George: English is not my native language either. If your comment is supposed to make sense then its sense is lost upon me. I got your point about men quickly judging how attractive a woman is, but this is true of people in general, including women and homosexuals. An argument limited to “I find this woman hot but not that one” is not relevant to this site. You can learn about the goals of this site by reading the FAQ. To work toward these goals, some details about physical appearance have to be addressed to show why one woman is more feminine than another or why she would be considered more attractive by most people.
Danielle: To say that female high-fashion models tend to have boyish looks is not to say that they generally look like boys. I do not have a wide definition of masculinity. Masculinized women are masculine compared to feminine-to-normal women, not men.
You have described my citation as B.S. without any justification. How reasonable. The citations do not make the case that “gay men want to screw boys” but that a much greater proportion of gay men want to screw boys than the proportion of straight men who want to screw girls. The majority of homosexual men are attracted to adult men.
The American Psychiatric Association (APA) is a reputable psychiatric organization, but scientific arguments rest on evidence, not reputation. The APA was long ago hijacked by the gay lobby and hence APA position statements on politically sensitive issues related to homosexuality are useless for debate. What matters is the evidence the APA cites. The APA and other professional mental health organizations cite evidence such as Jenny et al. (1994), Groth and Birnbaum (1978), etc. to support the argument that there is no association between homosexuality and sexual interest in children, but the links I provided take care of these papers and numerous other arguments coming from the gay lobby. Don’t waste your time accusing me of selectively citing evidence. I will take on any psychiatrist/psychologist who is willing to debate the issue of the relation between homosexuality and sexual interest in children with me.
I have never portrayed homosexuals and pedophiles as the same group. These groups are different, but this doesn’t mean that there is no overlap between the two. I also have not argued that homosexuals are more deranged than pedophiles.
Kris: If you look at gay pride parades, you will see plenty of cross dressers/people with androgynous looks. A number of homosexuals find these looks appealing. Androgyny in fashion models does not reflect selection for versatility, but looks that appeal to numerous homosexual fashion designers. The female models are sometimes androgynous but a lot of them lean toward the look of boys in their early adolescence. The effeminacy of many male high-fashion models is usually limited to muscular build/skeletal thickness, but if they had well-developed muscles then their physical build would deviate more from boys in their late adolescence (about as young as the homosexuals could get away with).
Please read carefully. I am not damning the entire homosexual community as pedophiles. Haven’t you read above that most homosexuals are not sexually attracted to children? There is obviously a difference between finding someone attractive in a non-sexual manner and being attracted to this person in a sexual manner. But do you seriously believe that many of the homosexual fashion designers do not find boys sexually appealing?
Talking about a woman with male-typical height does not mean that she is masculine. There are plenty of tall feminine women around; read this entry on height in women and its relation to femininity and attractiveness. Similarly, high-cheekbones by themselves will not make a woman masculine. A woman will look masculine if many of her physical features distributed throughout the body look masculine. The fashion industry doesn’t idolize those with different looks or else you would see a wide variety of deviations from the norm among models, but the typical deviation observed among female models is to lean toward the looks of adolescent boys, and it is obvious why.
Kris: I agree that majority beliefs are not necessarily correct, but we are discussing preferences. The majority aesthetically prefers feminine beauty to women who are normal or masculinized. Said in a different way, the majority of people generally find women with above average femininity better looking than women with average to below average femininity.
When you consider the appeal of celebrities, you need to take into account the halo effect of personality and fame. If Jennifer Aniston were an ordinary woman, do you think most people would find her physically attractive? Slight masculinization is usually not an aesthetic problem in women from a majority perspective and it is a correlate of their sexiness to heterosexual men. A young adult Angelina Jolie looked sexy in many of her pictures and given her having acted in many movies, she is expected to have plenty of male admirers.
Elizabeth: Starting from the average level of masculinization in women, beyond some level of masculinization increase, the odds that men who find these women attractive either have a homosexual component to their interests or have narrowly escaped nonheterosexuality increase. I don’t see how it is rude to point out something that needs to be mentioned and should be obvious anyway. What do you mean that women in general are a mix of femininity and masculinity?
My opinion on male attractiveness is similar to that of most women, i.e., better looking men tend to be taller than average and have a more masculine physical build.
