
Greets.
Eric, you are so obviously racist though you vehemently deny it. This is a racist website. Your masculine vs. feminine page is disgusting and creepy. You appear to be arguing that non-whites should not compete in beauty pageants with whites because their physical features are too different. Your argument is bullshit because the sole purpose of those lame ass beauty pageants is not to "pick the hottest piece of ass." Beauty Pageants usually involve "talent" competitions.
The images you used to compare white ad non-white physical features are also weird and insulting. You obviously took the time to find fuzzy, black and white pictures of tribal women and compared them to modern pictures of white glamour models. You could have found black glamour models for your first page just as easily. Why couldn't you have compared those tribal women to some mug shots? You can see the faces clearer in mug shots and they illustrate average white features perfectly.
We both know why you wouldn't even put up pictures of average white women. You wanted to be insulting just like you are insulting when you ignore Mexico, central and south america and the Caribbean in your definition of the western world. You are a white supremacist and your site sucks.
As for "brutalization," I don't see any in these particular images.
When I say brutalization I am referring to the Dolce & Gabbana ad. The poses suggest that a rape or a gang rape is about to take place.
The high level of masculine features in fashion models is not a “non-issue.” It shows that gay fashion designers are oppressing women in a way that is unsanctioned by the heterosexual men who supposedly support “hetero-patriarchy.” It also shows that it’s possible for gay people to oppress straight people.
These images aren't soley sponsered by gay men and they are certainly sanctioned by straight men. Straight, white men own most of the major fashion labels. Christian Dior and Louis Vuitton are owned by rich, straight, white male Bernard Arnault. Straight, white male Francois Pinault owns Gucci, Yves Saint Laurent, Bogetta Veneta, Alexander Mcqueen and Stella McCartney. Tom Ford partnered up with straight, white male Domenico De Sole in order to start the Tom Ford label. I gaurentee that most of the designers' financial backers are straight, white men.
These men have the power to hire and fire or withdraw their support from these prominent gay designers and appoint designers who promote "feminine" beauty. They provide the resources that these designers use to "promote their aesthetic." They are just as responsible for the message high fashion gives to women as the designers are. It would be incorrect for you or Eric to suggest that straight men have no hand in this.
I have two problems with your explanation here. First, if rich, straight white men are really so powerful as you say, powerful enough that they don’t need the men’s rights movement, they why do they even have to care about being racist, sexist, or classist? Why can’t they just continue in their evil, oppressive ways?
The richest men in the world are business men not dictators. They are much more powerful than 99.99% of individuals but they still rely on consumers to buy their products and make them richer. They don't want to be perceived in a way that may hurt their ability to make money.
The second problem is that you are assuming that all actions by rich straight white men in the favor of minorities must be putting on an act. You have supplied no evidence for this explanation, and you can use it to dismiss any positive rich straight white male behavior as self-serving.
I never assumed that all the actions by straight, rich white men were self serving. I am sure that some of the actions were carried out with pure intentions. I just think it is ridiculous to suggest that these men are being oppressed by feminists or minorities in any way. I was pointing out some reasons why some of these men institute quotas.
Let me get this straight: when men work, and sacrifice their time with their children, their health, and sometimes even their lives, for women… it is not only sexist, but just as sexist as brutalizing them? In your wacky worldview, it is “just as sexist” for the men about the HMS Birkenhead to stay on a sinking ship while loading the women and children onto the lifeboats, as it would be for a group of men to gang-rape women. It’s sexist to someone, certainly, but that someone is not women.
Wow you are certainly using some extreme examples there. HMS Birkenhead situations don't occur everyday and I certainly don't think that giving yur life for a woman is on par with gang rape.
Yes, it is misogynistic to view women as helpless and perpetually in need of protection. But let’s not pretend that in many circumstances, this view doesn’t benefit women at the cost of men. (Which would mean that it’s possible to be sexist to both men and women at the same time, another notion that feminists have a lot of trouble comprehending.)
I have read a few feminist passages that state that the patriarchy hurts both men and women and limits the potential of both groups. Its annoying to see people treat feminists like a monolith when they are anything but. People who call themselves feminists have widely differing views and it is foolish of you to act like you know what they all have trouble comprehending.
