Ali: I have cited better stuff than mere polls, though not specifically in the context of lingerie modeling. One can nevertheless extrapolate from numerous studies about aesthetic preferences, and the selection of many Victoria’s Secret models would appear to be curious given the company’s profile.
Of course Marketa looks like a girl. In selecting her, I wished to contrast girlish looks with the more masculine look of a teenage Adriana Lima.
I have plenty of examples of high-fashion models contrasted with nude models within this site and have even posted some video comparisons recently (example). I can’t do much more at present.
I agree that there is variation among nude models and Victoria’s Secret models. However, the choice of nude models is limited by the number and type of women willing to pose nude, porn stars tend to be masculinized [because feminine women are less likely to do porn work] and some men interested in nude women are not exclusively heterosexual. You need to look at the large number of masculinized women that Victoria’s Secret Company is using and ask yourself why.
There is no need to illustrate the masculinity of some women by contrasting them with men, especially since the men will look much more masculine. Contrasting with normal or feminine women is sufficient.
Yes there are tall women with feminine physiques and it is true that inner beauty matters, but what is the point of bringing this up?
About 20% of men are not lifetime-exclusive heterosexuals. Therefore, there is no shortage of men potentially interested in masculinized women, and it does not follow that multiple male admirers of Heidi Klum and Gisele Bundchen suggests that the looks of these women are very desirable from the perspective of men in general. Heidi Klum’s first marriage was to a hairtylist, Ric Pipino, whose profession attracts a lot of homosexual men. The father of her first child, Flavio Briatore, has a history of romantic involvement with masculinized fashion models. Her current husband, Seal, was involved with another masculinized model before Heidi Klum. Similarly, Gisele’s former boyfriend, Leonardo DiCaprio, appears to dig masculinized women and last I heard she was dating a football player who had recently broken up with a masculinized female partner. So think about what kind of men these women are mostly attracting.
Ultimately, I agree with Erik's main point that the looks of high fashion models are masculinized in a way that approaches the appearance of skinny adolescent boys, and that this is a problem. I suspect that this tendency has something to do with the gay male domination of the fashion industry (as for whether gays actually do dominate the fashion industry, if The Advocate says they do, then I find it believable). I agree that most people, male or female, don't prefer the look of high fashion models or find them attractive. Worse, the look of high fashion models creeps into other areas of modeling and aesthetics, such as beauty pageants, Hollywood, and men's magazines.
High fashion, glamour, and beauty pageants should be based on (though not exclusively based on), what most people find beautiful. And what most people find beautiful is femininity. Hence, those outlets should be based around feminine beauty.
The majority of purported representations of female beauty in society should reflect what the majority of people consider to be beautiful in females. What minorities of people consider to be beautiful should only be represented in a minority of cultural representations of beauty. Currently, we are in the reverse situation, which makes no sense. There is no reason why, even if the majority of representations of female beauty become feminine, that there couldn't be simultaneous outlets and venues for what is currently considered beautiful in the fashion people. Yet that atypical version of beautiful should not be inflicted on the majority who doesn't share it. Majorities have rights, too.
Many current fashion models would no longer by so famous if feminine beauty took its rightful place. That is sad for them, but the fault for their predicament lies with the fashion designers who falsely exalted them, not with Erik and others who are blowing the whistle.
Anyway, I endorse Erik's project of promoting feminine beauty, and I guess his goal of having one mainstream outlet for feminine beauty is a good place to start. Good look with this, Erik, and keep us posted.
I'll have other comments and suggestions in the future. If you find it helpful, you could quote parts of my recent posts in a new thread when replying, so other people can see (a) that you do have people who actually read your website and support you, and (b) that someone can present rational skepticism to parts of your argument, while agreeing with the rest, and with your goals. You might also consider a "rave reviews" section of the website, since people who post extensively in the comments (other than me) are likely to disagree with you. Expect an email soon, also.
A lot of posters to the blog complain that Erik's website is disparaging to women, and merely replaces one standard of beauty with another.
Erik is criticizing the placement of women with a certain look in positions of high fashion, modeling, and beauty pageants. It's a mistake to assume that he is criticizing women in general. Some of his comparisons of some models' looks to transsexuals or transvestites sound harsh, but they aren't inaccurate and really drive his point home. Maybe Erik should have two versions of this site; one for women, and one for men, though I know that doing so wouldn't be practical. Perhaps he could do a "message to women" page that would address the emotional reactions that women with various types of looks might feel as they read his website.