Elizabeth: I prefer Angelina Jolie to Jennifer Aniston (too masculine face). Neither of these women are classifiable as feminine, but the masculinization in a young adult Angelina Jolie made her look sexy in many of her pictures (only exceptions for me were some pictures where the gonial region of her jaw was prominently displayed).
I believe Jeri Ryan has a good physique but I don't like her face that much because of elements such as a broad nose.
Erik:
I think that what really doesn't make sense is your answer to my comment, which states perfectly clear points.
Do you mean that you cant make sense of my comment on the way us heterosexual men instinctively acknowledge the "hotness" of any given woman,
without going into tortuous details the way other women as well as gay men do?
And I apologize for any flaws in my English, it is not my native language, so I might not have been quite as accurate as I wished I had.
Yet obviously, the first girl has 'fashion model' looks, the other does not. It should be clear that the fashion model look is not simply a case of masculinization even though you are correct in saying that models have many facial features that are more masculine than the average. They also have some features that are more feminine than average that you convenintly ignore. Although models have high cheekbones (masculine) they also typically have flared cheekbones that protrude and take up a large proportion of the face which is feminine, in this regard they are more feminine than population average. Male cheekbones are high but have less flare, appearing more retracted from a 3/4 angle and they end higher up on the face.
Has masculine cheekbones - they are non protruding and she has quite a bit of facial fat, but look at how much facial length she has below her cheekbones.
Has much more feminine cheekbones - they end at the same level as her mouth. Her facial skeleton differs from the average woman in being more robust.
Which of the above girls has 'fashion model' features?
I can't help but notice that on average the glamour models have closer set eyes than the fashion models. Wide apart eyes are a more feminine trait. You mentioned the masculine narrowness which indeed fashion models do have, but not the feminine spacing. Very convenient. Eyes that are close-set, and appear round because they are horizontally short with rounded outer corners are also a male trait but are rare on fashion models.
http://www.femininebeauty.info/images/m.g.20.jpg
Little beady close-set round eyes are a MALE trait. Notice also her masculine nose, hairline and jaw. Yet she doesn't look like a fashion model at all.
So yes, fashion models have some masculine features and overall have more than average, but it's clear that not just any old masculine features will do. Now you explain this by saying it is specifically UNDERAGE boys that models are supposed to resemble, and a woman who is masculine but not fashion model material resembles a more mature male. Consider the first two girls in this post again. I'll bet my bottom dollar that if you showed me an averaged face of 15 year old white american boys the face you would get would be the second girl, not the first. Your theory does not hold up, because female models have some features that are very atypical for teenagers, be they boys or girls.
Not typical of teen boys. Firstly a teenage boy's facial bones are not fully grown. Also teenagers, boys and girls typically have smoother, less detailed looking faces even if they have robust bone structure. This is because of the way the facial fat is distributed in teens, and has little to do with overall bodyfat%. In men and women with robust facial skeleton this 'chiselled' look becomes more apparent with age as facial fat distribution changes. Compare kate moss as a young teen to now at 34. Models wear makeup to emphasize the contoured look. If it's so crucial that models resemble a boy of under 18, why draw attention to a feature that could actually be associated with ageing?
Squinty eyes:
http://www.femininebeauty.info/images/c8.jpg
This is not a youthful feature. In in girls OR boys. In caucasians eyes appear to narrow with increasing age and make the face appear more threatening. Women's eyes are typically more open than men's but fashion models frequently have eyes that are narrow even for male standards. In photo shoots models are often photographed with an expression that emphasizes this feature.
Associated with status and dominance in men. Hardly to be expected of a teen boy who has not yet finished pubery. High fashion models adopt a facial expression which exaggerates the dominant features.
You are a homophobe who believes that gay men are a sort of mild pedophile attracted to boys not yet finished pubery. You are trying to shoehorn every last physical trait of models into your 'teen boy' theory. It is more accurate to describe models features features that are very mature but with less pronounced secondary sex characteristics.
I prefer the 4th and the 5th picture on each row. I wonder what the rest of the body would look like. What body shapes would probably go with 1, 3 and 5 from each row?
You may not agree with Erik's "replacements", but he still has a point.
Stop trolling, this is not a site for lesbians, homos and S&M fans
Not that there's anything wrong with that...
