8D: How can you talk about the “more mature” looks of female high-fashion models when they approach the looks of adolescent boys? I haven’t said that the purpose of couture should be to please me. I also do not hate colored people. You better start behaving or your days here are numbered.
Prasiddha: I remember you. I have received your email. I will respond to it and your previous email in a couple of days. When you encounter people who believe beauty lies in the eye of the beholder, make them read this.
Not from Twisty’s: Sex hormones have a global affect. If the sex hormone profile is on the masculine side of average, then controlling for other factors, their effect will be to overall masculinize, not selectively masculinize. Some men have little body hair even though their appearance otherwise is masculine, and some men have lots of body hair even though they have poorly developed skeletal muscles, both being more masculine than the vast majority of women. Therefore, not having lots of body hair or male-like muscular development does not mean that women labeled masculine have “selective masculinization” only. Masculinized women are masculine with respect to female norms, not male norms.
Men more attracted to adolescent boys than adult men will prefer adolescent boys to adult men. You are right, not all homosexual men have the same male preferences, but they are much more likely than heterosexual men to be attracted to underage individuals. It does not follow from my argument that the typical male high-fashion model should lean toward the looks of a boy in his early adolescence because there is no way the homosexual designers are getting away with it.
The male models you posted generally have the physiques you would see in boys in their late adolescence, which is about as young as the homosexuals could get away with. Their faces are not effeminate though, but normal to masculine.
More mature features do not correspond to more masculine-looking features except for some counts such as the gonial angles, which become sharper with both increasing size and increasing masculinization, but I have shown examples of tall women with softer gonial angles, i.e., it does not necessarily follow that sharp gonial angles in high-fashion models reflect maturity/larger size rather than masculinization. There is also a feminine type of maturation, which also makes someone deviate away from the norms of children. The allegedly “pyknic” glamour models show here do not have more infantile proportions on many important counts.
If androgyny has a hedonistic element to it, then how do you explain the typical skinniness of high-fashion models? Do these very skinny women look like they are enjoying life or suffering from malnutrition? Who appears more “frugal” in their dietary practices, the women in the attractive women section or high-fashion models in general?
It is inappropriate to describe more feminine faces as pedomorphic when feminine maturation makes the face deviate away from children’s norms. Men just deviate more on multiple counts.
You are mistaken about more feminine women aging faster. Age-related sagging may make larger breasts look worse, but most women shown in the attractive women section do not have breasts as large as those of Sonia Blake, and some even have small breasts. Feminine women will tend to maintain bone density and cardiovascular health better and longer by virtue of their higher estrogen levels compared to women who are skinny and masculine.
I am not equating beauty with titillation. Because of limited choices, this site has to heavily rely on nude models.
If femininity is well-described and quantified, and it is repeatedly shown that most people prefer above average femininity in women’s looks, then it has been shown that the claim about majority preference for feminine beauty is objective.
I think the fashion business is one of the most irrelevant load of twaddle the world has ever produced.
To be honest i think Giselle is prettier without makeup, because she looks do-able, and looks as though she would enjoy it. Simple.
But as someone said earlier, yes the fashion business is controlled by gays, and instinctively they always choose adolescent boy looking girls for their models, because thats what THEY class as attractive.
To prove my point, i have NEVER seen ANY model with looks better than Kim Basinger in her prime, whereas nearly all models i have seen are either weird looking or just downright dull. Even Cindy Crawford had that artificial New York look.
The fashion world is such crap its just not true.
Perhaps thats the problem with fashion. Perhaps because it is now dominated by New York, instead of London and Paris as it used to be, we now have the whole industry infested with affirmative action, equal rights and female emanicipation, that we have lost sight of what beauty really is, namely a Darwinian vision of ruthless superiority and athleticism, that we are all programmed to respect and admire without hesitation or bitterness, because its in OUR OWN INTERESTS to ensure that the world's champions are there on merit, and not affirmative action.
There, thats my rant over with.
Just one more thing, to all the people on this forum, i love Americans, you're beautiful people, you really are.
But are there any New Yorkers here. If so, could the men stand on the Left, and the Women on the Right. Thank you. You men, you can go home, you're wondeful people, you really are.
Now the women, could all the old ladies stand to one side. Thank you. You too can now go home. You're wonderful people, you really are.
Now, could all those young girls under the age of 20 stand to one side. Thank you. You can go home now, you're wonderful people you really are.
Now could all those hardworking housewives of any age, but most likely those over the age 45, stand to one side. Thank you. You can now go home. You're wonderful people, you really are.
So, who do we have left? Well age wise, they are between 20 - 45.
Probably a product of the Reagan/Clinton/DotCom have-it-all generation, fed on the propaganda of endless stupid diets which have promised everything from a size zero figure to immortality.
Subsequently they decided they wanted their share of the American Dream, and were going to overthrow the male dominated heirarchy to get it.
Excellent stuff. You're all to be admired for your get-up-and-go.