I really empathize with women with more masculine looks who read this website. You probably feel terrible. Maybe Erik could sugar-coat things a bit more, but I don't think there is a way he could speak the truth on this issue without it hurting. Here are some reasons for comfort, however (some of which Erik has already articulated):
Most women, masculine or feminine looking, aren't suited for modeling. But that's not the end of the world. Although you might not fit the ideal of straight men, most women won't, and straight men know this and don't really expect you to. They hardly require the women they date to look like they could be in a beauty pageant contestants or models (including a feminine beauty pageant, which is what most beauty pageants should be). Being sexy, being pleasant, being flirtatious, and being interesting are also important qualities than straight men look for in girlfriends. The best gauge of your attractiveness to men is how men respond to you in real life, not what some guy writes on a website.
While Erik doesn't intend his website to critique that looks of normal, non-model women, a lesson to take from his analysis is that women in general can increase their attractiveness to men by emphasizing their femininity. That is not to say that women necessarily should do so, but that women who choose to will increase their choices in men. A book I was recently reading that might be helpful in this area is the "MANual," by Steve Santagati (warning: there is sound on that website).
On the subject of whether Erik is replacing one destructive standard of beauty with another. I don't think this objection makes much sense. First, Erik isn't setting up his own standard of beauty, but rather pointing out what most people already consider beautiful. Second, trying to look feminine is nowhere near as destructive as starving oneself.
It seems that some people are offended by his claim about what most people find beautiful in women. They would only be happy if Erik parroted some of the "beauty is in the eye of the beholder," and "every woman is beautiful in her own way" wishful thinking. Sorry, but reality doesn't work that way, so quit shooting the messenger. Women deserve to be told the truth about what is considered beautiful in them. The only thing worse than being compared to a difficult standard, is being compared to a difficult standard that nobody tells you exists.
Some people also object to the idea of women fitting themselves into men's standards. As if anything that pleases men must be somehow harmful or oppressive to women. Yet as Erik has shown, women generally agree with men that feminine women are more beautiful, so it's really a human standard, not just men's standard. And is it worse for women to please heterosexual men than it is to starve themselves to please elite gay male fashion designers?
Don't forget, women are selective with men too... not so much in the physical area, but in his personality and social status. Read the book Self-Made Man, by Norah Vincent, where the author dressed up and lived as a man, and described the harshness and objectification of trying to embody what women wanted. It's becoming increasingly popular for men to not just physical, but personality makeovers to try to be attractive to women. Look at the phenomenon of the seduction community, which is the background of VH1's show The Pickup Artist, where men spend countless hours reading on the internet, posting, and training in how to attract women. They do this because it works (not all of it, but some parts of it will greatly help increase a man's attractiveness). At least, it shows that many men are interested in increasingly their attractiveness and trying to figure out what women want; working hard to make oneself attractive to the opposite sex is not only a necessity for women in search of quality mates.
Note: The last post was supposed to be after another post, which either didn't post or got caught in some kind of moderation cue. The above clarification post can be deleted. I've re-typed the post it was supposed to refer to.
I agree with Erik that (a) looks approaching adolescent boys is the central tendency in high fashion models, and (b) gay men are over-represented in the fashion industry. A connection between these two propositions makes sense, though what exactly is the connection, and how does it work?
In Erik's view, the masculinized female aesthetic in the fashion industry is primarily set by homosexual male fashion designers. According to him, 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. (I still need to look over the evidence for the link between homosexuality and sexual attraction to adolescents, but lets assume that Erik's characterization of it is correct.) Yet there is a missing link here, which is an explanation of why the aesthetic taste of homosexual designers in women should mirror their sexual and aesthetic tastes in men.
Is there a general principle that if anyone prefers X sexually and aesthetically in the sex they are not attracted to, that they will also prefer X aesthetically in the sex they are not attracted to? If we drew an analogy to straights, do straight male fashion designers prefer feminine looking men, and do straight female fashion designers prefer masculine looking women? We know from Erik's citations that straight women in general prefer femininity in women (though perhaps female fashion designers are different). The principle above doesn't seem to apply to straight women, (and I doubt that straight men typically find femininity in men to be aesthetic), so why should it apply to queer men?