Another example is that in the context of genocide, women (though sometimes brutalized and raped) are often spared, while the men are simply murdered in large numbers. In the Srebrenica massacre in Kosovo where 7-8 thousand were killed, the U.N. peacekeepers had evacuated as many women as possible, while leaving the men behind to die at the hands of the Serbs. Were the U.N. peacekeepers being sexist to the women of Srebrenica, or to the men?
Another extreme example! I don't see how this contradicts my statement that seeing women as helpless fawns is just as problamatic as seeing them as evil. These men, who were the sons, fathers and brothers of these women were left to die because they were men and that isnt problamatic?
The point is that the existence of affirmative action is counter-evidence to the claim that white men are “the money and the law.” If Joe White Guy gets denied a job in favor of a less qualified minority, how is he “the money and the law?” I think what you mean to argue is that the people who are “the money and the law” are disproportionately white and male, which is true (though that law isn’t always used to the advantage of their class, such as with sexual harassment law). It is not rich white men who have to pay the price of affirmative action: poor and middle-class whites pay it for them.
This isnt counter-evidence at all. You agreed that white men are overrepresented among the wealty and politically powerful. I was not suggesting that all white men are equally powerful or all have equal status. The average white male isnt as powerful as the average billionaire and I never suggested nor do I believe that they have to "pay the price" of affirative action.
> You actually went as far as describing Alessandra as “heterosexual male repellant.
LEAVE ALE ALONE !!! :(
erik, what do you think about models like
claudia schiffer and helena christenson? how feminine or masculine do you find them?
erik how feminine is cintia dicker?
PAST HER PRIME?
UR PAST UR PRIME
OH WAIT, U NEEER HAD ONE YOU UGLY WHORE CRACKA
sorry but you shouldn't post things like "don't click here unless you are 18"
Okay. I am a heterosexual male, and if believing Alessandra is more attractive than your "more feminine" models is in fact wrong than I don't want to be right. I'd sell my soul to be with Alessandra. THAT'S how beautiful she is. You can say VS fashion models are masculine all you want but many men are still going to say they are extremely attractive.
I have come to the conclusion that you only find predominantly white voluptuous woman attractive and everyone else unappealing in every way. I Also find this site quite shallow. You actually went as far as describing Alessandra as "heterosexual male repellant." In no way is she repelling to me I can tell you that. I'd PAY to get near her.
What is the purpose of this site anyway? To describe your ideal woman? To get society to conform to your ideal womans looks? The only legitimate purpose would be to help women feel good about themselves. Which it fails to do, because this site just like society is telling women what to look like, not to embrace themselves for who they are. I can tell you're an intelligent person, so you should know that every man has their own idea of "feminine beauty." There is no single women deemed "perfection" by all men and never will be. Just like you and I have conflictions of who is beautiful and who is not. Some men like their woman tall, some like them short etc, and it's always going to be that way.
You pick on fashion models a lot, and it seems you feel they are destroying the world somehow. They are not, they are merely represenatives of the typical/average male fantasy woman in a given society. That is why they are paid millions of dollars, and your "more feminine" models are not.
I fail to see a legitimate purpose in this site. And yes I saw the "discrimination against unattractive women" page, but the rest of this site just makes that page seem hypocriticale.
I feel that many feel the most attractive would be 1 and 8 based not on how feminine but on how physically fit. A woman that looks physically fit will automatically look the most attractive. Different ethnic groups feel that there are different indications of health and so different variations of attractiveness.
Also, the woman deemed as "feminine" were evaluated at my local high school and college as "unattractive" in general while some "masculine" woman were ranked higher. I think the "masculine" woman are more attractive because they are healthier and not for being masculine.
Erik, I sent you a couple of emails from internetchum @ yahoo . com, it's been about 4 days since then- could you get back to me?
Eirk--
This article completely disproves your entire site on what is deemed attractive to heterosexual males. As a true scientific researcher, I advise that you shouldn't make starkingly broad generalizations without scientific studies or evidence to back you up. Also, it's not a good idea to refer to yourself as a reference--that's just hearsay in the scientific world. Although, you make a convincing attempt at it with supporting references, it's nearly laughable.
The real psychology is that it's hard for you to come to grips with the truth of the fallacy of your site because you have obviously devoted a lot of time to this theory. And I expect that you will continue to do so. Just as the stubborn as the 2004 Bush voters who maintain their support for him. The misconception of your site results from clearly incorrect reasoning. Credit must be given, however, for bringing up a rather interesting, yet false, hypothesis. Thanks for stimulating my mind for a moment.