The world has even forgiven you for the recent and extreme intensification of your already extreme accent, so much so that your accent is so nasal, you almost sound French. (Yikes)
Absolutely no problems with that whatsoever. You're beautiful people, you really are. The world still loved you.
BUT, THEN, (DRUM ROLL),........................
YOU GAVE THE WORLD.............................
SASSINESS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
OH MY GOD, why did you voluteer to commit cultural suicide with such an abominable characteristic.
Sassiness is without doubt THE MOST IRRITATING CHARACTER TRAIT A WOMAN CAN HAVE.
In fact its so bad, its been known to give Buddhist monks a nervous twitch.
Please please please, for the sake of your international reputation, pass a law outlawing sassiness.
There, at last, my big rant is over. Phew.
Actually, come to think of it, sassiness isn't so bad. It does have its uses. I remember seeing a great American porn film once, and one scene had 2 great looking and sassy Executive type chicks in black pencil skirts and black stockings doing an amazing lesbian 69 on this huge office desk. It has to be one of the most incredible things i've ever seen.
So there you go, all is not lost. I've always said American porn is the best.
Thanks for your feedback. So, if I understand this correctly, masculinization--feminization works on a continuum? And, the more masculinized a woman is, the further she is toward the masculine end of the continuum?
If this is correct, is it possible for two women with the same ratios of sex hormones to have body parts that react differently to those hormones? In other words, for one masculinized woman to have broad shoulders and large breasts for example, and another with the same hormonal profile to have small breasts and small shoulders but very large feet? Also, what terminology would one use to describe more masculinized versus more feminized features, if 'masculine' and 'feminine' themselves are not accurate?
Re the issue of fashion modeling--I am in agreement with you that the observed range in models is more masculinized than the average. I also agree that the concept of designers 'appeasing' more masculine women may not in fact be an accurate or complete assessment of the situation. It is tempting to believe that the use of masculinized models is indeed because of the domination of gay designers, as you state above, but I am wondering if there are other cultural factors at work here as well. In the U.S., for example, I have seen research that suggests that thinness is often associated with wealth and plumpness with poverty, thus frequently making thinness more desirable. Also, I've heard it said that thinness is more desirable to Caucasians and plumpness more desirable to non-Caucasian ethnicities. I am curious whether you have seen research related to these issues.
Also, can you say more about gays dominating the fashion industry? What does 'domination' mean in this context?
Thanks again for your responses and all your work. I have learned a lot from your site.
Some very interesting new perspectives on this blog nearly every day!
Whenever I tell people of your views, they often respond by saying "beauty is in the eye of the beholder". No matter what I say, a lot of my male friends still consider masculine women like Gisele Bundchen or Karolina Kurkova to be feminine.
Keep it coming. I always look forward to your new "articles"...
And for everyone posting here:
Even though you may not agree with Erik's opinions, you've gotta give him credit for making such a well researched and highly analyzed report every time. What Erik writes are not opinions; they are facts. Heck, he even gives footnotes and cites his sources.
You can say that you don't agree, but you can't say that he is wrong and that all his facts are BS.
Erik:
By the way, do you mind me sending you photos of women who I consider attractive? I just want your analysis on them (Ie: are they masculine, how feminine they are).
dont really get what erika has to do with high fashion. she's much too poor to afford the stuff anyway. money talks, bb. haute couture is made for those who can afford it. and you cant. so they dont give a shit about you, or your views.
most people dont give a shit about models/high fashion. they care more about celebrities.
and brom was you. you were just masquarading around as a noraml poster trying to further ur views, cause no one else agrees wit u. erika cracker worshipper. dats u.
Intersexed people, which are more common than transsexuals, are in the middle of the sexes, not sexless. Do not dismiss them as sexless just because they are a small minority.
Personally, I find the VS models much more attractive than the women erik/a finds attractive. If that makes me and most males I know a little bit gay, thank you for letting us know. Erik/a, you sound like a very bitter woman.
Once again Eric, I am trying to tell you that an alternative industry will NEVER be set up. High fashion isn't that important. It does not have to be revolutionized or dethroned or whatever. You are just going to have to live with that. If any change does occur it will be becuase the current industry has evolved into something different. It won't be because you get some nutbag to give you money to make clothes and because the Today's show lets you voice your idiotic views in a 5 minute segment. Once again, you cannot compete with the fags. So give up!!!
Abbie. I love you. Your photos are awesome!! You don't look like a boy and trust me if she were a boy i'd date her!! Those clothes look hot on her. And Erik I love disney channel!!! Especially Hannah Montana! Abbie you're hot!!
Gisele is more attractive than any of the pornstars the writter posted on this page. To say that someone like Gisele has the transexual look is ludicrous. I know this article is merely the writter's opinion. However I still feel that it is extremely biased and I strongly suspect that the article is written by a bitter woman who failed to make it into high fashion modeling due to her less than modelesque physique.
