Eric, most women would not be pleased if they were described as transsexuals or male transvestites, in other words, they would be insulted. Whether or not most women look like transsexuals is not the point. The point is most women would be insulted if they were described as trannies so when you argue that high fashion models look like trannies you are using terminology that most women would find insulting. Your terms are not considered neutral by most people. Your “models” are fucking ugly and beastly hence the term "fugbeast".
I have disparaged the looks of your “models” many times by referring to them as fugbeasts with plain or ugly faces. The "occupation" that your “models” choose is the basis for many of my insults but not all of them. I think that most of your models are very physically unattractive. You are probably thinking that most people would find them very attractive and I disagree. Most people would find most of them either semi-attractive or butt ugly.
I used the term low class to refer generally to their behavior. When I called your “models” trailer trash I was referring to their appearance and I admit that I assumed they belonged in the lower socioeconomic group. I made my assumption because I couldn't believe that a woman from an upper to middle class background with reasonably marketable skills would choose such a debasing way of earning money. You say that most of these girls come from middle class backgrounds and make lots of money but I highly doubt the veracity of that statement. Anyways, these girls could have all the money in the world but they would still be low class because of their occupation and most people would agree. I can't see where these women live or know how much they make but I can see that they have very little dignity and possibly have a sad mentality hence the term low class (widely used term).
I haven't seen a single artistic nude on your website. I don't go clicking around your web sources for these fugbeasts so I wouldn't know if the source sites have any artistic nudes. I doubt that there are any. You may have a different view of artistry than I do. You may even feel that because some of your fugbeasts are bending over on beaches and in puddles they must be "artsy" photographs.
I went to your art page and discovered that the artwork there was mostly pinups, some are cute and some are trashy. I think that your choice for artwork was very surprising, then I changed my mind. I originally assumed that you would mainly feature classical western nudes as examples of "feminine" beauty in artwork then I realized that many of these nudes probably have too many "masculine" features for your tastes. Isn't it ironic that you couldn't find "feminine" girls in classic western art? You had to rely on cheesy pin-ups which is really indicative of your overall aesthetic. You want women to look like streetwalkers.
You have no real appreciation for artistic nuance and unusual beauty. Your aesthetic panders to the lowest common denominator. It is no wonder that you feel that some of the nudes on this site are artistic. It is also no wonder that you have no appreciation for high fashion and for some of the incredibly beautiful clothes and photographs that gay designers and photographers produce. A fashion editorial could have beautiful lighting, location and contrasts and you would look past this and past the styling and poses of the model. Your eyes would be critically drawn to the models physique and so called "masculine" features. You can't appreciate art or true beauty because you are a narrow minded dullard.
I guess you really didn't misinterpret my comment. It needed a question mark.
Eric, you're a foolish man. High sewing refers to the skill required to make haute couture garments. Basically high sewing or haute couture means extremely well crafted custom made clothes. Traditionally haute couture was custom made by couturiers at the special request of their clients. At this point in time, well to do fashion houses use haute couture to boost the exclusivity and prestige of their brand. Clothes are specifically custom made by the couture designers rarely and at very high cost. Why would designers include bizarre creations in their haute couture collections if they did not intend for them to considered haute couture? Wouldn't they stick the plain old "regular fashion" clothes in their ready-to-wear collection? I have said the same things over and over again. You have no proof to back up your ridiculous definition of haute couture. I am right and you are wrong. Anyone who doubts me can look it up for themselves on any fashion blog or forum or website. I won't argue with you about this anymore Eric.
Hi Erik,
Very interesting site. I agree with some of your opinions (not all) on how men and women (including myself) have been brainwashed to believe that beauty and "perfect" proportions only exist in Hollywood and on the covers of fashion magazines. And if one doesn't fit these standards they are not considered attractive. Just read some of these posts, perfect example. I'm not sure how accurate your statements are on the high-fashion models looking like adolescent boys (for a reason) it does kind of make sense. It seems like those models on the runway are looking more and more adrogynous and emaciated as the years go by.
But, as a frequent shopper of Victoria's Secret, I happen to think that a lot of the Victoria's Secret models are very attractive, but not ALL of them. And they are not perfect (sorry guys). I for one don't understand the fashion industry's fixation with Gisele Buncheon. To me, she's attractive but not beautiful. And your right, one can tell that some of them have had breast augmentations. To each his/her own. Their choice, right? What irritates me, is when men hold that look as the only standard of "beauty", calling these women perfect, and if we don't look like them then we are unnatractive. I'm wondering if they would still think the same thing of these women when they see how they look without all the smoke and mirrors?
I can recognize and appreciate an attractive woman, but being female myself, I am no fool. I know how to enhance my beauty, what tight shirts and short skirts to wear, makeup etc... I honestly think that the majority of men, epecially where I'm from, love the "illusion" of beauty. They say they like it natural, but what are they always looking at? Cosmetically-enhanced, bleached blonde, fake-and-bake, wannabe Pamela Andersons. And I admit, there's a lot of pressure to go to these extremes just to measure up.
I do have a question for you though. What do you think of women like Eva Mendes and Jennifer Lopez? They are very curvaceous, fit and healthy-looking, and I belief they have not had any cosemtic surgery (on their bodies).
Hugh Ristik: I appreciate the lengthy feedback. It is very true that the truth cannot be bigoted.
I don’t know why one of your comments was dropped; I don’t have comment moderation enabled. If you take a long time to type a message in the comment box and post it, it may be dropped. It is best to refresh a page before immediately posting a comment if a long time has passed since you accessed the page.
I haven’t argued that “since homosexual males are more likely to sexually prefer adolescent males, they are presumably more likely to aesthetically prefer women approaching the looks of adolescent males.” My argument is that judging by their preferences, gay fashion designers appear to often find the looks of adolescent boys appealing, which is consistent with the greater likelihood of homosexual men to be attracted to underage individuals. Homosexual designers cannot get away with using boys in their early-to-mid teens (and looking like it) as fashion models, and if they need to use models with the looks of boys in their early adolescence, they have to use girl models.
Just as heterosexual women prefer above average femininity in the looks of women, heterosexual men prefer above average masculinity in the looks of men. Regarding homosexuals, you are correct that their aesthetic preferences could be different just as they are different from heterosexuals on many other counts. The one important difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals is the greater variability of the homosexual group on multiple counts. For instance, there are plenty of homosexual men who prefer masculine looks in men, just like the typical heterosexual man does, but then there is no shortage of homosexual men with a preference for teenage or younger boys either.
I haven’t come across studies where a large sample of homosexual men were asked to rate the attractiveness of women’s faces based on how masculine or feminine these women are, but if this study were conducted, I would predict that you will find plenty of homosexual men who would assign a higher attractiveness rating to the more feminine women but a much greater proportion of them compared to heterosexual controls would prefer more masculine women.
It is also a good point that the preferences of gay fashion designers should not be extrapolated to homosexual men in general because the fashion designers are an atypical minority of homosexuals. An aesthetic preference for teenage boys appears to be more common among gay fashion designers than among the general gay population. I can propose a hypothesis for this though it is not feasible to document the evidence for this hypothesis in a small amount of space.
Quote:
As you have noted, top fashion designers have a sophisticated designing ability. Designing ability appears to be enhanced by higher levels of prenatal exposure to testosterone since people with such advanced abilities are disproportionately men and/or manifest a higher frequency of conditions that have been associated with excess prenatal testosterone exposure such as dyslexia, left-handedness, etc.