Eyes Can't Resist Beautiful People
The study is detailed in the September issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
Whether we’re looking for someone to date or sizing up a potential rival, our eyes irresistibly lock on to good-looking people, a new study finds.
Participants, all heterosexual men and women, fixated on highly attractive people within the first half-second of seeing them. Single folks ogled the opposite sex, of course. But those in committed relationships more often eyed beautiful people of the same sex.
“If we’re interested in finding a mate, our attention gets quickly and automatically stuck on attractive members of the opposite sex,” explained study leader Jon Maner of Florida State University. “If we’re jealous and worried about our partner cheating on us, attention gets quickly and automatically stuck on attractive people of our own sex because they are our competitors.”
Maner's research is based on the idea that evolution has primed our brains to subconsciously latch on to signs of physical attractiveness in others, both to find a mate and to guard him or her from potential competitors.
But this evolutionary trick is not without potential romantic peril. Even some people in committed relationships had trouble tearing their eyes away from attractive members of the opposite sex. On the other hand, fixating on attractive people of the same sex as rivals could contribute to feelings of insecurity.
Maner found that men prone to jealousy kept a close eye on attractive potential rivals.
“When it comes to concerns about infidelity, men are very attentive to highly attractive guys because presumably their wives or girlfriends may be too,” he said.
Maner's experiments, which flashed pictures of attractive men and women and average-looking men and women in front of participants and measured the time it took to shift their attention away from the image, surprisingly showed little difference between the sexes.
“Women paid just as much attention to men as men did to women,” Maner said.
____________________________________________________
Support article below, implies "masculinized" characteristics based on their simplicities compared to feminized characteristics (which in the plastic surgery world are more complex) are preferred among most people.
Beauty Boils Down to a Simple Average
By Sara Goudarzi, LiveScience Staff Writer
posted: 28 September 2006 08:35 am ET
Johnny Depp may be easy on the eyes, but in reality he is just easy on the mind, a new study suggests.
While eyes are the vehicles for receiving visual images, the brain decides how attractive those images are. Attractiveness appears to be related to how easy you can wrap your brain around a face.
"A stimulus becomes attractive if it falls into the average of what you've seen and is therefore simple for your brain to process," said study author Piotr Winkielman, of the University of California, San Diego. "In our experiments, we show that we can make an arbitrary pattern likeable just by preparing the mind to recognize it quickly."
The average effect
Often times, we are shocked when someone who appears quite average is deemed beautiful by society. This phenomenon, known as the beauty-in-averageness effect, was illustrated by previous research in which a composite of 16 faces—essentially an average of all those faces—was deemed more favorable than any of those faces individually.
Prototypes are easy for the brain to process as measured by the speed with which people are able to characterize what they're looking at, the researchers suggest in the current issue of the journal Psychological Science.
"What you like is a function of what your mind has been trained on," Winkielman said.
Why the typical rule
An explanation behind why the average beauty gets a second look is that averageness is a sign of health and fitness—a quality that attracts the opposite sex for successful breeding. Unusually protuberant eyes might be a clue to disease, for example—and so is a kind of shorthand for the value of a potential mate, the researchers said.
But this explanation fails when it comes to inanimate objects or animals of other species that provide no mating potential for humans.
Winkielman and colleagues set up an experiment in which they used objects free of reproductive benefits: dots and geometric patterns. They prepared each participant's brain by getting them used to a prototype and then asked them to rate variations of the same pattern.
"As predicted, participants categorized patterns more quickly and judged them as more attractive when the patterns were closer to their respective prototypes," the researchers write. "Critically, the less time it took participants to classify a pattern, the more attractive they judged it."
The researchers repeated the experiment but this time hooked up electrodes to the faces of the participants to detect if they smiled or frowned when they saw the images. Once again, images that were similar to the prototypes induced a more positive response.
"The mental mechanism appears to be extremely simple: facilitate processing of certain objects and they ring a louder bell," Winkielman said. "This parsimonious explanation accounts for cultural differences in beauty—and historical differences in beauty as well—because beauty basically depends on what you've been exposed to and what is therefore easy on your mind."
Karolina is a tall model. Most tall women have large feet. Its perfectly natural and normal for tall people to have long limbs and large feet and hands.
Narrow shoulders are NOT attractive on anyone and they arent presentable on models who need to look skinny. Broader shoulders look more balanced on someone who has wide hips. If Karolina had narrower shoulders she would look more bottom heavy. Look at tall, skinny Tiiu Kuik.