And once again, a majority opinion does NOT an objective truth make. Even if that majority opinion has a biological basis it is still simply a majority opinion, no more, no less. By your logic you'd be saying the Theory of Relativity could be falsified if 65% of uninformed random people on the street didn't believe in it.
This isn't personal, by the way. I personally find your 'attractive women' to be ugly in the extreme but I'm not in the least worried if this is what most people find attractive. I know I'm hardly perfect but I'd rather look like me than your attractive women, even if 99% of the population find me butt ugly.
First off I'd like to say that I'm very pleased to see someone finally trying to give an objective look at this issue. It sure makes a refreshing change from the usual obese woman repeating 'real women have curves' and 'models need to eat a sandwich' like some demented parrot. What I dislike is that you seem to be infering homosexuality is a type of borderline pedophilia. Ive read Clive Bromhall's theory of homosexuality as a result of neoteny but I was unconvinced. You claim homosexuals are more likely to seek out underage objects of desire. Site your sources, please.
I know sex hormones are global but I think you are missing out another factor here apart from just masculinization/feminization. Take me for example - I have a face that you'd undoubtedly describe as masculinized, I work as a model part time in fact. I don't want to put pics of me up here but I can email you some privately if you like. I've got a very similar facial stucture to her:
I've also got a masculine looking hairline. But I have less body hair even than most women, and honestly, I'm a weakling even for girl standards ;)I've had a problem with being underweight my entire life and women with excess tesosterone are overweight. And no, no thyroid issues bfore you ask. So according to you I'm very 'masculine' in some areas and 'feminine' in others. I work in the modelling industry and I actually make a conscious effort to keep my weight UP simply to avoid criticism. Masculine women are overweight. I grew up loathing being so thin - women make your life hell on Earth if you are thinner than the socially acceptable level. I'd be the last person on this planet to develop an 'eating disorder'. Even struggling to keep my weigh up I'm 105lb at 5'8 1/2. So work me out Mr Endocrine System Wizz.
I don't belive 'anorexia nervosa' to be a clearly defined diagnosis (even in medical terms) anyway. Most people the media calls anorexic are simply either extreme dieters (nicole richie) or are ectomorphic women(kiera knightley). The word has simply become a rude media insult.
It makes my blood boil when women say a thin model should 'eat a sandwich'. First off, some models may be EXAGGERATING their natural frames with ampetamines or so called 'eating disorders'. This does not mean if they began living a healthy lifestyle they would turn into voluptious women. Oh sure, they may gain 10lb or so - but, what do you think would happen if a malnourished greyhound suddenly started eating properly? What you would get is a healthier greyhound, not a rolly polly labrador retriever. A little heavier, but still a greyhound. Likewise, fashion models are, at the most, exaggerating their natural body habitus. Some are naturally thin, some are struggling to keep the weigh on.
Oh yeah and get over this "masculine/feminine" topic. What is your point with all that anyway? These days, slight masculinity is considered sexy and attractive, for the simple reason that men these days do like independent, stronger women. The wimpy housewife cooking in the kitchen and rearing the children just isn't considered hot anymore.
All you're proving with that whole topic, which you seem to be obsessed with (are you a closet homophobe?), is that masculinity in women is more popular these days than straight, pure femininity.
Just like slight femininity is popular in men.
Wow, you seem reasonably intelligent and eloquent at times and totally nonsensical at others. Most of the time that you show a picture and say someone has "obvious augmentation", the image is very very far from convincing. A few facts you need to consider:
-ALL professional fashion photos are HEAVILY photoshopped, ESPECIALLY in the breast/cleavage area
-virtually ALL professional fashion photography involves HOURS of work using make-up, lighting, padding, tape, to sculpt the body to fit the popular image.
-women's breast sizes can change a great deal with age and weight, several cup sizes is not uncommon
-implants are generally pretty obvious to see: our medical skills at plastic surgery just aren't there yet, particularly in the area of breast implants. At "best" (ie most natural looking), you can get something like Dita von Teese. Implants can look somewhat natural when either fully clothed, or when fully nude (they have to be really good ones though, and photographed correctly). It's VERY difficult for fake breasts to look at all natural when in a bikini, as the tightness tends to push the implant against the skin on one side or another.