There is evidence that many male homosexuals owe their homosexuality to excess prenatal testosterone-induced developmental disturbances.
There is evidence that living organisms offer resilience to being developmentally disturbed, and that depending on the genetic background and the fact that developmental disturbances introduce an element of randomness into development, the same disruptor, acting at the same time and with the same intensity and for the same duration will lead to variable outcomes in affected individuals. Therefore, a greater proportion of homosexual men can be expected to manifest especially enhanced spatial/designing ability compared to heterosexual men because many gays have experienced excess prenatal testosterone exposure, even though this advantage will not be seen in the male homosexual group as a whole because of the disturbed development factor.
There is evidence that homosexuality is intrinsically accompanied by increased likelihood of psychiatric disorders. There is some evidence that homosexual men who are primarily attracted to teenage boys are mentally healthier than those primarily attracted to pre-pubescent boys or those primarily attracted to adult men.
It is reasonable to expect that homosexual men who manifest enhanced spatial/designing ability and owe their homosexuality to excess prenatal testosterone-induced development disturbances are globally better off (mentally healthier), on average, compared to homosexual men who owe their homosexuality to the same factor but do not manifest enhanced spatial/designing ability. Since the mentally healthier homosexuals appear to be those who are disproportionately into teenage boys, this may be why one observes that many gay fashion designers find the looks of teenage boys aesthetically appealing, which manifests in the central tendency of the looks of their female models (not male models because they couldn’t get away with it in a society where pederastic behaviors are criminal).
I have an article on body-esteem, where women are free to leave comments, and this comes close to your comment regarding a “message to women” page.
Your argument that women deserve to be told the truth about what is considered beautiful in them is very true, especially for those inspired by high-fashion models and affected by anorexia. Telling these women that beauty lies in the eye of the beholder or that it is a social construction will not help since they see only a narrow range of looks being rewarded and portrayed as ideal. Why this is so simply has to be explained.
I like your question that if this site were arguing that women should please heterosexual men (which it isn’t), is it worse for women to please heterosexual men than it is to starve themselves to please elite gay male fashion designers? Maybe this can be the title of a future entry, though it has already been answered in plenty of places within this site.
Women are not just selective with men, but overall more selective than men are with women. Women generally emphasize looks less than men do with the notable exception of height, but this not merely a result of their being less interested in men’s looks but also because they have such a huge list of desirable traits that it is inevitable that most women will have to compromise on looks to obtain the best overall package.
I don’t believe I should quote from your post, in a new entry, to show that there are people who agree with this site and are capable of rational skepticism, though I may expand on some of your points later like your attempt to comfort women who are not feminine beauties. Anyone who believes that most people, even that most women disagree with this site, has to be deluded and couldn’t be made to admit that there are plenty of people who support this site’s major goal notwithstanding few comments at the blog praising this site. You have correctly written that people who disagree are more likely to leave extensive comments than those who agree. Most of the comments are by women even though I doubt that most site visitors are women, i.e., an atypical minority of site visitors is responsible for most comments.
Danielle: I wrote “...would not be pleased...” rather than “would be insulted.” You also mentioned random women. The fact is that the majority of women selected at random will not look sufficiently masculine to be describable as looking like male-to-female transsexuals or male transvestites. I wouldn’t use these phrases to describe the looks of a woman unless she had the requisite looks and it were necessary to do so, and using descriptive terminology when it is apt and required is neutral usage even if it is unflattering. The same cannot be said about your terms such as “fugbeast.”
Your criticism of the models related to their nude modeling is meaningless. This site does not address behavior, just looks. You cannot disparage looks by taking behavior into account.
You used the term low class in reference to “trailer trash,” and the phrase would have little meaning to start with if it didn’t refer to behavior associated with people having low socioeconomic status. Strange that you accuse me of making up definitions but come up with your own.
Many of the women that I have featured are taken from sites depicting artistic nudity, which you do not have a problem with by your own admission, but you still insult them.
If it is very nice of me to describe people with physical deformities as ugly then I suppose it is extremely nice of you to describe women without physical deformities as not only ugly, but as fugbeasts (fuc*ing ugly + beastly). How will this help the self-esteem of the poor women who look like these fugbeasts? And these women look untidy and smelly to you!
You wrote, “Striving to be “feminine” isn’t as bad as striving to be thin,” i.e., I didn’t misinterpret your comment. How will my site lower the self-esteem of the women who already believe that feminine beauty is desirable (which most women believe)?
It is strange that you talk about reasonable people in reference to yourself and then come up with a critique relying on descriptors such as stupid, rubbish data, weirdos, bullshit, raging morons, etc!
Danielle: If the literal translation of haute couture is “high sewing,” then what is being sewed? Clothing. The literal translation of awful is something that fulls one with awe, but this is not what the word means. Word meanings sometimes go beyond literal translation. Haute couture is the product that comes from “high sewing.”
Have you not seen models baring nipples/breasts in haute couture shows or wearing translucent clothes that reveal their breasts? Are these meant for general social gatherings? Not all clothes shown in haute couture shows constitute haute couture. The second dress in your message dated Aug 13 looks like a royal dress and would be suitable for a rich woman in a gathering for the elite.
The glamour models are not wearing tons of make-up, let alone cheap make-up. Every now and then I come across better looking glamour models and replace some models with them or just add them to the attractive women section. When there is mainstream feminine beauty appreciation, you will see better looking non-nude models come to the limelight; just wait and watch.
Achievability should be easy to understand...what you can achieve. There is not much you can naturally do about your skeletal structure, but the appearance of high-fashion models suggests that all around fat loss will take one closer to their looks, which can be achieved to some extent by caloric restriction, but a feminine fat distribution (away from mid-section and in breasts, hips, upper thighs) cannot be achieved by behavioral modification. So which is more difficult to achieve? I haven’t been talking about make-up or clothing items in reference to achievability.
I haven’t made up my definition of physical femininity; just look at the feminine vs. masculine page. If you define femininity as in “a cat is a rat if I say so,” then good look communicating with others. The masculine vs. feminine comparisons I am talking about is within women, which means that masculine women would typically still look like women. A woman does not have to look like a boy or man to be called masculine.
If most women would be insulted if they were described as male transvestites or male-to-female transsexuals then how the hell are these descriptions neutral and not insulting? You have made up your own definitions for everything. My descriptions imply contempt because I do feel contempt for your "models". They allow themselves to be photographed and videotaped in sleazy degrading ways. They have their legs spread and are bent over to show their asses and pudendas for the camera in a lot of your photographs. I find that absolutely nasty and pathetic.
My descriptions of your LOW CLASS models are very fitting. They may usually come from middle class backgrounds and earn a lot of money (yeah right) but I don't use the term low class to refer to their economic situation. They have chosen a line of "work" that I find unsavory and vulgar. I have much more respect for garbage men and gardeners because while I wouldn't want to work these jobs at least they are not selling away their dignity. I have no problem with photographed or videotaped nudity as long as it appears to be conducted in a tasteful and unexploitive manner. I think your models are disgusting and ugly and that is why I insult them. They are ugly to me. Your definition of ugly is a personal one. Please don’t apply your made up definitions to my statements or to the rest of the world. Most people think ugliness describes physical attractiveness and not necessarily physical deformities though it is very nice of you to describe deformed or disabled people as ugly. Your women are untidy and smelly looking in their photos and that’s why I describe them as slovenly.