There is one plausible explanation that comes to mind, which is that since queer men are different from straights in many probable ways, such as prenatal development, cognitive skills, and gender typical behavior and subjectivity, they might be different in aesthetic tastes from heterosexuals. Yet the aesthetic tastes of a minority of people shouldn't be creating a beauty standard that is at odds with the preferences of the majority of people.
What would settle this question is to perform a study that compares the sexual and aesthetic preferences of gay men in males, to their aesthetic preferences in females. If there was a correlation, then Erik's argument would be solid, rather than merely plausible and interesting. I would also be interested in the shape of the distribution of homosexual male aesthetic preferences in women, to see if homosexual males are over-represented among those who prefer masculine-looking women due to a higher mean preference for that look, or higher variability, or both.
It seems that most of the people who prefer masculine-looking women are queer (or that queers are over-represented among them). But do most queers prefer masculine-looking women? I wonder. There may be plenty of queers who would gladly ally with Erik's pursuit of a mainstream outlet for feminine beauty, and who might display disapproval to their fashion designer brothers who's behavior reflects badly on gay men in general. Also, Erik could make it clearer that he doesn't oppose gay males and their aesthetics in general, just the aesthetics of a small among of gay men in the fashion industry being forced on heterosexuals.
Furthermore, there's a possibility that the phenotype of gay male fashion designers differs from the phenotype of the average gay male in systematic ways. For instance, gay male fashion designers have higher spatial skills, which could be indicative of a prenatal development somewhat different from that of the average gay man, and could be accompanied by different aesthetic preferences for masculinity/femininity.
I can think up one plausible answer, which is that queer people have systematically different aesthetic preferences from the general population, consistent with their (probably) different prenatal development, gender typicality, and sexual orientation.
...I meant to say "gender atypicality." Erik is free to delete this post and correct the previous one.
Now it's time for me to give some proper comments on this website.
I had always wondered what was strange about the looks of fashion models and even some actresses or models in men's magazines, and why they were so unattractive. But then I thought, "oh, it's probably just me... maybe other guys find them attractive." I was always perplexed by the skinniness of fashion models, and by the rectangular faces and large jaws of some actresses and glamour models.
Meanwhile, I heard feminists constantly blaming men for promoting unrealistically skinny images of women in the media. "But wait..." I always wanted to say... "I'm not attracted to women like that, so get off my case!"
It wasn't until finding this website that I was able to see the big picture, and realize that what I had been turned off by was a generalized masculinization of the appearance of fashion models towards the look of skinny adolescent boys.
Erik Holland argues in a way that sounds very cerebral and detached; he places an emphasis on facts and evidence rather than how people feel about them (though I see him doing his best to address the issues of body image and discrimination). This kind of communication style makes it easy to to read misogyny and homophobia into his words that isn't necessarily there. If Erik's view of the facts is correct, then he isn't being misogynistic or homophobic; the truth cannot be bigoted. If he is wrong, then the burden is on anyone who believes that to point out the flaws in his use of evidence before any inferences about his motives or biases are appropriate.
Unfortunately, many of the people slamming the guy make themselves oblivious to the actual evidence he provides. Come on, folks, look at the evidence he provides before dismissing his arguments. He has well-documented the points that beauty is not in the eye of the beholder, and that most people (male and female) prefer above average femininity in women. Get over it, or show some counter-arguments or counter-evidence.
I don't necessarily know if Erik is correct, and I would like to see any possible intelligent rebuttals to him. I haven't really seen any yet. Nevertheless, there are some areas where I do think his arguments could be more convincing, and some questions that remain to be answered.
Der Wanderer, don't tell me to get lost. You may think that fashion models look like boys but you don't speak for the majority anymore than I do. If you think that any of the "data" that Eric collects is scientific then you have bigger problems than I do. I use descriptive language to describe Eric's "models" just like Eric describes fashion models as trannys and hermaphrodites. If you think I am telling people to hate what I hate just because I hate it then I am a lot like the guy that makes this site. I am not telling anyone to think that models are beautiful though I think a lot of them are. I am telling Eric that his site is useless, his arguments are flawed and he won't succeed in changing the fashion world. Losers like you and Eric have NO power over the aesthetic of gay designers. THANK GOD! BTW, I'm not a guy.
hi ,what do u think of eva longoria's notably contrasting features-tubular, masculinized body as opposed to fairly feminine face?
i also feel that halle berryhld be included in your attractive women section.