Just for starters, you posted two links to pics of heidi klum above. In one, theres an image of her with very small breasts on the left and larger ones on the right. It's not proof of anything. On the left, she's clearly 10 or even _15_ years younger than on the right (she's 34 now). On the left, she's wearing a rather simple unflattering bikini top, and on the right, its a very tight one, possibly even with padding. On the left, she's probably a lot thinner too (she was very thin in her early modeling days, much less so now). And maybe most importantly, do you not realize, genius, that she has had THREE CHILDREN and the picture on the right looks fairly recent, ie post-birth. The other heidi klum pic, well, I don't even know what to say. I just don't see a shred of a hint of implants in it. The left pic has definitely had the side of her breast photoshopped a bit to emphasive the curve, and the right pic is just completely normal.
In another section you posted "obvious nose job proof" of gisele bundchen. I'm not saying she hasnt had a nose job, she kinda looks like she might've, but the pic is the worst proof available for two reasons: the "before" pics are both at a more frontal angle, without make-up, and candid shots (ie probably without any/much photoshopping, notice they didn't even remove the freckles, which is usually the case). The "after" pics are BOTH from a more profile view (which will obviously diminish the width of the nose and emphasive the pointiness), BOTH with heavy make-up, and both professional fashion photos (ie definitely photoshopped).
Furthermore you post this gigantor chick, Dana for example, saying "oooh its ooobvious who is better suited as a lingerie model". Well, I've never seen a lingerie catalogue use a tubby EEE boob-sized model like Dana, while heidi klum and similar models are in every lingerie catalogue. That alone is proof enough that you are quite alone in your opinion. Dana looks pretty horrible in the lingerie pictures, while Klum makes me run to the lingerie store and spend $200 on presents for my wife. Dana simply cannot carry clothes at all, her body is just way too outta control. She would make a horrible lingerie model. Proven by the fact that people don't use women like her for lingerie catalogs.
You need to look into how fashion photography is done.
One of your dumbest mistakes and greatest proofs of your lack of having an eye for whats real and whats fake is the fact that the second large picture, of heidi klum baring her breasts, is a total FAKE, even a 15-year old pimply teenage boy can see that. It's even a quite BAD fake, look at the zipper area of the sweater and the shape of the breasts. If you can't even see that, geez, stop pretending to be the expert.
Anna Song is just another one of your trashy side-show freaks, Eric. Stop pretending that you dont find her attractive.
She has all the features that your so-called "attractive" women posses. She has glazed eyes, sallow skin, a daft facial expression and even a fat, rancid cameltoe. She looks like your dream woman Eric. Don't remove her from your attractie pile just because her tits are a little pendulous and udderish.
The lady in the first picture (Anna song) apart from her humongous breasts there doesnt seem to be anything extremely excessiveley feminine about the women
Oh and just throwing this in here.. Jessica Simpson is Ricky Martin in drag. I swear on my life! Whenever I hear a man say how hot she is, I lose all respect for him.
And just so you know, Erik, thanks to you, you have actually helped me see just how masculine she really is! I've always found her unattractive before, but after visiting this site, I realized it's because she's so mannish.
As for the mannequins, wouldn't you say that Nikki Schieler's physique comes quite close to them? You didn't address her at all; only the mannequins. Her WHR is very attractive, but I'd prefer if her top bust was smaller than her hips (like with the mannequins). Her face however, doesn't seem very feminine to me.
George: English is not my native language either. If your comment is supposed to make sense then its sense is lost upon me. I got your point about men quickly judging how attractive a woman is, but this is true of people in general, including women and homosexuals. An argument limited to “I find this woman hot but not that one” is not relevant to this site. You can learn about the goals of this site by reading the FAQ. To work toward these goals, some details about physical appearance have to be addressed to show why one woman is more feminine than another or why she would be considered more attractive by most people.
Danielle: To say that female high-fashion models tend to have boyish looks is not to say that they generally look like boys. I do not have a wide definition of masculinity. Masculinized women are masculine compared to feminine-to-normal women, not men.
You have described my citation as B.S. without any justification. How reasonable. The citations do not make the case that “gay men want to screw boys” but that a much greater proportion of gay men want to screw boys than the proportion of straight men who want to screw girls. The majority of homosexual men are attracted to adult men.