Joe: Angelina Jolie is on the somewhat masculine side, just not as masculine as “B.S. Walks...” originally implied. Attractiveness is not a linear function of the extent of femininity. Beyond some level of femininity a woman’s attractiveness would diminish. Finding pictures of women that are overall extremely feminine is not an easy task, but you can see an example of a feminine woman with breasts representing an extreme of femininity (Anna Song 1, Anna Song 2) that would look better (I am guessing most would agree) if she had smaller and more proportionate breasts.
BS walks: A definition of sex that unambiguously classifies a little over 99.98% of humans into either of two sexes is not a narrow notion. There are only two sexes among humans, and intersex individuals do not belong to either sex. Intersex individuals do not have a sex, period. In other words, sex cannot be conceptualized in terms of the presence or absence of the Y chromosome alone because all intersex individuals either have at least one Y or no Y.
Speaking of SRY, sometimes it may be non-functional on Y, but you would classify someone with such a Y as a man even though it wouldn’t look like one. Alternatively, what if someone with XX has a mutated gene that mimicks SRY? By your definition, this person is a woman but it would look like a man. Don’t you see that both these examples are of intersex individuals and that these individuals do not have a sex?
The digital manipulation of Angelina Jolie was not in reference to attractiveness but to your assertion of her looking “very androgynous.”
Sionnach: The use of masculinized high-fashion models does not appear to have anything to do with appeasing masculinized women and increasing sales. Marketing considerations suggest that the best policy is to appease the most people, which means using women in the average to attractive range. If avoiding jealously is an issue, then the models should be closer to average, and if pleasing aesthetically is the issue then the models should be closer to attractive or very attractive. Attractive looks in women are also one of feminine beauty as far as most people are concerned. Therefore, for the purposes of marketing, the average to feminine range would appear best, but the observed range is clearly on the masculine side of average.
Gay fashion designer are simply selecting models they find visually appealing and getting away with it because they dominate the fashion business and are using the models to sell highly desirable items.
It is not meaningful to talk about a mix of masculine and feminine features in the same woman. Sex hormones have a global impact. Controlling for other factors, a given sex hormone profile will not be shifting some parts of the body toward feminization and others toward masculinization. If you see a small-breasted woman that is overall feminine, is it meaningful to say that her breasts are masculine? If you see a large-breasted woman who is masculine overall, is it meaningful to say that her breasts are feminine? The norm is not a mix of masculine and feminine features but of average features.
i've read the faq, and i still find this website insulting to women in general, but mostly to a certain physique. you literally criticise certain body parts, going on endlessly about how ugly and unattractive they are. sorry, but you can't be objective until you've been subjected to what you are subjecting these women to. doubtless they will never see any of this, but people who look similar may do.
there are plenty of unhealthy practises people can indulge in to be 'feminine'. the tiny waist and huge breasts and hips you love so much have been achieved through corset training for centuries. this can damage ribs and deform the liver and intestines. there is also the more modern issue of cosmetic surgery, for example liposuction on the midsection, breast implants (i know you don't personally like these, but it is pursuing this extreme hourglass that leads people to want them) and operations on the face. serious unecessary surgery can be far more dangerous than a slimming diet.
billions are spent on advertising every year. if slim models didn't sell products, then there would be 'attractive' (to you) models on advertisments. a recent study (at arizona state university) found women had LOWER self-esteem after viewing moderately heavy models and HIGHER self-esteem after viewing moderately thin ones (an extreme in either reversed the effect). as a moderately 'feminine' woman by your standards, i can safely say i have no desire to look like a fashion model.
and there are no 'analyses' about body parts. there are insults, plain and simple.
Mishelle: I did get your email. It usually takes me a while to respond.
Danielle: When you talk about fashion reflecting the dreams and ideals of current Western society, I hope you are referring to elements other than the looks of female high-fashion models because I have already cited plenty of literature showing how these looks are at odds with the preferences of the majority.
Lena: When you compare the femininity of different women, it is necessary to assess to what extent shape variation is related to factors apart from sex hormones. In the two comparisons (Pic1, Pic2; Daniella Sarahyba on the left, Courtney on the right), whereas the shape transformations from Courtney to Daniella that you mentioned would result from greater feminization if other factors were constant, you should also note that Daniella has a longer and squarer chin, deeper-set eyes, more prominent forehead, lower-set eyebrows and a wider nose. Therefore, it does not follow that Daniella is more feminine. Also look at the physique. Daniella has broader shoulders, a wider rib cage, wider hips and smaller breasts. Overall, Daniella looks more masculine than Courtney.
Masculinity-femininity is judged by overall appearance. If a woman has high-placed cheekbones but an overall feminine face, then the high-placed cheekbones should not be called masculine because their high placement is due to factors apart from the influence of sex hormones. An overall feminine and attractive face shape can have one or two features such as a squared chin or high-placed cheekbones or sharp gonial angles. Slight masculinization of women is also a correlate of their sexiness to heterosexual men.