I think you misinterpreted my comment. I do NOT believe that it is better to strive for femininity over thinness. These can be both equally harmful goals because your definition of femininity may not be easy to achieve for a lot of women without surgery or other potentially harmful invasive procedures. Your stupid little pages about body esteem will have little effect if some women are stupid an insecure enough to email their pictures to a weirdo like you for approval. Most women can't afford the surgery required to drastically change their bodies but they may still covet the "feminine" looks that you idealize which will easily result in low self esteem. Your little site is stupid and your data is rubbish so you will never have as big of an effect on aesthetics as the creative, popular gay designers. Reasonable people won't take your views on femininity and homosexuality seriously but weirdos like you and others on this site do take this stuff seriously. They believe in your bullshit citations over respected sources so it doesn't matter your data is easily falsified because they are raging morons who think that their opinions are fact.
Danielle: I am surprised that you are giving me advice to improve my message. I usually go the convenient route. It would have taken more work to get a clip of a feminine mainstream actress. I will see if I can obtain such clips.
The question being asked is who has the body (shape)? Therefore, hair, color, demeanor and body language are not relevant. Have you smelled Dasha?...just more of your nonsense.
Eric, the English translation of haute couture is "high sewing" NOT high fashion. You are mistaken about the translation. Bizarre dresses like the ones I posted are haute couture dresses. SHOW ME WHERE you got your stupid definition of haute couture from. Haute couture does NOT have to be wearable and it is often not wearable. The dress in the second picture is hardly appropriate for most gatherings even ELITE ones. You keep saying the same things over and over and its all bullshit. Haute couture is different from ready-to-wear but they are both still high fashion. Ready-to-wear clothes are usually far more wearable than haute couture collections. Your definition or haute couture is erroneous and retarded.
Your "glamour" models ARE VERY average from a facial perspective. A lot of them are wearing pounds of cheap makeup so that might fool you into thinking they are "attractive." I don't know where you plan to find better looking women. Face it; you'll be stuck with these sad specimens forever because I don't know where a wack-job like you will get money to scout for "feminine" women. I don't what you mean when you speak of achievability. What is more exclusive: a look that can very rarely be reproduced or a look that can be easily mimicked with a girdle and green eye shadow (yuck)?
I can define physical femininity however I damn well please just as you have made up your own definitions of physical femininity, high fashion modeling and haute couture. I don't look like a boy or a man and I have never been mistaken as such therefore I am feminine. You may think differently but I think you're a moron so who cares.
Danielle: Yes, I haven’t proven that these models are dating “closet queers,” but then I never made this assertion. Only a small minority of men who are not lifetime-exclusive heterosexuals are homosexual or bisexual, and I did not imply that these men are necessarily homosexual or bisexual.
Look at it this way. Rich men with reasonable fame have plenty of women to choose from, and are in a position to attract many women that most people consider to be very good looking (feminine beauties). So what would make some such men repeatedly date masculinized women? Obviously a preference for masculinization in women, and if these women are as masculine as Gisele and Heidi, then is it unreasonable to suspect that these men are either not lifetime-exclusive heterosexual or have narrowly escaped nonheterosexuality? I don’t think so. I do not have photographic/videographic evidence that any of these men are not lifetime-exclusive heterosexuals, but what reasonable person wouldn’t suspect it?
Regarding Heidi Klum, you just noted Ric Pipino but not the others. Consider this. A beautiful and famous woman will attract a lot of good looking and wealthy suitors in the age ranging from late twenties to early thirties. Yet look at Heidi’s relationships; the three major most recent ones with middle-aged men. Also look at the facial features of Ric Pipino, Flavio Briatore and especially Seal. These men will not be remotely considered as physically attractive by women were it not for riches/fame. Why does Heidi Klum have this history? Whereas she may be attracted to unattractive older men (strange as it may sound), one needs to consider the possibility that rich, good looking and young lifetime-exclusive heterosexual men will not bother dating the likes of Heidi Klum. It is in this context that you need to consider the profession choice of Ric Pipino, something that attracts a lot of homosexual men, and Flavio’s history of dating masculinized models and Seal’s involvement with another masculinized model before Heidi. The scenario is pointing to the fact that famous masculine women such as Heidi Klum are disproportionately attracting men who are candidates for not being lifetime-exclusive heterosexual, which needs to be seen in the context of my reply to Ali’s contention that these masculine women have been involved with some rich and famous men and hence they are sexy to many [exclusively heterosexual] men.
You have pointed out three women from the attractive women section. The first one’s strength is her waist-hip proportions, and just ask lifetime-exclusive heterosexual men whether they prefer the facial features of Heidi Klum or Gisele Bundchen to hers.
The bodies of the other two women are more of their strong point than their faces. This is especially true of Sonia Blake (the third woman). Sonia Blake has no chance of becoming America’s Top Model because the winner would need to please male homosexual fashion designers, but look at her body and ask yourself where she would place in this pageant if exclusively heterosexual men were in charge of it. There are plenty of women in the attractive women section whose combination of facial features and physique is better than those of these three women and you just ignore them. This section is only going to get better with time, with additions/replacements.
Ali: I will help answer your question about who looks better in lingerie with pictures, some videos and computer-generated figures/animations. The computer-generated images/animations can present masculine and feminine women side by side in similar poses/animation and dress, which will help the comparison issue by keeping factors other than physical femininity constant.
Marketa doesn’t pose nude, and this may comfort you. Her physique from the waist down is that of someone in her late teens; she is only girlish elsewhere.
The popularity of Victoria’s Secret has to do with their heavy promotion and glamorous portrayal. I will post a video to illustrate this. Since homosexual men dominate the fashion business, the VS Company and others like it (e.g., Frederick’s of Hollywood) don’t have to deal with competition...as of yet.
What you buy at JC Penney, Belk, Dillard’s or equivalent isn’t high fashion. The models you see in the advertising in these stores are often commercial models, who are lower tier fashion models, not the big ones that I am focusing on, and hence they could be feminine more often.
Women who get chin or cheekbone implants generally do not try to make their features more masculine. They attempt to correct a deficit.
Starting a lingerie alternative will have to wait. I have to work on making this site better known first.
Danielle: I am not sure that BBB is female, but the comment suggested that this person is female. Once again, “high fashion” is English for “haute couture.” Of course, many items seen in haute couture shows would be inappropriate for general social gatherings, which I have already noted, and these bizarre dresses are part of the show but do not constitute haute couture itself. In your comment dated Aug 13, you posted two pictures; the first one shows a bizarre dress, but the second dress looks like something you could see in a general social gathering for the elite and is appropriately seen as high fashion/haute couture wear. When you consider haute couture, don’t think of most social gatherings; think about social gatherings for the elite.
Whereas Daria is not a sexy model for the general public, she is one for the homosexuals if she looks like what you see in the video clip. The feminine women that I am showing are not generally average apart from their waist-hip proportions. Having above average femininity makes one deviate from the average overall, not just the waists and hips. Whereas there are some women in the attractive women section with unimpressive faces, this is temporary, and they will be replaced with overall better looking women in the future. It is futile to attempt to explain the looks of fashion models in terms of a need for uniqueness and exclusivity. Tall women with above average femininity and a healthy amount of body fat have a more unique and exclusive look -- with respect to achievablility -- than current high-fashion models in general.
Whereas you can have a different definition of beauty, you cannot have a different definition of physical femininity and expect to make sense to others. If you are a [physically] masculine woman according to this site, then you are a [physically] masculine woman, period.