The American Psychiatric Association (APA) is a reputable psychiatric organization, but scientific arguments rest on evidence, not reputation. The APA was long ago hijacked by the gay lobby and hence APA position statements on politically sensitive issues related to homosexuality are useless for debate. What matters is the evidence the APA cites. The APA and other professional mental health organizations cite evidence such as Jenny et al. (1994), Groth and Birnbaum (1978), etc. to support the argument that there is no association between homosexuality and sexual interest in children, but the links I provided take care of these papers and numerous other arguments coming from the gay lobby. Don’t waste your time accusing me of selectively citing evidence. I will take on any psychiatrist/psychologist who is willing to debate the issue of the relation between homosexuality and sexual interest in children with me.
I have never portrayed homosexuals and pedophiles as the same group. These groups are different, but this doesn’t mean that there is no overlap between the two. I also have not argued that homosexuals are more deranged than pedophiles.
Kris: If you look at gay pride parades, you will see plenty of cross dressers/people with androgynous looks. A number of homosexuals find these looks appealing. Androgyny in fashion models does not reflect selection for versatility, but looks that appeal to numerous homosexual fashion designers. The female models are sometimes androgynous but a lot of them lean toward the look of boys in their early adolescence. The effeminacy of many male high-fashion models is usually limited to muscular build/skeletal thickness, but if they had well-developed muscles then their physical build would deviate more from boys in their late adolescence (about as young as the homosexuals could get away with).
Please read carefully. I am not damning the entire homosexual community as pedophiles. Haven’t you read above that most homosexuals are not sexually attracted to children? There is obviously a difference between finding someone attractive in a non-sexual manner and being attracted to this person in a sexual manner. But do you seriously believe that many of the homosexual fashion designers do not find boys sexually appealing?
Talking about a woman with male-typical height does not mean that she is masculine. There are plenty of tall feminine women around; read this entry on height in women and its relation to femininity and attractiveness. Similarly, high-cheekbones by themselves will not make a woman masculine. A woman will look masculine if many of her physical features distributed throughout the body look masculine. The fashion industry doesn’t idolize those with different looks or else you would see a wide variety of deviations from the norm among models, but the typical deviation observed among female models is to lean toward the looks of adolescent boys, and it is obvious why.
Kris: I agree that majority beliefs are not necessarily correct, but we are discussing preferences. The majority aesthetically prefers feminine beauty to women who are normal or masculinized. Said in a different way, the majority of people generally find women with above average femininity better looking than women with average to below average femininity.
When you consider the appeal of celebrities, you need to take into account the halo effect of personality and fame. If Jennifer Aniston were an ordinary woman, do you think most people would find her physically attractive? Slight masculinization is usually not an aesthetic problem in women from a majority perspective and it is a correlate of their sexiness to heterosexual men. A young adult Angelina Jolie looked sexy in many of her pictures and given her having acted in many movies, she is expected to have plenty of male admirers.
Elizabeth: Starting from the average level of masculinization in women, beyond some level of masculinization increase, the odds that men who find these women attractive either have a homosexual component to their interests or have narrowly escaped nonheterosexuality increase. I don’t see how it is rude to point out something that needs to be mentioned and should be obvious anyway. What do you mean that women in general are a mix of femininity and masculinity?
My opinion on male attractiveness is similar to that of most women, i.e., better looking men tend to be taller than average and have a more masculine physical build.
Elizabeth: I prefer Angelina Jolie to Jennifer Aniston (too masculine face). Neither of these women are classifiable as feminine, but the masculinization in a young adult Angelina Jolie made her look sexy in many of her pictures (only exceptions for me were some pictures where the gonial region of her jaw was prominently displayed).
I believe Jeri Ryan has a good physique but I don't like her face that much because of elements such as a broad nose.
Elizabeth: I think Jeri Ryan looks decent and has a good physique. I am not a fan of her face though, especially her broad nose.
Elizabeth: She looks like a woman on all counts except the side of her face. There is nothing girlish about her physique.
Erik:
I think that what really doesn't make sense is your answer to my comment, which states perfectly clear points.
Do you mean that you cant make sense of my comment on the way us heterosexual men instinctively acknowledge the "hotness" of any given woman,
without going into tortuous details the way other women as well as gay men do?
And I apologize for any flaws in my English, it is not my native language, so I might not have been quite as accurate as I wished I had.