Erik, wouldnt you agree that Yamila Diaz is more femenine than the other women in the picture? you can clearly see that her hips are more femenine, she has more of an hourglass figure than the other women.
Dasha has a nice bum, but she seems a little husky to me. Her arms, legs, neck, waist... all seem kind of thick. Aren't delicate, dainty features feminine? Incidentally, Dasha should try conditioning her hair.
Alessandra, on the other hand, has long, skinny arms and legs, a graceful neck, and a slim waist. In other articles on this website, you've disdained long arms as masculine, but longer arms have a greater length-to-width ratio, making them appear thinner - likewise for the rest of the body. So, a tall woman with long limbs can appear slimmer, therefore daintier, therefore more feminine. Slimness is a hallmark of women's beauty, at least in the West. Narrow stilettos, slinky evening gowns, and the slim cigarettes (and cigarette holders) that only women smoke, all point in this direction. I don't think only homosexual men appreciate slimness.
You also say (on another page) that her "narrow" face is a masculine feature, but I think that a narrow head is a feminine feature. I read an article (I can't remember where, maybe Nature?) suggesting that the shape and size of the skull is an evolutionary battle between men and women, since men want the largest possible brain, whereas women, although they also might want large brains, need their offspring's skull to pass through the pelvis, so favour a narrower head. In any case, I think a narrower face is better-looking on both men and women.
Admittedly Alessandra's buttocks are flat (although not sunken), but her breasts and hips seem adequate to me. You say she has implants; I don't know if that's true, but her breasts look fine to me. She's eating waffles in the video, and her wikipedia page says she loves chocolate, so if she has an eating disorder, she's eating conspicuously to hide it. But, she looks healthy to me.
Erik, Hugh Hefner denied that he watches gay porn. I think is very prejudiced to say that some men's preference for masculinized women is code for an unexpressed homosexual inclination. You can see Hugh Hefner denying the gay porn rumor at this link:
That blond girl looks very uninteresting to me and skanky too. He should have put up some videos of REAL beautiful women who have real class like Greta Garbo,Hedy Lamarr or Catherine Deneuve.
Erik when you say normal with respect to masculinity/femininity what do you mean exactly? do you mean neither particularly feminine nor particularly masculine?
Eric you are a bloody ignorant fool. If you go to any fashion site whether it is style.com or a blog or a community forum then you will see that distinctions are made between haute couture, ready-to-wear and resort collections. THEY ALL fall under the high fashion banner. Stop taking things so literally, you dufus. A dior ready-to-wear collection is different than a Walmart white stag collection because one is high fashion and one is mass marketed, cheap crap.
Daria is not wearing some bizarre evening dress. She is wearing a BATHING SUIT so, of course its not going to be appropriate for a cocktail part or a charity ball. It is still high fashion. The literal french translation, whichs is "high sewing" by the way, means nothing. Would you agree that Versace, Prada, Chloe and Alexander Mcqueen are high fashion labels? They do NOT make couture clothes. Couture is in a different catagory. Only about eight or ten fashion houses do couture clothes. Go the freaking wikipedia entry on haute couture.
Joe: I don’t believe that the fashion industry specifically sets out to abuse people. The preferences of homosexual fashion designers just end up being abusive for some women.
Ali: I have cited better stuff than mere polls, though not specifically in the context of lingerie modeling. One can nevertheless extrapolate from numerous studies about aesthetic preferences, and the selection of many Victoria’s Secret models would appear to be curious given the company’s profile.
Of course Marketa looks like a girl. In selecting her, I wished to contrast girlish looks with the more masculine look of a teenage Adriana Lima.
I have plenty of examples of high-fashion models contrasted with nude models within this site and have even posted some video comparisons recently (example). I can’t do much more at present.
I agree that there is variation among nude models and Victoria’s Secret models. However, the choice of nude models is limited by the number and type of women willing to pose nude, porn stars tend to be masculinized [because feminine women are less likely to do porn work] and some men interested in nude women are not exclusively heterosexual. You need to look at the large number of masculinized women that Victoria’s Secret Company is using and ask yourself why.