Sue: Crude measurements are not very helpful. This woman could be anywhere from being above average feminine but having excess abdominal fat to normal with respect to masculinity-femininity or slightly on the masculine side. If she is from a population with normally higher waist-to-hip ratios than European norms (e.g., South Asia), she is less likely to be on the masculine side than if she were European.
Danielle: There is no way your description of the feminine women shown here is anywhere comparable to my description of masculinized models. Using expressions such as “masculinized” or “male-to-female transsexual looks” or “male transvestite looks” to describe the appearance of a model suggests to someone who hasn’t seen the model that she is masculinized, whereas your expressions such as “trailer trash whore,” “fugbeast” and “ogre” do not describe the physical condition of the women to those who haven’t seen them. Your terms are purely hateful expressions. In my case I have had to use words to describe looks sometimes, and have chosen appropriate descriptions. You can call these descriptions unflattering but there is nothing hateful about them. A random woman who hears her looks described as that of a male-to-female transsexual would not be pleased, but this site is not about random women and unflattering [not insults] descriptions simply have to be used within this site on numerous occasions.
Male-to-female transsexuals, on average, do not look like women but they usually look more feminine than male transvestites, and hence using the transsexual expression is appropriate to describe the looks of masculinized models who are too masculine to pass off as typical women but more feminine than the typical male transvestite.
Whereas “trailer trash” and “low class whites” refer to the same group, the former expresses contempt whereas the latter is a neutral description. I am typically using neutral descriptions, whereas you are typically writing insults. How do you know that the women I have been featuring are low class? As a general rule, good looking glamour models are middle class and up, and many are financially well off. How can you describe these women as unclean and untidy? You don’t know anything about how well they groom themselves or maintain their belongings.
Unattractiveness is mere absence of attractiveness, but it takes a lot more for someone to be called ugly, namely physical defects/abnormalities. I haven’t described any of the high-fashion models and beauty pageant contestants as ugly, whereas you have used words worse than ugly to describe the glamour models (e.g., fugly).
Tell me that my site is useless if you don’t see it having any impact 5 years hence. In the meantime, don’t repeat this. Also do not delude yourself that I have not convinced many people about the true nature of Victoria’s Secret models. Brenda has acknowledged her awakening. I can cite other comments within this site and emails that I have received, too.
My site is far less harmful to women’s self-esteem than what the homosexuals are doing. I am promoting standards already harbored by most people, and hence this site wouldn’t be educating most women that they do not meet standards of feminine beauty, but the homosexuals are pushing an anomalous ideal that is going against the inclination of most people. You have acknowledged that aiming for femininity isn’t as bad as starving oneself to acquire ultra thin looks, but then mentioned that whereas thinness is achievable to a greater or lesser extent, greater femininity is not unless one resorted to drastic approaches such as bone surgery, but how many women will be prompted to seek bone surgery after going through this site? Answer here.
What do you mean I see no problem with women emailing me their pictures and asking me to rate them? I am not asking anyone to do so. The women that have done this knew what they were doing.
I have not characterized the sexuality of homosexuals as deviant and abhorrent. I have simply described it as it is, not bothered to label it. I have not compared homosexuals to pedophiles. I have pointed out on more than one occasion (see above for example) that most homosexuals are attracted to adults. I didn’t say that gay designers are pederasts, but that pederastic interests are quite common among these homosexuals, which is obvious.
How can one use false information as a weapon against homosexuals in general? Falsehood will not stand to scrutiny.
Joshua: The genes affecting physical appearance are distributed over multiple chromosomes, which makes your question not very meaningful. Even when it comes to sex steroids, their levels are affected by genes on chromosomes other than X and Y.
Hi Erik, thank you for your site it's really fascinated me.
I think you make some good points (and some not so good...) on your site but I think one area you may have under estimated is how hetro-sexual women see fashion models.
Yes many designers are homosexual and definately choose masculinised women when decideing who wears their clothes. However, for hetrosexual women this works as well. Subconsciously hetrosexual women may be attracted to the masculine features of these women and I definately believe that masculine women are less threatening to the hetrosexual women who follow high fashion.
If you want to sell a hetrosexual woman an extremely exspensive product the last thing you want to do is threaten her. If Gemma Ward and Charlize Theron were in a bar I would automatically keep my boyfriend further away from Charlize anyday.
I have also noticed that actresses often have much more feminine features than high fashion models. I think this is because if you have to believe say in a romantic comedy that a man is in love with a woman. It is more believable that the leading man is in love with Charlize Theron than with Gemma Ward.
When women are shown porn their basic physical instincts respond in pretty much the same way as a man's would. But because the porn is designed for men, as you show, glamour/porn models are more 'estrogen heavy' than the women who are shown most often in the conventional media. These women are much more threatening to the hetrosexual woman than some of the women on the catwalk who are as you point out heavily masculinised.
Also the sexual conditioning females experience throughout childhood is so vastly different to that of a mans. Girls are taught to be less sexual by their parents and their community. In crude terms: a girl sleeps with six men in a week she's a bit of a slut, if a guy sleeps with six women he's jack the lad. So a women who has feminine features at first glance appears to be a more sexual creature and therefore 'bad' in the eyes of a women who has been subjected to a lot of social conditioning. Whereas a 'enuch' who walks the runway is not a sexual threat. Therefore the hetrosexual woman watching the 'eunich' can consentrate on what she's wearing and not on how intimidated she's feeling!
that picture of ana barros as a teenager is very convincing! she doesnt look high fashion material at all there because she looks too soft too feminine
i really think this is a good website, an eyeopener for people who believe that natural beauty cannot be found in normal woman, but only in the magazines and on the runway
Not sure where to post this but Erik do you have an idea which chromosomes would mostly affect physical attractiveness in a person?
It would the homologous chromosomes mainly wouldn't it? but then again the sex chromosomes control the production sex hormones + steroids and so control how masculine or feminine a person is?
The Donald: You resort to quarreling with the commenter because you have no valid arguements to convince me that those models are hot? Haha. How smart.
Eric, There has to be other sources out there where you can find examples of "feminine" women. You found some classier actresses in your attractive women section. Why don't you post videos of them instead? Dasha's video is really sad and disgusting. Her body may past your femininity test but a lot of viewers, even those who prefer average looks, might be turned off of the sleaze factor in this video. It is hard to look past the pathetic display that Dasha is making of herself. People can easily accuse you of pushing a sleazy type of aesthetic and behaviour by looking at this page and a lot of your other pages.
Alessandra is not my favorite model but she looks attractive and somewhat vivacious in her video. Compare her to Dasha who is lifting up her skirt to reveal her pasty breasts and her bikini wax. I don't know about men but I think that most women judge a person's demeanor and body language as well as their physical appeal to calculate their attractiveness. Dasha's skin is blotchy and pink while Alessandra is tanned and Dasha's hair looks a parched bit of fluff while Alessandra hair is styled and shiny. People judge attractiveness by the skin and hair as well as the body type. Alessandra does not have big titties or wide hips but at least she looks clean. The same cannot be said for your nude model. Dasha looks like she smells.