Eric, your theories are riddled with holes. Here are two young women who have about an equal number of masculine traits:
http://www.femininebeauty.info/images3/sasha1.jpg
http://www.femininebeauty.info/i/ger.2.jpg
Yet obviously, the first girl has 'fashion model' looks, the other does not. It should be clear that the fashion model look is not simply a case of masculinization even though you are correct in saying that models have many facial features that are more masculine than the average. They also have some features that are more feminine than average that you convenintly ignore. Although models have high cheekbones (masculine) they also typically have flared cheekbones that protrude and take up a large proportion of the face which is feminine, in this regard they are more feminine than population average. Male cheekbones are high but have less flare, appearing more retracted from a 3/4 angle and they end higher up on the face.
this girl: http://www.femininebeauty.info/images/g5.jpg
Has masculine cheekbones - they are non protruding and she has quite a bit of facial fat, but look at how much facial length she has below her cheekbones.
this girl: http://www.femininebeauty.info/images/c25.jpg
Has much more feminine cheekbones - they end at the same level as her mouth. Her facial skeleton differs from the average woman in being more robust.
Which of the above girls has 'fashion model' features?
I can't help but notice that on average the glamour models have closer set eyes than the fashion models. Wide apart eyes are a more feminine trait. You mentioned the masculine narrowness which indeed fashion models do have, but not the feminine spacing. Very convenient. Eyes that are close-set, and appear round because they are horizontally short with rounded outer corners are also a male trait but are rare on fashion models.
http://www.femininebeauty.info/images/m.g.20.jpg
Little beady close-set round eyes are a MALE trait. Notice also her masculine nose, hairline and jaw. Yet she doesn't look like a fashion model at all.
So yes, fashion models have some masculine features and overall have more than average, but it's clear that not just any old masculine features will do. Now you explain this by saying it is specifically UNDERAGE boys that models are supposed to resemble, and a woman who is masculine but not fashion model material resembles a more mature male. Consider the first two girls in this post again. I'll bet my bottom dollar that if you showed me an averaged face of 15 year old white american boys the face you would get would be the second girl, not the first. Your theory does not hold up, because female models have some features that are very atypical for teenagers, be they boys or girls.
heavily contoured features:
http://www.femininebeauty.info/images3/iekeliene1.jpg
Not typical of teen boys. Firstly a teenage boy's facial bones are not fully grown. Also teenagers, boys and girls typically have smoother, less detailed looking faces even if they have robust bone structure. This is because of the way the facial fat is distributed in teens, and has little to do with overall bodyfat%. In men and women with robust facial skeleton this 'chiselled' look becomes more apparent with age as facial fat distribution changes. Compare kate moss as a young teen to now at 34. Models wear makeup to emphasize the contoured look. If it's so crucial that models resemble a boy of under 18, why draw attention to a feature that could actually be associated with ageing?
Squinty eyes:
http://www.femininebeauty.info/images/c8.jpg
This is not a youthful feature. In in girls OR boys. In caucasians eyes appear to narrow with increasing age and make the face appear more threatening. Women's eyes are typically more open than men's but fashion models frequently have eyes that are narrow even for male standards. In photo shoots models are often photographed with an expression that emphasizes this feature.
Generally severe, 'hard' look.
http://www.femininebeauty.info/images/adolesc6.jpg
Associated with status and dominance in men. Hardly to be expected of a teen boy who has not yet finished pubery. High fashion models adopt a facial expression which exaggerates the dominant features.
You are a homophobe who believes that gay men are a sort of mild pedophile attracted to boys not yet finished pubery. You are trying to shoehorn every last physical trait of models into your 'teen boy' theory. It is more accurate to describe models features features that are very mature but with less pronounced secondary sex characteristics.
I prefer the 4th and the 5th picture on each row. I wonder what the rest of the body would look like. What body shapes would probably go with 1, 3 and 5 from each row?
Get that butchy banshee out of my sight!
EWWWWWW
You may not agree with Erik's "replacements", but he still has a point.
Stop trolling, this is not a site for lesbians, homos and S&M fans
Not that there's anything wrong with that...
Adina is so fierce but I don't think this creepy dude would appreciate her looks. You have to be dumb, plain and sleezy to appeal to Eric.