Gemma Ward looks doll faced in some of her pictures but there are others where a masculine element can be seen in her face (see here). If you also consider her physique, the appropriate conclusion is that she is not feminine and that there is a masculine element to her face that may not be obvious depending on pose/make-up because of her odd features.
I have no idea how popular the face is of Elisabetta Canalis among Italian men. In some pictures her face looks quite masculine, and I doubt that heterosexual men generally appreciate her face in these pictures. I can see that they would appreciate her body.
8D: What do you mean this site does not “give a shit about women in terms of their humanity”? This site is about physical appearance. Other aspects are not relevant to it, which is not to say that they don’t matter. Some issues related to looks such as self-esteem are discussed here, too. Unlike the fashion industry, I am not making models starve/undereat to maintain model-worthy looks.
Laura: When it comes to beauty, most people have a similar personal preference, and with respect to women, this preference is for feminine beauty. Not addressing the looks of men does not imply lack of objectivity. This site has nothing to do with the looks of men. Before you critique this site as an attack on women, you should read the FAQ. It is by no means true that it makes no difference whether there is a skinny and masculine female standard or a feminine beauty standard, which is explained in the FAQ. The consequences of having skinny women occupy the top ranks of models are much worse than if these top models were feminine and attractive because no negative health behaviors can be indulged in to acquire feminine beauty and most people naturally harbor a feminine beauty standard.
Some of the analyses about different body parts are required to show that the arguments are not merely subjective. This site is not about gender but about physical appearance. It is also not saying that unless your looks lie within a given range you are not a woman. Masculinized women are still women.
8D: I have lost a commentator because of your foul and retarded comments. This commentator does not want to post comments at a site “disreputed by some hysterical mental institution runaway” (commentator’s expression). You must behave or you will be banned from commenting.
Sprum: These women obviously do not have the looks to be top-ranked high-fashion models. You should look around the site to understand why the women are not feminine with respect to female norms. I am not saying they are masculine.
8D: This site is targeting people of European ancestry and hence the focus is on white women. I have shown clearer pictures of Natasha Poly. Look at them and ask yourself how the general public would rate her in reference to the models above.
Disgusted: I mostly avoid porn stars, partly because they tend to be masculinized women. This site is not about how women should look like. It is about appropriate looks among models in various settings and beauty pageant contestants. You should read the FAQ to understand the necessity of this educational site. Documenting some unflattering correlates of homosexuality is not being anti-gay and there is nothing misogynistic about this site.
Danielle: The higher the expression of attractiveness, the fewer the people who have it. Therefore, beauty does occupy a narrow range. In your picture the appearance is one of androgyny, not femininity. If Elise’s looks are alluring, then they are to the homosexuals who dominate the fashion business, which is why Elise is a top-ranked high-fashion model and the likes of Ginger and Eunice have no possibility of doing high-fashion modeling at present. Women like Ginger and Eunice do not have to “pose like whores”; they typically do it because they want to, and to my knowledge Eunice hasn’t done anything beyond topless artistic nude modeling.
8D: I did not imply that I hate freckles. People generally prefer spotless skin to freckled skin, and Alessandra has better skin on this count.
I just had an email from a person who will not be commenting here anymore because of your childish insults. I have asked you many times to behave, but you haven’t listened. So be warned that you will be banned from commenting if you keep coming up with childish insults against the commentators. Your insults are also senseless. Bron is a woman and most of your insults against her are not applicable.
Danielle: If the women in your picture had feminine faces, most people would find them a lot more appealing. There is no reason why one couldn’t use feminine models for selling high-end jewelry and lingerie. Of course, high-fashion models are meant to appeal to gay fashion designers, not heterosexual men. Once gain, I don’t believe that the homosexual designers can be made to change. One will have to come up with an alternative fashion industry, a difficult though not impossible task. When this alternative exists, we will see whether feminine models can compete with the masculine ones. It will take a while to come up with this alternative.
Sárika: I agree that female high-fashion models are not supposed to appeal to heterosexual men or lesbians who are into feminine women. These models are obviously meant to appeal to the homosexual designers who find the looks of boys in their early adolescence aesthetically appealing, and this is an example of how outsiders can make perfect sense of why high-fashion models look the way they do. It is also true that most women are not convinced that these models have a highly desirable look, but something needs to be done to educate the minority of girls/women who mistakenly believe that attractiveness lies in skinniness or else skinny fashion models would not occupy the top rung among female models. If you go through this site, you will also realize that the aesthetic preferences of gay fashion designers affect the selection of lingerie models and beauty pageant contestants, too. Something needs to be done about this. If feminine women are needed, feminine ones should be used.