She looks very hippy because of her body structure.
You keep saying that Karolina's ass is "flattened" when its only small. She is a thin white woman. What kind of ass do you want her to have? Most white girls have butts that expand horizontally not outward.
Oops. Let me try again.
http://media.egotastic.com/media/pictures/0709/vanessa-hudgens-bikini-1-06.jpg
Well here's Vanessa in a bikini:
http://media.egotastic.com/media/pictures/0709/vanessa-hudgens-bikini-1-06.jpg
In my opinion, her hips are too big, even if it does make her body look very feminine.
brownie:
who would marry a fat whore like you? lulz. fat whore fat whore 8D maybe erica. hahahahaha.
Yeah, erica's a fat pedophile whore. DURRR.
First off, I respect the amount of time and energy you have put into your research, particularly the effects of estrogens and androgens on facial and body development. I have heard about the ideal WHR indicating high fertility and its evolutionary significance in being attractive to men. However, I think some of your conclusions are a bit off.
Most men agree that fashion models are too skinny for their tastes (runway models in particular) and already appreciate curvy women. However, most of the women under the attractive women section may have feminine, attractive bodies, but their faces look very young. Facially, high fashion models may lean towards the adolescent boy look as you say, but the feminine examples you have provided look like adolescent girls (maybe some of them are, but I assume none are under 18 for legal purposes). Perhaps a better conclusion is that the kind of men you call lifelong-specific heterosexuals are actually inclined to pedophilia? In evolutionary terms, being attracted to slightly immature females wouldn't be a complete disadvantage, so it makes sense. I am not trying to flame you as a lot of people have, but I have consulted several male friends and gotten this response.
It also needs to be stated that in the modeling industry, there are plenty of attractive applicants and only the ones who stand out are going to get high end contracts; modeling isn't just about being attractive, a model must also stand apart from the crowd and many VS models do just that. This goes hand in hand with mens' apparent preference for exotic looks.
Erik you wrote the line "anya is feminine but not extremely feminine because her breasts are not big enough. An extremely feminien woman cannot have a below average feminine appearance with respect to any important aspect relevent to a feminine appearance" Does this mean a woman has to have huge breasts as they are percieved as feminine in order to be classed as extrememly feminine? as that is a point you argue against earlier with anna song or do you mean that a extrememly feminine woman has to have at least one physical feature to the extreme that is percieved as feminine in order to be classed as extremely feminine?
I bet my entire Trump Tower that Erik is a fat whore.
Erik said:
If you believe that the masculinity of fashion models is related to women increasingly participating in formerly male-dominated jobs, then you need to look at video game female characters. What is more stereotypically masculine than combat? These female characters kick butt and are often dressed to kill, but they are typically very feminine looking. I am a great fan of women shown with swords, knives, guns and futuristic weapons (example), and these images cannot be beaten in my opinion if the women look very feminine.
A good example is the Dead or Alive series. Unfortunately, when they made the movie, they chose actresses who were less feminine and cute than the women of the game (of course the images in the game are an unrealistic ideal, but the actresses chosen weren't even in the right direction to approach the ideal).
well, they are not too short, when thin and proportionate, petite girls look even better and so do clothes on such mannequins. My observation is not uncommon and is patent, when people are not brainwashed with reccuring phrases.
you can see models that usually work in italy on this site: whynotmodels.com and click "in town".that agency is one of the most important in Italy and if you go out in Milan you can see very often models like them.The models I saw in the street are similar to the models(and you can see very often also models of that agency in the centre of Milan)of that agency.sometimes I thinck that the agencies don't tell the troth about the mesureaments of their models, the models are shorter than in the composites...ex:laetitia casta in the composite is 171 cm but she's 164 cm tall...
5'5 is very short to be model...I didn't see models short like devon aoky...but the majority I saw is 172 to 176 cm ...I see also models 185 cm tall but they are not the majority...
Monica has the better body but her face is less symmetric then elle's. Also Elle as well as other high fashion models tend to have a more "hard" look while this Monica exhibits a "soft" look. That is to say a bit more toned body.
I think another good comparison would be Adriana Sage vs. Adriana Lima. Porn career aside just looking at Ms. Sage you can tell she stands out compared to most women considered beautiful, but she's no Victoria Secrets model! At best a Hollywood starlet (based on looks alone).
Pages