And once again, a majority opinion does NOT an objective truth make. Even if that majority opinion has a biological basis it is still simply a majority opinion, no more, no less. By your logic you'd be saying the Theory of Relativity could be falsified if 65% of uninformed random people on the street didn't believe in it.
This isn't personal, by the way. I personally find your 'attractive women' to be ugly in the extreme but I'm not in the least worried if this is what most people find attractive. I know I'm hardly perfect but I'd rather look like me than your attractive women, even if 99% of the population find me butt ugly.
Erik.
First off I'd like to say that I'm very pleased to see someone finally trying to give an objective look at this issue. It sure makes a refreshing change from the usual obese woman repeating 'real women have curves' and 'models need to eat a sandwich' like some demented parrot. What I dislike is that you seem to be infering homosexuality is a type of borderline pedophilia. Ive read Clive Bromhall's theory of homosexuality as a result of neoteny but I was unconvinced. You claim homosexuals are more likely to seek out underage objects of desire. Site your sources, please.
I know sex hormones are global but I think you are missing out another factor here apart from just masculinization/feminization. Take me for example - I have a face that you'd undoubtedly describe as masculinized, I work as a model part time in fact. I don't want to put pics of me up here but I can email you some privately if you like. I've got a very similar facial stucture to her:
http://www.femininebeauty.info/images/c10.jpg
I've also got a masculine looking hairline. But I have less body hair even than most women, and honestly, I'm a weakling even for girl standards ;)I've had a problem with being underweight my entire life and women with excess tesosterone are overweight. And no, no thyroid issues bfore you ask. So according to you I'm very 'masculine' in some areas and 'feminine' in others. I work in the modelling industry and I actually make a conscious effort to keep my weight UP simply to avoid criticism. Masculine women are overweight. I grew up loathing being so thin - women make your life hell on Earth if you are thinner than the socially acceptable level. I'd be the last person on this planet to develop an 'eating disorder'. Even struggling to keep my weigh up I'm 105lb at 5'8 1/2. So work me out Mr Endocrine System Wizz.
I don't belive 'anorexia nervosa' to be a clearly defined diagnosis (even in medical terms) anyway. Most people the media calls anorexic are simply either extreme dieters (nicole richie) or are ectomorphic women(kiera knightley). The word has simply become a rude media insult.
It makes my blood boil when women say a thin model should 'eat a sandwich'. First off, some models may be EXAGGERATING their natural frames with ampetamines or so called 'eating disorders'. This does not mean if they began living a healthy lifestyle they would turn into voluptious women. Oh sure, they may gain 10lb or so - but, what do you think would happen if a malnourished greyhound suddenly started eating properly? What you would get is a healthier greyhound, not a rolly polly labrador retriever. A little heavier, but still a greyhound. Likewise, fashion models are, at the most, exaggerating their natural body habitus. Some are naturally thin, some are struggling to keep the weigh on.
8D: Stop trolling, idiot.
You're annoying.
Oh yeah and get over this "masculine/feminine" topic. What is your point with all that anyway? These days, slight masculinity is considered sexy and attractive, for the simple reason that men these days do like independent, stronger women. The wimpy housewife cooking in the kitchen and rearing the children just isn't considered hot anymore.
All you're proving with that whole topic, which you seem to be obsessed with (are you a closet homophobe?), is that masculinity in women is more popular these days than straight, pure femininity.
Just like slight femininity is popular in men.
Wow, you seem reasonably intelligent and eloquent at times and totally nonsensical at others. Most of the time that you show a picture and say someone has "obvious augmentation", the image is very very far from convincing. A few facts you need to consider:
-ALL professional fashion photos are HEAVILY photoshopped, ESPECIALLY in the breast/cleavage area
-virtually ALL professional fashion photography involves HOURS of work using make-up, lighting, padding, tape, to sculpt the body to fit the popular image.
-women's breast sizes can change a great deal with age and weight, several cup sizes is not uncommon
-implants are generally pretty obvious to see: our medical skills at plastic surgery just aren't there yet, particularly in the area of breast implants. At "best" (ie most natural looking), you can get something like Dita von Teese. Implants can look somewhat natural when either fully clothed, or when fully nude (they have to be really good ones though, and photographed correctly). It's VERY difficult for fake breasts to look at all natural when in a bikini, as the tightness tends to push the implant against the skin on one side or another.