This is one of many reasons why I hate feminists. They over exaggerate womens' problems, ignore men (unless they're able to blame them for said problems), and remove any right that men can have that women may also have. They're worse than blacks that talk about slavery all the time, but never do anything but talk. Lot of people died for their right to be free, to improve themselves, but they'd rather talk about the problems their ancestors had. Why is Rosa parks recognized more than Vivien Thomas? Because Rosa was only a victim. Vivien made something that helped the world. Feminists need to stop talking about the problems that don't exist, and go change the ones that do, not only womens', but the ones of the entire human population.
"You fail to convince people who think VS girls are pretty that they are masculine and unacceptable lingerie models. People who always thought VS girls were ugly are the ones who agree with you so they didn’t need convincing anyways. Your site won’t effect a change in the fashion industry or in the minds of those who like these VS models."
You're wrong, Danielle. I used to think Adriana Lima, Alessandra Ambrosio, and Gisele Bundchen were hot. Then I found this site and realized I was so wrong.
Eric, most women would not be pleased if they were described as transsexuals or male transvestites, in other words, they would be insulted. Whether or not most women look like transsexuals is not the point. The point is most women would be insulted if they were described as trannies so when you argue that high fashion models look like trannies you are using terminology that most women would find insulting. Your terms are not considered neutral by most people. Your “models” are fucking ugly and beastly hence the term "fugbeast".
I have disparaged the looks of your “models” many times by referring to them as fugbeasts with plain or ugly faces. The "occupation" that your “models” choose is the basis for many of my insults but not all of them. I think that most of your models are very physically unattractive. You are probably thinking that most people would find them very attractive and I disagree. Most people would find most of them either semi-attractive or butt ugly.
I used the term low class to refer generally to their behavior. When I called your “models” trailer trash I was referring to their appearance and I admit that I assumed they belonged in the lower socioeconomic group. I made my assumption because I couldn't believe that a woman from an upper to middle class background with reasonably marketable skills would choose such a debasing way of earning money. You say that most of these girls come from middle class backgrounds and make lots of money but I highly doubt the veracity of that statement. Anyways, these girls could have all the money in the world but they would still be low class because of their occupation and most people would agree. I can't see where these women live or know how much they make but I can see that they have very little dignity and possibly have a sad mentality hence the term low class (widely used term).
I haven't seen a single artistic nude on your website. I don't go clicking around your web sources for these fugbeasts so I wouldn't know if the source sites have any artistic nudes. I doubt that there are any. You may have a different view of artistry than I do. You may even feel that because some of your fugbeasts are bending over on beaches and in puddles they must be "artsy" photographs.
I went to your art page and discovered that the artwork there was mostly pinups, some are cute and some are trashy. I think that your choice for artwork was very surprising, then I changed my mind. I originally assumed that you would mainly feature classical western nudes as examples of "feminine" beauty in artwork then I realized that many of these nudes probably have too many "masculine" features for your tastes. Isn't it ironic that you couldn't find "feminine" girls in classic western art? You had to rely on cheesy pin-ups which is really indicative of your overall aesthetic. You want women to look like streetwalkers.
You have no real appreciation for artistic nuance and unusual beauty. Your aesthetic panders to the lowest common denominator. It is no wonder that you feel that some of the nudes on this site are artistic. It is also no wonder that you have no appreciation for high fashion and for some of the incredibly beautiful clothes and photographs that gay designers and photographers produce. A fashion editorial could have beautiful lighting, location and contrasts and you would look past this and past the styling and poses of the model. Your eyes would be critically drawn to the models physique and so called "masculine" features. You can't appreciate art or true beauty because you are a narrow minded dullard.
I guess you really didn't misinterpret my comment. It needed a question mark.
Eric, you're a foolish man. High sewing refers to the skill required to make haute couture garments. Basically high sewing or haute couture means extremely well crafted custom made clothes. Traditionally haute couture was custom made by couturiers at the special request of their clients. At this point in time, well to do fashion houses use haute couture to boost the exclusivity and prestige of their brand. Clothes are specifically custom made by the couture designers rarely and at very high cost. Why would designers include bizarre creations in their haute couture collections if they did not intend for them to considered haute couture? Wouldn't they stick the plain old "regular fashion" clothes in their ready-to-wear collection? I have said the same things over and over again. You have no proof to back up your ridiculous definition of haute couture. I am right and you are wrong. Anyone who doubts me can look it up for themselves on any fashion blog or forum or website. I won't argue with you about this anymore Eric.
Hi Erik,
Very interesting site. I agree with some of your opinions (not all) on how men and women (including myself) have been brainwashed to believe that beauty and "perfect" proportions only exist in Hollywood and on the covers of fashion magazines. And if one doesn't fit these standards they are not considered attractive. Just read some of these posts, perfect example. I'm not sure how accurate your statements are on the high-fashion models looking like adolescent boys (for a reason) it does kind of make sense. It seems like those models on the runway are looking more and more adrogynous and emaciated as the years go by.
But, as a frequent shopper of Victoria's Secret, I happen to think that a lot of the Victoria's Secret models are very attractive, but not ALL of them. And they are not perfect (sorry guys). I for one don't understand the fashion industry's fixation with Gisele Buncheon. To me, she's attractive but not beautiful. And your right, one can tell that some of them have had breast augmentations. To each his/her own. Their choice, right? What irritates me, is when men hold that look as the only standard of "beauty", calling these women perfect, and if we don't look like them then we are unnatractive. I'm wondering if they would still think the same thing of these women when they see how they look without all the smoke and mirrors?
I can recognize and appreciate an attractive woman, but being female myself, I am no fool. I know how to enhance my beauty, what tight shirts and short skirts to wear, makeup etc... I honestly think that the majority of men, epecially where I'm from, love the "illusion" of beauty. They say they like it natural, but what are they always looking at? Cosmetically-enhanced, bleached blonde, fake-and-bake, wannabe Pamela Andersons. And I admit, there's a lot of pressure to go to these extremes just to measure up.
I do have a question for you though. What do you think of women like Eva Mendes and Jennifer Lopez? They are very curvaceous, fit and healthy-looking, and I belief they have not had any cosemtic surgery (on their bodies).
Hugh Ristik: I appreciate the lengthy feedback. It is very true that the truth cannot be bigoted.
I don’t know why one of your comments was dropped; I don’t have comment moderation enabled. If you take a long time to type a message in the comment box and post it, it may be dropped. It is best to refresh a page before immediately posting a comment if a long time has passed since you accessed the page.
I haven’t argued that “since homosexual males are more likely to sexually prefer adolescent males, they are presumably more likely to aesthetically prefer women approaching the looks of adolescent males.” My argument is that judging by their preferences, gay fashion designers appear to often find the looks of adolescent boys appealing, which is consistent with the greater likelihood of homosexual men to be attracted to underage individuals. Homosexual designers cannot get away with using boys in their early-to-mid teens (and looking like it) as fashion models, and if they need to use models with the looks of boys in their early adolescence, they have to use girl models.
Just as heterosexual women prefer above average femininity in the looks of women, heterosexual men prefer above average masculinity in the looks of men. Regarding homosexuals, you are correct that their aesthetic preferences could be different just as they are different from heterosexuals on many other counts. The one important difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals is the greater variability of the homosexual group on multiple counts. For instance, there are plenty of homosexual men who prefer masculine looks in men, just like the typical heterosexual man does, but then there is no shortage of homosexual men with a preference for teenage or younger boys either.
I haven’t come across studies where a large sample of homosexual men were asked to rate the attractiveness of women’s faces based on how masculine or feminine these women are, but if this study were conducted, I would predict that you will find plenty of homosexual men who would assign a higher attractiveness rating to the more feminine women but a much greater proportion of them compared to heterosexual controls would prefer more masculine women.