8D: I have not ignored Savage’s passage. Firstly, I cited a link showing that in spite of access to an abundance of food, the great majority of people in Western societies do not find skinniness appealing, refuting Savage’s contention. Secondly, I pointed out that Savage argues that molding someone’s perception of the elements of good looks is equivalent to molding one’s sexual orientation, and since the latter is obviously absurd, the former is absurd, too. The very equation is absurd to start with. To some extent people are obviously influenced by the social environment when it comes to believing what are good looks.
o: The domination of the fashion business by homosexual men has made it difficult to find more mainstream feminine models for contrast purposes. For this entry I had to come up with a 6-feet-tall feminine woman, and I didn’t come across a more suitable alternative. Your use of “white/trailer trash” is unwarranted. Hair dyes are not unusual among fashion models. This article does not address clothing or related accessories. It addresses physical appearance. One could easily use feminine women to sell designer clothing and expensive accessories. There is no reason why high-fashion/high class need be associated with masculine looks in women.
8D: How can you talk about the “more mature” looks of female high-fashion models when they approach the looks of adolescent boys? I haven’t said that the purpose of couture should be to please me. I also do not hate colored people. You better start behaving or your days here are numbered.
Prasiddha: I remember you. I have received your email. I will respond to it and your previous email in a couple of days. When you encounter people who believe beauty lies in the eye of the beholder, make them read this.
Not from Twisty’s: Sex hormones have a global affect. If the sex hormone profile is on the masculine side of average, then controlling for other factors, their effect will be to overall masculinize, not selectively masculinize. Some men have little body hair even though their appearance otherwise is masculine, and some men have lots of body hair even though they have poorly developed skeletal muscles, both being more masculine than the vast majority of women. Therefore, not having lots of body hair or male-like muscular development does not mean that women labeled masculine have “selective masculinization” only. Masculinized women are masculine with respect to female norms, not male norms.
Men more attracted to adolescent boys than adult men will prefer adolescent boys to adult men. You are right, not all homosexual men have the same male preferences, but they are much more likely than heterosexual men to be attracted to underage individuals. It does not follow from my argument that the typical male high-fashion model should lean toward the looks of a boy in his early adolescence because there is no way the homosexual designers are getting away with it.
The male models you posted generally have the physiques you would see in boys in their late adolescence, which is about as young as the homosexuals could get away with. Their faces are not effeminate though, but normal to masculine.
More mature features do not correspond to more masculine-looking features except for some counts such as the gonial angles, which become sharper with both increasing size and increasing masculinization, but I have shown examples of tall women with softer gonial angles, i.e., it does not necessarily follow that sharp gonial angles in high-fashion models reflect maturity/larger size rather than masculinization. There is also a feminine type of maturation, which also makes someone deviate away from the norms of children. The allegedly “pyknic” glamour models show here do not have more infantile proportions on many important counts.
If androgyny has a hedonistic element to it, then how do you explain the typical skinniness of high-fashion models? Do these very skinny women look like they are enjoying life or suffering from malnutrition? Who appears more “frugal” in their dietary practices, the women in the attractive women section or high-fashion models in general?
It is inappropriate to describe more feminine faces as pedomorphic when feminine maturation makes the face deviate away from children’s norms. Men just deviate more on multiple counts.
You are mistaken about more feminine women aging faster. Age-related sagging may make larger breasts look worse, but most women shown in the attractive women section do not have breasts as large as those of Sonia Blake, and some even have small breasts. Feminine women will tend to maintain bone density and cardiovascular health better and longer by virtue of their higher estrogen levels compared to women who are skinny and masculine.
I am not equating beauty with titillation. Because of limited choices, this site has to heavily rely on nude models.
If femininity is well-described and quantified, and it is repeatedly shown that most people prefer above average femininity in women’s looks, then it has been shown that the claim about majority preference for feminine beauty is objective.
I think the fashion business is one of the most irrelevant load of twaddle the world has ever produced.
To be honest i think Giselle is prettier without makeup, because she looks do-able, and looks as though she would enjoy it. Simple.
But as someone said earlier, yes the fashion business is controlled by gays, and instinctively they always choose adolescent boy looking girls for their models, because thats what THEY class as attractive.
To prove my point, i have NEVER seen ANY model with looks better than Kim Basinger in her prime, whereas nearly all models i have seen are either weird looking or just downright dull. Even Cindy Crawford had that artificial New York look.
The fashion world is such crap its just not true.
Perhaps thats the problem with fashion. Perhaps because it is now dominated by New York, instead of London and Paris as it used to be, we now have the whole industry infested with affirmative action, equal rights and female emanicipation, that we have lost sight of what beauty really is, namely a Darwinian vision of ruthless superiority and athleticism, that we are all programmed to respect and admire without hesitation or bitterness, because its in OUR OWN INTERESTS to ensure that the world's champions are there on merit, and not affirmative action.
There, thats my rant over with.
Just one more thing, to all the people on this forum, i love Americans, you're beautiful people, you really are.
But are there any New Yorkers here. If so, could the men stand on the Left, and the Women on the Right. Thank you. You men, you can go home, you're wondeful people, you really are.
Now the women, could all the old ladies stand to one side. Thank you. You too can now go home. You're wonderful people, you really are.
Now, could all those young girls under the age of 20 stand to one side. Thank you. You can go home now, you're wonderful people you really are.