There is no need to illustrate the masculinity of some women by contrasting them with men, especially since the men will look much more masculine. Contrasting with normal or feminine women is sufficient.
Yes there are tall women with feminine physiques and it is true that inner beauty matters, but what is the point of bringing this up?
About 20% of men are not lifetime-exclusive heterosexuals. Therefore, there is no shortage of men potentially interested in masculinized women, and it does not follow that multiple male admirers of Heidi Klum and Gisele Bundchen suggests that the looks of these women are very desirable from the perspective of men in general. Heidi Klum’s first marriage was to a hairtylist, Ric Pipino, whose profession attracts a lot of homosexual men. The father of her first child, Flavio Briatore, has a history of romantic involvement with masculinized fashion models. Her current husband, Seal, was involved with another masculinized model before Heidi Klum. Similarly, Gisele’s former boyfriend, Leonardo DiCaprio, appears to dig masculinized women and last I heard she was dating a football player who had recently broken up with a masculinized female partner. So think about what kind of men these women are mostly attracting.
Ultimately, I agree with Erik's main point that the looks of high fashion models are masculinized in a way that approaches the appearance of skinny adolescent boys, and that this is a problem. I suspect that this tendency has something to do with the gay male domination of the fashion industry (as for whether gays actually do dominate the fashion industry, if The Advocate says they do, then I find it believable). I agree that most people, male or female, don't prefer the look of high fashion models or find them attractive. Worse, the look of high fashion models creeps into other areas of modeling and aesthetics, such as beauty pageants, Hollywood, and men's magazines.
High fashion, glamour, and beauty pageants should be based on (though not exclusively based on), what most people find beautiful. And what most people find beautiful is femininity. Hence, those outlets should be based around feminine beauty.
The majority of purported representations of female beauty in society should reflect what the majority of people consider to be beautiful in females. What minorities of people consider to be beautiful should only be represented in a minority of cultural representations of beauty. Currently, we are in the reverse situation, which makes no sense. There is no reason why, even if the majority of representations of female beauty become feminine, that there couldn't be simultaneous outlets and venues for what is currently considered beautiful in the fashion people. Yet that atypical version of beautiful should not be inflicted on the majority who doesn't share it. Majorities have rights, too.
Many current fashion models would no longer by so famous if feminine beauty took its rightful place. That is sad for them, but the fault for their predicament lies with the fashion designers who falsely exalted them, not with Erik and others who are blowing the whistle.
Anyway, I endorse Erik's project of promoting feminine beauty, and I guess his goal of having one mainstream outlet for feminine beauty is a good place to start. Good look with this, Erik, and keep us posted.
I'll have other comments and suggestions in the future. If you find it helpful, you could quote parts of my recent posts in a new thread when replying, so other people can see (a) that you do have people who actually read your website and support you, and (b) that someone can present rational skepticism to parts of your argument, while agreeing with the rest, and with your goals. You might also consider a "rave reviews" section of the website, since people who post extensively in the comments (other than me) are likely to disagree with you. Expect an email soon, also.
A lot of posters to the blog complain that Erik's website is disparaging to women, and merely replaces one standard of beauty with another.
Erik is criticizing the placement of women with a certain look in positions of high fashion, modeling, and beauty pageants. It's a mistake to assume that he is criticizing women in general. Some of his comparisons of some models' looks to transsexuals or transvestites sound harsh, but they aren't inaccurate and really drive his point home. Maybe Erik should have two versions of this site; one for women, and one for men, though I know that doing so wouldn't be practical. Perhaps he could do a "message to women" page that would address the emotional reactions that women with various types of looks might feel as they read his website.
I really empathize with women with more masculine looks who read this website. You probably feel terrible. Maybe Erik could sugar-coat things a bit more, but I don't think there is a way he could speak the truth on this issue without it hurting. Here are some reasons for comfort, however (some of which Erik has already articulated):
Most women, masculine or feminine looking, aren't suited for modeling. But that's not the end of the world. Although you might not fit the ideal of straight men, most women won't, and straight men know this and don't really expect you to. They hardly require the women they date to look like they could be in a beauty pageant contestants or models (including a feminine beauty pageant, which is what most beauty pageants should be). Being sexy, being pleasant, being flirtatious, and being interesting are also important qualities than straight men look for in girlfriends. The best gauge of your attractiveness to men is how men respond to you in real life, not what some guy writes on a website.