It is also a good point that the preferences of gay fashion designers should not be extrapolated to homosexual men in general because the fashion designers are an atypical minority of homosexuals. An aesthetic preference for teenage boys appears to be more common among gay fashion designers than among the general gay population. I can propose a hypothesis for this though it is not feasible to document the evidence for this hypothesis in a small amount of space.
Quote:
I have an article on body-esteem, where women are free to leave comments, and this comes close to your comment regarding a “message to women” page.
Your argument that women deserve to be told the truth about what is considered beautiful in them is very true, especially for those inspired by high-fashion models and affected by anorexia. Telling these women that beauty lies in the eye of the beholder or that it is a social construction will not help since they see only a narrow range of looks being rewarded and portrayed as ideal. Why this is so simply has to be explained.
I like your question that if this site were arguing that women should please heterosexual men (which it isn’t), is it worse for women to please heterosexual men than it is to starve themselves to please elite gay male fashion designers? Maybe this can be the title of a future entry, though it has already been answered in plenty of places within this site.
Women are not just selective with men, but overall more selective than men are with women. Women generally emphasize looks less than men do with the notable exception of height, but this not merely a result of their being less interested in men’s looks but also because they have such a huge list of desirable traits that it is inevitable that most women will have to compromise on looks to obtain the best overall package.
I don’t believe I should quote from your post, in a new entry, to show that there are people who agree with this site and are capable of rational skepticism, though I may expand on some of your points later like your attempt to comfort women who are not feminine beauties. Anyone who believes that most people, even that most women disagree with this site, has to be deluded and couldn’t be made to admit that there are plenty of people who support this site’s major goal notwithstanding few comments at the blog praising this site. You have correctly written that people who disagree are more likely to leave extensive comments than those who agree. Most of the comments are by women even though I doubt that most site visitors are women, i.e., an atypical minority of site visitors is responsible for most comments.
Danielle: I wrote “...would not be pleased...” rather than “would be insulted.” You also mentioned random women. The fact is that the majority of women selected at random will not look sufficiently masculine to be describable as looking like male-to-female transsexuals or male transvestites. I wouldn’t use these phrases to describe the looks of a woman unless she had the requisite looks and it were necessary to do so, and using descriptive terminology when it is apt and required is neutral usage even if it is unflattering. The same cannot be said about your terms such as “fugbeast.”
Your criticism of the models related to their nude modeling is meaningless. This site does not address behavior, just looks. You cannot disparage looks by taking behavior into account.
You used the term low class in reference to “trailer trash,” and the phrase would have little meaning to start with if it didn’t refer to behavior associated with people having low socioeconomic status. Strange that you accuse me of making up definitions but come up with your own.
Many of the women that I have featured are taken from sites depicting artistic nudity, which you do not have a problem with by your own admission, but you still insult them.
If it is very nice of me to describe people with physical deformities as ugly then I suppose it is extremely nice of you to describe women without physical deformities as not only ugly, but as fugbeasts (fuc*ing ugly + beastly). How will this help the self-esteem of the poor women who look like these fugbeasts? And these women look untidy and smelly to you!
You wrote, “Striving to be “feminine” isn’t as bad as striving to be thin,” i.e., I didn’t misinterpret your comment. How will my site lower the self-esteem of the women who already believe that feminine beauty is desirable (which most women believe)?
It is strange that you talk about reasonable people in reference to yourself and then come up with a critique relying on descriptors such as stupid, rubbish data, weirdos, bullshit, raging morons, etc!
Danielle: If the literal translation of haute couture is “high sewing,” then what is being sewed? Clothing. The literal translation of awful is something that fulls one with awe, but this is not what the word means. Word meanings sometimes go beyond literal translation. Haute couture is the product that comes from “high sewing.”
Have you not seen models baring nipples/breasts in haute couture shows or wearing translucent clothes that reveal their breasts? Are these meant for general social gatherings? Not all clothes shown in haute couture shows constitute haute couture. The second dress in your message dated Aug 13 looks like a royal dress and would be suitable for a rich woman in a gathering for the elite.
The glamour models are not wearing tons of make-up, let alone cheap make-up. Every now and then I come across better looking glamour models and replace some models with them or just add them to the attractive women section. When there is mainstream feminine beauty appreciation, you will see better looking non-nude models come to the limelight; just wait and watch.
Achievability should be easy to understand...what you can achieve. There is not much you can naturally do about your skeletal structure, but the appearance of high-fashion models suggests that all around fat loss will take one closer to their looks, which can be achieved to some extent by caloric restriction, but a feminine fat distribution (away from mid-section and in breasts, hips, upper thighs) cannot be achieved by behavioral modification. So which is more difficult to achieve? I haven’t been talking about make-up or clothing items in reference to achievability.
I haven’t made up my definition of physical femininity; just look at the feminine vs. masculine page. If you define femininity as in “a cat is a rat if I say so,” then good look communicating with others. The masculine vs. feminine comparisons I am talking about is within women, which means that masculine women would typically still look like women. A woman does not have to look like a boy or man to be called masculine.
If most women would be insulted if they were described as male transvestites or male-to-female transsexuals then how the hell are these descriptions neutral and not insulting? You have made up your own definitions for everything. My descriptions imply contempt because I do feel contempt for your "models". They allow themselves to be photographed and videotaped in sleazy degrading ways. They have their legs spread and are bent over to show their asses and pudendas for the camera in a lot of your photographs. I find that absolutely nasty and pathetic.
My descriptions of your LOW CLASS models are very fitting. They may usually come from middle class backgrounds and earn a lot of money (yeah right) but I don't use the term low class to refer to their economic situation. They have chosen a line of "work" that I find unsavory and vulgar. I have much more respect for garbage men and gardeners because while I wouldn't want to work these jobs at least they are not selling away their dignity. I have no problem with photographed or videotaped nudity as long as it appears to be conducted in a tasteful and unexploitive manner. I think your models are disgusting and ugly and that is why I insult them. They are ugly to me. Your definition of ugly is a personal one. Please don’t apply your made up definitions to my statements or to the rest of the world. Most people think ugliness describes physical attractiveness and not necessarily physical deformities though it is very nice of you to describe deformed or disabled people as ugly. Your women are untidy and smelly looking in their photos and that’s why I describe them as slovenly.
I think you misinterpreted my comment. I do NOT believe that it is better to strive for femininity over thinness. These can be both equally harmful goals because your definition of femininity may not be easy to achieve for a lot of women without surgery or other potentially harmful invasive procedures. Your stupid little pages about body esteem will have little effect if some women are stupid an insecure enough to email their pictures to a weirdo like you for approval. Most women can't afford the surgery required to drastically change their bodies but they may still covet the "feminine" looks that you idealize which will easily result in low self esteem. Your little site is stupid and your data is rubbish so you will never have as big of an effect on aesthetics as the creative, popular gay designers. Reasonable people won't take your views on femininity and homosexuality seriously but weirdos like you and others on this site do take this stuff seriously. They believe in your bullshit citations over respected sources so it doesn't matter your data is easily falsified because they are raging morons who think that their opinions are fact.
Danielle: I am surprised that you are giving me advice to improve my message. I usually go the convenient route. It would have taken more work to get a clip of a feminine mainstream actress. I will see if I can obtain such clips.