Now could all those hardworking housewives of any age, but most likely those over the age 45, stand to one side. Thank you. You can now go home. You're wonderful people, you really are.
So, who do we have left? Well age wise, they are between 20 - 45.
Probably a product of the Reagan/Clinton/DotCom have-it-all generation, fed on the propaganda of endless stupid diets which have promised everything from a size zero figure to immortality.
Subsequently they decided they wanted their share of the American Dream, and were going to overthrow the male dominated heirarchy to get it.
Excellent stuff. You're all to be admired for your get-up-and-go.
The world has even forgiven you for the recent and extreme intensification of your already extreme accent, so much so that your accent is so nasal, you almost sound French. (Yikes)
Absolutely no problems with that whatsoever. You're beautiful people, you really are. The world still loved you.
BUT, THEN, (DRUM ROLL),........................
YOU GAVE THE WORLD.............................
SASSINESS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
OH MY GOD, why did you voluteer to commit cultural suicide with such an abominable characteristic.
Sassiness is without doubt THE MOST IRRITATING CHARACTER TRAIT A WOMAN CAN HAVE.
In fact its so bad, its been known to give Buddhist monks a nervous twitch.
Please please please, for the sake of your international reputation, pass a law outlawing sassiness.
There, at last, my big rant is over. Phew.
Actually, come to think of it, sassiness isn't so bad. It does have its uses. I remember seeing a great American porn film once, and one scene had 2 great looking and sassy Executive type chicks in black pencil skirts and black stockings doing an amazing lesbian 69 on this huge office desk. It has to be one of the most incredible things i've ever seen.
So there you go, all is not lost. I've always said American porn is the best.
Cheers
Dave (London, England)
Of course that picture of Jacqueline doesn't show off her thick thighs.
http://www.cntm.ca/micro/cntm07/finalists/jacqueline.aspx
Look at the second photo. Her thighs are unproportionate to the rest of her thin body.
Erik:
Thanks for your feedback. So, if I understand this correctly, masculinization--feminization works on a continuum? And, the more masculinized a woman is, the further she is toward the masculine end of the continuum?
If this is correct, is it possible for two women with the same ratios of sex hormones to have body parts that react differently to those hormones? In other words, for one masculinized woman to have broad shoulders and large breasts for example, and another with the same hormonal profile to have small breasts and small shoulders but very large feet? Also, what terminology would one use to describe more masculinized versus more feminized features, if 'masculine' and 'feminine' themselves are not accurate?
Re the issue of fashion modeling--I am in agreement with you that the observed range in models is more masculinized than the average. I also agree that the concept of designers 'appeasing' more masculine women may not in fact be an accurate or complete assessment of the situation. It is tempting to believe that the use of masculinized models is indeed because of the domination of gay designers, as you state above, but I am wondering if there are other cultural factors at work here as well. In the U.S., for example, I have seen research that suggests that thinness is often associated with wealth and plumpness with poverty, thus frequently making thinness more desirable. Also, I've heard it said that thinness is more desirable to Caucasians and plumpness more desirable to non-Caucasian ethnicities. I am curious whether you have seen research related to these issues.
Also, can you say more about gays dominating the fashion industry? What does 'domination' mean in this context?
Thanks again for your responses and all your work. I have learned a lot from your site.
Sionnach
Hey Erik, remember me?
Some very interesting new perspectives on this blog nearly every day!
Whenever I tell people of your views, they often respond by saying "beauty is in the eye of the beholder". No matter what I say, a lot of my male friends still consider masculine women like Gisele Bundchen or Karolina Kurkova to be feminine.
Keep it coming. I always look forward to your new "articles"...
And for everyone posting here:
Even though you may not agree with Erik's opinions, you've gotta give him credit for making such a well researched and highly analyzed report every time. What Erik writes are not opinions; they are facts. Heck, he even gives footnotes and cites his sources.
You can say that you don't agree, but you can't say that he is wrong and that all his facts are BS.
Erik:
By the way, do you mind me sending you photos of women who I consider attractive? I just want your analysis on them (Ie: are they masculine, how feminine they are).
Thanks
THIS MAY INTEREST YOU, ERICA:
http://communities.canada.com/edmontonjournal/blogs/cultofpop/archive/2007/06/13/how-skinny-and-tall-does-a-fashion-model-have-to-be.aspx
dont really get what erika has to do with high fashion. she's much too poor to afford the stuff anyway. money talks, bb. haute couture is made for those who can afford it. and you cant. so they dont give a shit about you, or your views.
most people dont give a shit about models/high fashion. they care more about celebrities.
and brom was you. you were just masquarading around as a noraml poster trying to further ur views, cause no one else agrees wit u. erika cracker worshipper. dats u.
erik
brom was you. stop prentending, kkbb?
Intersexed people, which are more common than transsexuals, are in the middle of the sexes, not sexless. Do not dismiss them as sexless just because they are a small minority.