While Erik doesn't intend his website to critique that looks of normal, non-model women, a lesson to take from his analysis is that women in general can increase their attractiveness to men by emphasizing their femininity. That is not to say that women necessarily should do so, but that women who choose to will increase their choices in men. A book I was recently reading that might be helpful in this area is the "MANual," by Steve Santagati (warning: there is sound on that website).
On the subject of whether Erik is replacing one destructive standard of beauty with another. I don't think this objection makes much sense. First, Erik isn't setting up his own standard of beauty, but rather pointing out what most people already consider beautiful. Second, trying to look feminine is nowhere near as destructive as starving oneself.
It seems that some people are offended by his claim about what most people find beautiful in women. They would only be happy if Erik parroted some of the "beauty is in the eye of the beholder," and "every woman is beautiful in her own way" wishful thinking. Sorry, but reality doesn't work that way, so quit shooting the messenger. Women deserve to be told the truth about what is considered beautiful in them. The only thing worse than being compared to a difficult standard, is being compared to a difficult standard that nobody tells you exists.
Some people also object to the idea of women fitting themselves into men's standards. As if anything that pleases men must be somehow harmful or oppressive to women. Yet as Erik has shown, women generally agree with men that feminine women are more beautiful, so it's really a human standard, not just men's standard. And is it worse for women to please heterosexual men than it is to starve themselves to please elite gay male fashion designers?
Don't forget, women are selective with men too... not so much in the physical area, but in his personality and social status. Read the book Self-Made Man, by Norah Vincent, where the author dressed up and lived as a man, and described the harshness and objectification of trying to embody what women wanted. It's becoming increasingly popular for men to not just physical, but personality makeovers to try to be attractive to women. Look at the phenomenon of the seduction community, which is the background of VH1's show The Pickup Artist, where men spend countless hours reading on the internet, posting, and training in how to attract women. They do this because it works (not all of it, but some parts of it will greatly help increase a man's attractiveness). At least, it shows that many men are interested in increasingly their attractiveness and trying to figure out what women want; working hard to make oneself attractive to the opposite sex is not only a necessity for women in search of quality mates.
continued...
Note: The last post was supposed to be after another post, which either didn't post or got caught in some kind of moderation cue. The above clarification post can be deleted. I've re-typed the post it was supposed to refer to.
I agree with Erik that (a) looks approaching adolescent boys is the central tendency in high fashion models, and (b) gay men are over-represented in the fashion industry. A connection between these two propositions makes sense, though what exactly is the connection, and how does it work?
In Erik's view, the masculinized female aesthetic in the fashion industry is primarily set by homosexual male fashion designers. According to him, 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. (I still need to look over the evidence for the link between homosexuality and sexual attraction to adolescents, but lets assume that Erik's characterization of it is correct.) Yet there is a missing link here, which is an explanation of why the aesthetic taste of homosexual designers in women should mirror their sexual and aesthetic tastes in men.
Is there a general principle that if anyone prefers X sexually and aesthetically in the sex they are not attracted to, that they will also prefer X aesthetically in the sex they are not attracted to? If we drew an analogy to straights, do straight male fashion designers prefer feminine looking men, and do straight female fashion designers prefer masculine looking women? We know from Erik's citations that straight women in general prefer femininity in women (though perhaps female fashion designers are different). The principle above doesn't seem to apply to straight women, (and I doubt that straight men typically find femininity in men to be aesthetic), so why should it apply to queer men?
There is one plausible explanation that comes to mind, which is that since queer men are different from straights in many probable ways, such as prenatal development, cognitive skills, and gender typical behavior and subjectivity, they might be different in aesthetic tastes from heterosexuals. Yet the aesthetic tastes of a minority of people shouldn't be creating a beauty standard that is at odds with the preferences of the majority of people.
What would settle this question is to perform a study that compares the sexual and aesthetic preferences of gay men in males, to their aesthetic preferences in females. If there was a correlation, then Erik's argument would be solid, rather than merely plausible and interesting. I would also be interested in the shape of the distribution of homosexual male aesthetic preferences in women, to see if homosexual males are over-represented among those who prefer masculine-looking women due to a higher mean preference for that look, or higher variability, or both.