The question being asked is who has the body (shape)? Therefore, hair, color, demeanor and body language are not relevant. Have you smelled Dasha?...just more of your nonsense.
Eric, the English translation of haute couture is "high sewing" NOT high fashion. You are mistaken about the translation. Bizarre dresses like the ones I posted are haute couture dresses. SHOW ME WHERE you got your stupid definition of haute couture from. Haute couture does NOT have to be wearable and it is often not wearable. The dress in the second picture is hardly appropriate for most gatherings even ELITE ones. You keep saying the same things over and over and its all bullshit. Haute couture is different from ready-to-wear but they are both still high fashion. Ready-to-wear clothes are usually far more wearable than haute couture collections. Your definition or haute couture is erroneous and retarded.
Your "glamour" models ARE VERY average from a facial perspective. A lot of them are wearing pounds of cheap makeup so that might fool you into thinking they are "attractive." I don't know where you plan to find better looking women. Face it; you'll be stuck with these sad specimens forever because I don't know where a wack-job like you will get money to scout for "feminine" women. I don't what you mean when you speak of achievability. What is more exclusive: a look that can very rarely be reproduced or a look that can be easily mimicked with a girdle and green eye shadow (yuck)?
I can define physical femininity however I damn well please just as you have made up your own definitions of physical femininity, high fashion modeling and haute couture. I don't look like a boy or a man and I have never been mistaken as such therefore I am feminine. You may think differently but I think you're a moron so who cares.
Danielle: Yes, I haven’t proven that these models are dating “closet queers,” but then I never made this assertion. Only a small minority of men who are not lifetime-exclusive heterosexuals are homosexual or bisexual, and I did not imply that these men are necessarily homosexual or bisexual.
Look at it this way. Rich men with reasonable fame have plenty of women to choose from, and are in a position to attract many women that most people consider to be very good looking (feminine beauties). So what would make some such men repeatedly date masculinized women? Obviously a preference for masculinization in women, and if these women are as masculine as Gisele and Heidi, then is it unreasonable to suspect that these men are either not lifetime-exclusive heterosexual or have narrowly escaped nonheterosexuality? I don’t think so. I do not have photographic/videographic evidence that any of these men are not lifetime-exclusive heterosexuals, but what reasonable person wouldn’t suspect it?
Regarding Heidi Klum, you just noted Ric Pipino but not the others. Consider this. A beautiful and famous woman will attract a lot of good looking and wealthy suitors in the age ranging from late twenties to early thirties. Yet look at Heidi’s relationships; the three major most recent ones with middle-aged men. Also look at the facial features of Ric Pipino, Flavio Briatore and especially Seal. These men will not be remotely considered as physically attractive by women were it not for riches/fame. Why does Heidi Klum have this history? Whereas she may be attracted to unattractive older men (strange as it may sound), one needs to consider the possibility that rich, good looking and young lifetime-exclusive heterosexual men will not bother dating the likes of Heidi Klum. It is in this context that you need to consider the profession choice of Ric Pipino, something that attracts a lot of homosexual men, and Flavio’s history of dating masculinized models and Seal’s involvement with another masculinized model before Heidi. The scenario is pointing to the fact that famous masculine women such as Heidi Klum are disproportionately attracting men who are candidates for not being lifetime-exclusive heterosexual, which needs to be seen in the context of my reply to Ali’s contention that these masculine women have been involved with some rich and famous men and hence they are sexy to many [exclusively heterosexual] men.
You have pointed out three women from the attractive women section. The first one’s strength is her waist-hip proportions, and just ask lifetime-exclusive heterosexual men whether they prefer the facial features of Heidi Klum or Gisele Bundchen to hers.
The bodies of the other two women are more of their strong point than their faces. This is especially true of Sonia Blake (the third woman). Sonia Blake has no chance of becoming America’s Top Model because the winner would need to please male homosexual fashion designers, but look at her body and ask yourself where she would place in this pageant if exclusively heterosexual men were in charge of it. There are plenty of women in the attractive women section whose combination of facial features and physique is better than those of these three women and you just ignore them. This section is only going to get better with time, with additions/replacements.
Ali: I will help answer your question about who looks better in lingerie with pictures, some videos and computer-generated figures/animations. The computer-generated images/animations can present masculine and feminine women side by side in similar poses/animation and dress, which will help the comparison issue by keeping factors other than physical femininity constant.
Marketa doesn’t pose nude, and this may comfort you. Her physique from the waist down is that of someone in her late teens; she is only girlish elsewhere.
The popularity of Victoria’s Secret has to do with their heavy promotion and glamorous portrayal. I will post a video to illustrate this. Since homosexual men dominate the fashion business, the VS Company and others like it (e.g., Frederick’s of Hollywood) don’t have to deal with competition...as of yet.
What you buy at JC Penney, Belk, Dillard’s or equivalent isn’t high fashion. The models you see in the advertising in these stores are often commercial models, who are lower tier fashion models, not the big ones that I am focusing on, and hence they could be feminine more often.
Women who get chin or cheekbone implants generally do not try to make their features more masculine. They attempt to correct a deficit.
Starting a lingerie alternative will have to wait. I have to work on making this site better known first.
I have addressed Dove’s campaign for real beauty and pointed out its shortcomings.
Danielle: I am not sure that BBB is female, but the comment suggested that this person is female. Once again, “high fashion” is English for “haute couture.” Of course, many items seen in haute couture shows would be inappropriate for general social gatherings, which I have already noted, and these bizarre dresses are part of the show but do not constitute haute couture itself. In your comment dated Aug 13, you posted two pictures; the first one shows a bizarre dress, but the second dress looks like something you could see in a general social gathering for the elite and is appropriately seen as high fashion/haute couture wear. When you consider haute couture, don’t think of most social gatherings; think about social gatherings for the elite.
Whereas Daria is not a sexy model for the general public, she is one for the homosexuals if she looks like what you see in the video clip. The feminine women that I am showing are not generally average apart from their waist-hip proportions. Having above average femininity makes one deviate from the average overall, not just the waists and hips. Whereas there are some women in the attractive women section with unimpressive faces, this is temporary, and they will be replaced with overall better looking women in the future. It is futile to attempt to explain the looks of fashion models in terms of a need for uniqueness and exclusivity. Tall women with above average femininity and a healthy amount of body fat have a more unique and exclusive look -- with respect to achievablility -- than current high-fashion models in general.
Whereas you can have a different definition of beauty, you cannot have a different definition of physical femininity and expect to make sense to others. If you are a [physically] masculine woman according to this site, then you are a [physically] masculine woman, period.
Sue: Crude measurements are not very helpful. This woman could be anywhere from being above average feminine but having excess abdominal fat to normal with respect to masculinity-femininity or slightly on the masculine side. If she is from a population with normally higher waist-to-hip ratios than European norms (e.g., South Asia), she is less likely to be on the masculine side than if she were European.
Danielle: There is no way your description of the feminine women shown here is anywhere comparable to my description of masculinized models. Using expressions such as “masculinized” or “male-to-female transsexual looks” or “male transvestite looks” to describe the appearance of a model suggests to someone who hasn’t seen the model that she is masculinized, whereas your expressions such as “trailer trash whore,” “fugbeast” and “ogre” do not describe the physical condition of the women to those who haven’t seen them. Your terms are purely hateful expressions. In my case I have had to use words to describe looks sometimes, and have chosen appropriate descriptions. You can call these descriptions unflattering but there is nothing hateful about them. A random woman who hears her looks described as that of a male-to-female transsexual would not be pleased, but this site is not about random women and unflattering [not insults] descriptions simply have to be used within this site on numerous occasions.