Personally, I find the VS models much more attractive than the women erik/a finds attractive. If that makes me and most males I know a little bit gay, thank you for letting us know. Erik/a, you sound like a very bitter woman.
Once again Eric, I am trying to tell you that an alternative industry will NEVER be set up. High fashion isn't that important. It does not have to be revolutionized or dethroned or whatever. You are just going to have to live with that. If any change does occur it will be becuase the current industry has evolved into something different. It won't be because you get some nutbag to give you money to make clothes and because the Today's show lets you voice your idiotic views in a 5 minute segment. Once again, you cannot compete with the fags. So give up!!!
By muddphudle at 2007-07-05
Abbie. I love you. Your photos are awesome!! You don't look like a boy and trust me if she were a boy i'd date her!! Those clothes look hot on her. And Erik I love disney channel!!! Especially Hannah Montana! Abbie you're hot!!
so~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ why cant be all just lie to ourselves and think that everyone is all special in their own way?
http://h1.ripway.com/Dallas/-Dallas-/The_More_You_Know2.jpg
except for whites. they're extra special, according to erik.
Mike: Neither of the women that Gisele is compared to happens to be a porn star. This article has also not been written by a woman.
Gisele is more attractive than any of the pornstars the writter posted on this page. To say that someone like Gisele has the transexual look is ludicrous. I know this article is merely the writter's opinion. However I still feel that it is extremely biased and I strongly suspect that the article is written by a bitter woman who failed to make it into high fashion modeling due to her less than modelesque physique.
laura:
yeah, he doesn't get it. never really will. it's just funny. this site is like ebaumsworld, only less intelligent.
foul and inane and yet you keep on responding to me. best thing would be to ignore me and i'll go away.
OR I WONT.
HAHAHAHAHAH.
kkbb
8D
ps: erik- you are probably much too poor to afford designer clothing. thus, they will not give a shit about you, or your views.
i am so proud!
hugs and kisses,
8D
Joe: Angelina Jolie is on the somewhat masculine side, just not as masculine as “B.S. Walks...” originally implied. Attractiveness is not a linear function of the extent of femininity. Beyond some level of femininity a woman’s attractiveness would diminish. Finding pictures of women that are overall extremely feminine is not an easy task, but you can see an example of a feminine woman with breasts representing an extreme of femininity (Anna Song 1, Anna Song 2) that would look better (I am guessing most would agree) if she had smaller and more proportionate breasts.
BS walks: A definition of sex that unambiguously classifies a little over 99.98% of humans into either of two sexes is not a narrow notion. There are only two sexes among humans, and intersex individuals do not belong to either sex. Intersex individuals do not have a sex, period. In other words, sex cannot be conceptualized in terms of the presence or absence of the Y chromosome alone because all intersex individuals either have at least one Y or no Y.
Speaking of SRY, sometimes it may be non-functional on Y, but you would classify someone with such a Y as a man even though it wouldn’t look like one. Alternatively, what if someone with XX has a mutated gene that mimicks SRY? By your definition, this person is a woman but it would look like a man. Don’t you see that both these examples are of intersex individuals and that these individuals do not have a sex?
The digital manipulation of Angelina Jolie was not in reference to attractiveness but to your assertion of her looking “very androgynous.”
Sionnach: The use of masculinized high-fashion models does not appear to have anything to do with appeasing masculinized women and increasing sales. Marketing considerations suggest that the best policy is to appease the most people, which means using women in the average to attractive range. If avoiding jealously is an issue, then the models should be closer to average, and if pleasing aesthetically is the issue then the models should be closer to attractive or very attractive. Attractive looks in women are also one of feminine beauty as far as most people are concerned. Therefore, for the purposes of marketing, the average to feminine range would appear best, but the observed range is clearly on the masculine side of average.
Gay fashion designer are simply selecting models they find visually appealing and getting away with it because they dominate the fashion business and are using the models to sell highly desirable items.
It is not meaningful to talk about a mix of masculine and feminine features in the same woman. Sex hormones have a global impact. Controlling for other factors, a given sex hormone profile will not be shifting some parts of the body toward feminization and others toward masculinization. If you see a small-breasted woman that is overall feminine, is it meaningful to say that her breasts are masculine? If you see a large-breasted woman who is masculine overall, is it meaningful to say that her breasts are feminine? The norm is not a mix of masculine and feminine features but of average features.
i've read the faq, and i still find this website insulting to women in general, but mostly to a certain physique. you literally criticise certain body parts, going on endlessly about how ugly and unattractive they are. sorry, but you can't be objective until you've been subjected to what you are subjecting these women to. doubtless they will never see any of this, but people who look similar may do.
there are plenty of unhealthy practises people can indulge in to be 'feminine'. the tiny waist and huge breasts and hips you love so much have been achieved through corset training for centuries. this can damage ribs and deform the liver and intestines. there is also the more modern issue of cosmetic surgery, for example liposuction on the midsection, breast implants (i know you don't personally like these, but it is pursuing this extreme hourglass that leads people to want them) and operations on the face. serious unecessary surgery can be far more dangerous than a slimming diet.
billions are spent on advertising every year. if slim models didn't sell products, then there would be 'attractive' (to you) models on advertisments. a recent study (at arizona state university) found women had LOWER self-esteem after viewing moderately heavy models and HIGHER self-esteem after viewing moderately thin ones (an extreme in either reversed the effect). as a moderately 'feminine' woman by your standards, i can safely say i have no desire to look like a fashion model.
and there are no 'analyses' about body parts. there are insults, plain and simple.