It seems that most of the people who prefer masculine-looking women are queer (or that queers are over-represented among them). But do most queers prefer masculine-looking women? I wonder. There may be plenty of queers who would gladly ally with Erik's pursuit of a mainstream outlet for feminine beauty, and who might display disapproval to their fashion designer brothers who's behavior reflects badly on gay men in general. Also, Erik could make it clearer that he doesn't oppose gay males and their aesthetics in general, just the aesthetics of a small among of gay men in the fashion industry being forced on heterosexuals.
Furthermore, there's a possibility that the phenotype of gay male fashion designers differs from the phenotype of the average gay male in systematic ways. For instance, gay male fashion designers have higher spatial skills, which could be indicative of a prenatal development somewhat different from that of the average gay man, and could be accompanied by different aesthetic preferences for masculinity/femininity.
continued...
8D, why do you keep implying Erik is a white racialist?
One correction to the previous post. When I said:
I can think up one plausible answer, which is that queer people have systematically different aesthetic preferences from the general population, consistent with their (probably) different prenatal development, gender typicality, and sexual orientation.
...I meant to say "gender atypicality." Erik is free to delete this post and correct the previous one.
Now it's time for me to give some proper comments on this website.
I had always wondered what was strange about the looks of fashion models and even some actresses or models in men's magazines, and why they were so unattractive. But then I thought, "oh, it's probably just me... maybe other guys find them attractive." I was always perplexed by the skinniness of fashion models, and by the rectangular faces and large jaws of some actresses and glamour models.
Meanwhile, I heard feminists constantly blaming men for promoting unrealistically skinny images of women in the media. "But wait..." I always wanted to say... "I'm not attracted to women like that, so get off my case!"
It wasn't until finding this website that I was able to see the big picture, and realize that what I had been turned off by was a generalized masculinization of the appearance of fashion models towards the look of skinny adolescent boys.
Erik Holland argues in a way that sounds very cerebral and detached; he places an emphasis on facts and evidence rather than how people feel about them (though I see him doing his best to address the issues of body image and discrimination). This kind of communication style makes it easy to to read misogyny and homophobia into his words that isn't necessarily there. If Erik's view of the facts is correct, then he isn't being misogynistic or homophobic; the truth cannot be bigoted. If he is wrong, then the burden is on anyone who believes that to point out the flaws in his use of evidence before any inferences about his motives or biases are appropriate.
Unfortunately, many of the people slamming the guy make themselves oblivious to the actual evidence he provides. Come on, folks, look at the evidence he provides before dismissing his arguments. He has well-documented the points that beauty is not in the eye of the beholder, and that most people (male and female) prefer above average femininity in women. Get over it, or show some counter-arguments or counter-evidence.
I don't necessarily know if Erik is correct, and I would like to see any possible intelligent rebuttals to him. I haven't really seen any yet. Nevertheless, there are some areas where I do think his arguments could be more convincing, and some questions that remain to be answered.
continued...
Danielle, shut the hell up. Whether she's posing haute coutre or not, daria still looks like a teenage boy.
Erik have you come across this person becuse she looks like she has a feminine face:
http://www.claudialynxfan.com/gallery.html#
Der Wanderer, don't tell me to get lost. You may think that fashion models look like boys but you don't speak for the majority anymore than I do. If you think that any of the "data" that Eric collects is scientific then you have bigger problems than I do. I use descriptive language to describe Eric's "models" just like Eric describes fashion models as trannys and hermaphrodites. If you think I am telling people to hate what I hate just because I hate it then I am a lot like the guy that makes this site. I am not telling anyone to think that models are beautiful though I think a lot of them are. I am telling Eric that his site is useless, his arguments are flawed and he won't succeed in changing the fashion world. Losers like you and Eric have NO power over the aesthetic of gay designers. THANK GOD! BTW, I'm not a guy.
erike
all i was saying was that i personally think white women are plain looking but then thats merely my opinion
> Most People don’t think “OMG ADOLESCENT BOY!!!!
Most people?
What people ... I surely do
Who gave you the authority to speak for "us"?