Male-to-female transsexuals, on average, do not look like women but they usually look more feminine than male transvestites, and hence using the transsexual expression is appropriate to describe the looks of masculinized models who are too masculine to pass off as typical women but more feminine than the typical male transvestite.
Whereas “trailer trash” and “low class whites” refer to the same group, the former expresses contempt whereas the latter is a neutral description. I am typically using neutral descriptions, whereas you are typically writing insults. How do you know that the women I have been featuring are low class? As a general rule, good looking glamour models are middle class and up, and many are financially well off. How can you describe these women as unclean and untidy? You don’t know anything about how well they groom themselves or maintain their belongings.
Unattractiveness is mere absence of attractiveness, but it takes a lot more for someone to be called ugly, namely physical defects/abnormalities. I haven’t described any of the high-fashion models and beauty pageant contestants as ugly, whereas you have used words worse than ugly to describe the glamour models (e.g., fugly).
Tell me that my site is useless if you don’t see it having any impact 5 years hence. In the meantime, don’t repeat this. Also do not delude yourself that I have not convinced many people about the true nature of Victoria’s Secret models. Brenda has acknowledged her awakening. I can cite other comments within this site and emails that I have received, too.
My site is far less harmful to women’s self-esteem than what the homosexuals are doing. I am promoting standards already harbored by most people, and hence this site wouldn’t be educating most women that they do not meet standards of feminine beauty, but the homosexuals are pushing an anomalous ideal that is going against the inclination of most people. You have acknowledged that aiming for femininity isn’t as bad as starving oneself to acquire ultra thin looks, but then mentioned that whereas thinness is achievable to a greater or lesser extent, greater femininity is not unless one resorted to drastic approaches such as bone surgery, but how many women will be prompted to seek bone surgery after going through this site? Answer here.
What do you mean I see no problem with women emailing me their pictures and asking me to rate them? I am not asking anyone to do so. The women that have done this knew what they were doing.
I have not characterized the sexuality of homosexuals as deviant and abhorrent. I have simply described it as it is, not bothered to label it. I have not compared homosexuals to pedophiles. I have pointed out on more than one occasion (see above for example) that most homosexuals are attracted to adults. I didn’t say that gay designers are pederasts, but that pederastic interests are quite common among these homosexuals, which is obvious.
How can one use false information as a weapon against homosexuals in general? Falsehood will not stand to scrutiny.
Josh: If you believe that Rosa Parks was a victim, you had better read this (other content at the site not endorsed).
Joshua: The genes affecting physical appearance are distributed over multiple chromosomes, which makes your question not very meaningful. Even when it comes to sex steroids, their levels are affected by genes on chromosomes other than X and Y.
Hi Erik, thank you for your site it's really fascinated me.
I think you make some good points (and some not so good...) on your site but I think one area you may have under estimated is how hetro-sexual women see fashion models.
Yes many designers are homosexual and definately choose masculinised women when decideing who wears their clothes. However, for hetrosexual women this works as well. Subconsciously hetrosexual women may be attracted to the masculine features of these women and I definately believe that masculine women are less threatening to the hetrosexual women who follow high fashion.
If you want to sell a hetrosexual woman an extremely exspensive product the last thing you want to do is threaten her. If Gemma Ward and Charlize Theron were in a bar I would automatically keep my boyfriend further away from Charlize anyday.
I have also noticed that actresses often have much more feminine features than high fashion models. I think this is because if you have to believe say in a romantic comedy that a man is in love with a woman. It is more believable that the leading man is in love with Charlize Theron than with Gemma Ward.
When women are shown porn their basic physical instincts respond in pretty much the same way as a man's would. But because the porn is designed for men, as you show, glamour/porn models are more 'estrogen heavy' than the women who are shown most often in the conventional media. These women are much more threatening to the hetrosexual woman than some of the women on the catwalk who are as you point out heavily masculinised.
Also the sexual conditioning females experience throughout childhood is so vastly different to that of a mans. Girls are taught to be less sexual by their parents and their community. In crude terms: a girl sleeps with six men in a week she's a bit of a slut, if a guy sleeps with six women he's jack the lad. So a women who has feminine features at first glance appears to be a more sexual creature and therefore 'bad' in the eyes of a women who has been subjected to a lot of social conditioning. Whereas a 'enuch' who walks the runway is not a sexual threat. Therefore the hetrosexual woman watching the 'eunich' can consentrate on what she's wearing and not on how intimidated she's feeling!
Do you agree??
that picture of ana barros as a teenager is very convincing! she doesnt look high fashion material at all there because she looks too soft too feminine
i really think this is a good website, an eyeopener for people who believe that natural beauty cannot be found in normal woman, but only in the magazines and on the runway
keep up the good work !
Not sure where to post this but Erik do you have an idea which chromosomes would mostly affect physical attractiveness in a person?
It would the homologous chromosomes mainly wouldn't it? but then again the sex chromosomes control the production sex hormones + steroids and so control how masculine or feminine a person is?
The Donald: You resort to quarreling with the commenter because you have no valid arguements to convince me that those models are hot? Haha. How smart.
What's a lobotomy anyway?
Eric, There has to be other sources out there where you can find examples of "feminine" women. You found some classier actresses in your attractive women section. Why don't you post videos of them instead? Dasha's video is really sad and disgusting. Her body may past your femininity test but a lot of viewers, even those who prefer average looks, might be turned off of the sleaze factor in this video. It is hard to look past the pathetic display that Dasha is making of herself. People can easily accuse you of pushing a sleazy type of aesthetic and behaviour by looking at this page and a lot of your other pages.
Alessandra is not my favorite model but she looks attractive and somewhat vivacious in her video. Compare her to Dasha who is lifting up her skirt to reveal her pasty breasts and her bikini wax. I don't know about men but I think that most women judge a person's demeanor and body language as well as their physical appeal to calculate their attractiveness. Dasha's skin is blotchy and pink while Alessandra is tanned and Dasha's hair looks a parched bit of fluff while Alessandra hair is styled and shiny. People judge attractiveness by the skin and hair as well as the body type. Alessandra does not have big titties or wide hips but at least she looks clean. The same cannot be said for your nude model. Dasha looks like she smells.
This is one of many reasons why I hate feminists. They over exaggerate womens' problems, ignore men (unless they're able to blame them for said problems), and remove any right that men can have that women may also have. They're worse than blacks that talk about slavery all the time, but never do anything but talk. Lot of people died for their right to be free, to improve themselves, but they'd rather talk about the problems their ancestors had. Why is Rosa parks recognized more than Vivien Thomas? Because Rosa was only a victim. Vivien made something that helped the world. Feminists need to stop talking about the problems that don't exist, and go change the ones that do, not only womens', but the ones of the entire human population.
I bet my entire Trump Tower that brenda has had a lobotomy.
JK. My hair is ugly and I deserve to die.
"You fail to convince people who think VS girls are pretty that they are masculine and unacceptable lingerie models. People who always thought VS girls were ugly are the ones who agree with you so they didn’t need convincing anyways. Your site won’t effect a change in the fashion industry or in the minds of those who like these VS models."
You're wrong, Danielle. I used to think Adriana Lima, Alessandra Ambrosio, and Gisele Bundchen were hot. Then I found this site and realized I was so wrong.
Pages