Just for starters, you posted two links to pics of heidi klum above. In one, theres an image of her with very small breasts on the left and larger ones on the right. It's not proof of anything. On the left, she's clearly 10 or even _15_ years younger than on the right (she's 34 now). On the left, she's wearing a rather simple unflattering bikini top, and on the right, its a very tight one, possibly even with padding. On the left, she's probably a lot thinner too (she was very thin in her early modeling days, much less so now). And maybe most importantly, do you not realize, genius, that she has had THREE CHILDREN and the picture on the right looks fairly recent, ie post-birth. The other heidi klum pic, well, I don't even know what to say. I just don't see a shred of a hint of implants in it. The left pic has definitely had the side of her breast photoshopped a bit to emphasive the curve, and the right pic is just completely normal.
In another section you posted "obvious nose job proof" of gisele bundchen. I'm not saying she hasnt had a nose job, she kinda looks like she might've, but the pic is the worst proof available for two reasons: the "before" pics are both at a more frontal angle, without make-up, and candid shots (ie probably without any/much photoshopping, notice they didn't even remove the freckles, which is usually the case). The "after" pics are BOTH from a more profile view (which will obviously diminish the width of the nose and emphasive the pointiness), BOTH with heavy make-up, and both professional fashion photos (ie definitely photoshopped).
Furthermore you post this gigantor chick, Dana for example, saying "oooh its ooobvious who is better suited as a lingerie model". Well, I've never seen a lingerie catalogue use a tubby EEE boob-sized model like Dana, while heidi klum and similar models are in every lingerie catalogue. That alone is proof enough that you are quite alone in your opinion. Dana looks pretty horrible in the lingerie pictures, while Klum makes me run to the lingerie store and spend $200 on presents for my wife. Dana simply cannot carry clothes at all, her body is just way too outta control. She would make a horrible lingerie model. Proven by the fact that people don't use women like her for lingerie catalogs.
You need to look into how fashion photography is done.
One of your dumbest mistakes and greatest proofs of your lack of having an eye for whats real and whats fake is the fact that the second large picture, of heidi klum baring her breasts, is a total FAKE, even a 15-year old pimply teenage boy can see that. It's even a quite BAD fake, look at the zipper area of the sweater and the shape of the breasts. If you can't even see that, geez, stop pretending to be the expert.
SEE how heidi klum goes from post-birth sagginess to perky supermodel! (Hover mouse over image to see the original):
http://www.briandilg.com/imaging/projectRunway.htm
TREMBLE at the power of photoshop!
http://demo.fb.se/e/girlpower/retouch/retouch/index.html
Someone get this guy a clue, please.
http://img509.imageshack.us/img509/4772/67331903tb0.jpg
how is this not feminine?
http://img509.imageshack.us/my.php?image=67331903tb0.jpg
Anna Song is just another one of your trashy side-show freaks, Eric. Stop pretending that you dont find her attractive.
She has all the features that your so-called "attractive" women posses. She has glazed eyes, sallow skin, a daft facial expression and even a fat, rancid cameltoe. She looks like your dream woman Eric. Don't remove her from your attractie pile just because her tits are a little pendulous and udderish.
are the mannequins more excessivley feminine than anna song erik?
her huge breasts make her look almost mummyish if that makes sense
The lady in the first picture (Anna song) apart from her humongous breasts there doesnt seem to be anything extremely excessiveley feminine about the women
Oh and just throwing this in here.. Jessica Simpson is Ricky Martin in drag. I swear on my life! Whenever I hear a man say how hot she is, I lose all respect for him.
And just so you know, Erik, thanks to you, you have actually helped me see just how masculine she really is! I've always found her unattractive before, but after visiting this site, I realized it's because she's so mannish.
Hahaha Anna Song's boobs make me gag.
As for the mannequins, wouldn't you say that Nikki Schieler's physique comes quite close to them? You didn't address her at all; only the mannequins. Her WHR is very attractive, but I'd prefer if her top bust was smaller than her hips (like with the mannequins). Her face however, doesn't seem very feminine to me.
Eric, in my opinion, she looks like a child, not attractive at all. A woman has to look like a WOMAN and not like a 12 year old to be attractive.
Pages