LOL, very "scientific", indeed
What a joke, this "Danielle" guy
> I won’t even bother to try to address that homophobic crap ...
And what do you call this? :
> If being a white, trailer trash whore makes someone feminine ...
It sounds pretty "hateful" and "phobic", doesn't it?
All your writings boil down to:
"You have to HATE what I HATE just cause I said so"
Get lost
hi ,what do u think of eva longoria's notably contrasting features-tubular, masculinized body as opposed to fairly feminine face?
i also feel that halle berryhld be included in your attractive women section.
Erik, wouldnt you agree that Yamila Diaz is more femenine than the other women in the picture? you can clearly see that her hips are more femenine, she has more of an hourglass figure than the other women.
Dasha has a nice bum, but she seems a little husky to me. Her arms, legs, neck, waist... all seem kind of thick. Aren't delicate, dainty features feminine? Incidentally, Dasha should try conditioning her hair.
Alessandra, on the other hand, has long, skinny arms and legs, a graceful neck, and a slim waist. In other articles on this website, you've disdained long arms as masculine, but longer arms have a greater length-to-width ratio, making them appear thinner - likewise for the rest of the body. So, a tall woman with long limbs can appear slimmer, therefore daintier, therefore more feminine. Slimness is a hallmark of women's beauty, at least in the West. Narrow stilettos, slinky evening gowns, and the slim cigarettes (and cigarette holders) that only women smoke, all point in this direction. I don't think only homosexual men appreciate slimness.
You also say (on another page) that her "narrow" face is a masculine feature, but I think that a narrow head is a feminine feature. I read an article (I can't remember where, maybe Nature?) suggesting that the shape and size of the skull is an evolutionary battle between men and women, since men want the largest possible brain, whereas women, although they also might want large brains, need their offspring's skull to pass through the pelvis, so favour a narrower head. In any case, I think a narrower face is better-looking on both men and women.
Admittedly Alessandra's buttocks are flat (although not sunken), but her breasts and hips seem adequate to me. You say she has implants; I don't know if that's true, but her breasts look fine to me. She's eating waffles in the video, and her wikipedia page says she loves chocolate, so if she has an eating disorder, she's eating conspicuously to hide it. But, she looks healthy to me.
Erik, Hugh Hefner denied that he watches gay porn. I think is very prejudiced to say that some men's preference for masculinized women is code for an unexpressed homosexual inclination. You can see Hugh Hefner denying the gay porn rumor at this link:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8287464898375364845&q=Ask+Hef+Anything&total=28&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=5
That blond girl looks very uninteresting to me and skanky too. He should have put up some videos of REAL beautiful women who have real class like Greta Garbo,Hedy Lamarr or Catherine Deneuve.
Erik when you say normal with respect to masculinity/femininity what do you mean exactly? do you mean neither particularly feminine nor particularly masculine?
erik when you say @appears to be@ do you mean you are not enitrely sure. So charlotte church isnt above average femininity?
Tell me what you thought of Honey lee miss Korea and Micael Reis miss angola. they placed 4th and 7th
erik: tl;dr.
Eric you are a bloody ignorant fool. If you go to any fashion site whether it is style.com or a blog or a community forum then you will see that distinctions are made between haute couture, ready-to-wear and resort collections. THEY ALL fall under the high fashion banner. Stop taking things so literally, you dufus. A dior ready-to-wear collection is different than a Walmart white stag collection because one is high fashion and one is mass marketed, cheap crap.
Daria is not wearing some bizarre evening dress. She is wearing a BATHING SUIT so, of course its not going to be appropriate for a cocktail part or a charity ball. It is still high fashion. The literal french translation, whichs is "high sewing" by the way, means nothing. Would you agree that Versace, Prada, Chloe and Alexander Mcqueen are high fashion labels? They do NOT make couture clothes. Couture is in a different catagory. Only about eight or ten fashion houses do couture clothes. Go the freaking wikipedia entry on haute couture.
> her adroginity is simply fabolous!
LOL, what a joke, these guys.
If you're into androgyny ...
What - are - you - doing - here ?
Is there a way that a woman can become more feminine?Eg: estrogen therapy,estrogen balancing herbs etc
Joe: I don’t believe that the fashion industry specifically sets out to abuse people. The preferences of homosexual fashion designers just end up being abusive for some women.
Pages