Mishelle: I did get your email. It usually takes me a while to respond.
Danielle: When you talk about fashion reflecting the dreams and ideals of current Western society, I hope you are referring to elements other than the looks of female high-fashion models because I have already cited plenty of literature showing how these looks are at odds with the preferences of the majority.
Lena: When you compare the femininity of different women, it is necessary to assess to what extent shape variation is related to factors apart from sex hormones. In the two comparisons (Pic1, Pic2; Daniella Sarahyba on the left, Courtney on the right), whereas the shape transformations from Courtney to Daniella that you mentioned would result from greater feminization if other factors were constant, you should also note that Daniella has a longer and squarer chin, deeper-set eyes, more prominent forehead, lower-set eyebrows and a wider nose. Therefore, it does not follow that Daniella is more feminine. Also look at the physique. Daniella has broader shoulders, a wider rib cage, wider hips and smaller breasts. Overall, Daniella looks more masculine than Courtney.
Masculinity-femininity is judged by overall appearance. If a woman has high-placed cheekbones but an overall feminine face, then the high-placed cheekbones should not be called masculine because their high placement is due to factors apart from the influence of sex hormones. An overall feminine and attractive face shape can have one or two features such as a squared chin or high-placed cheekbones or sharp gonial angles. Slight masculinization of women is also a correlate of their sexiness to heterosexual men.
Gemma Ward looks doll faced in some of her pictures but there are others where a masculine element can be seen in her face (see here). If you also consider her physique, the appropriate conclusion is that she is not feminine and that there is a masculine element to her face that may not be obvious depending on pose/make-up because of her odd features.
I have no idea how popular the face is of Elisabetta Canalis among Italian men. In some pictures her face looks quite masculine, and I doubt that heterosexual men generally appreciate her face in these pictures. I can see that they would appreciate her body.
8D: What do you mean this site does not “give a shit about women in terms of their humanity”? This site is about physical appearance. Other aspects are not relevant to it, which is not to say that they don’t matter. Some issues related to looks such as self-esteem are discussed here, too. Unlike the fashion industry, I am not making models starve/undereat to maintain model-worthy looks.
Laura: When it comes to beauty, most people have a similar personal preference, and with respect to women, this preference is for feminine beauty. Not addressing the looks of men does not imply lack of objectivity. This site has nothing to do with the looks of men. Before you critique this site as an attack on women, you should read the FAQ. It is by no means true that it makes no difference whether there is a skinny and masculine female standard or a feminine beauty standard, which is explained in the FAQ. The consequences of having skinny women occupy the top ranks of models are much worse than if these top models were feminine and attractive because no negative health behaviors can be indulged in to acquire feminine beauty and most people naturally harbor a feminine beauty standard.
Some of the analyses about different body parts are required to show that the arguments are not merely subjective. This site is not about gender but about physical appearance. It is also not saying that unless your looks lie within a given range you are not a woman. Masculinized women are still women.
8D: I have lost a commentator because of your foul and retarded comments. This commentator does not want to post comments at a site “disreputed by some hysterical mental institution runaway” (commentator’s expression). You must behave or you will be banned from commenting.
Sprum: These women obviously do not have the looks to be top-ranked high-fashion models. You should look around the site to understand why the women are not feminine with respect to female norms. I am not saying they are masculine.
8D: This site is targeting people of European ancestry and hence the focus is on white women. I have shown clearer pictures of Natasha Poly. Look at them and ask yourself how the general public would rate her in reference to the models above.
Disgusted: I mostly avoid porn stars, partly because they tend to be masculinized women. This site is not about how women should look like. It is about appropriate looks among models in various settings and beauty pageant contestants. You should read the FAQ to understand the necessity of this educational site. Documenting some unflattering correlates of homosexuality is not being anti-gay and there is nothing misogynistic about this site.
Danielle: The higher the expression of attractiveness, the fewer the people who have it. Therefore, beauty does occupy a narrow range. In your picture the appearance is one of androgyny, not femininity. If Elise’s looks are alluring, then they are to the homosexuals who dominate the fashion business, which is why Elise is a top-ranked high-fashion model and the likes of Ginger and Eunice have no possibility of doing high-fashion modeling at present. Women like Ginger and Eunice do not have to “pose like whores”; they typically do it because they want to, and to my knowledge Eunice hasn’t done anything beyond topless artistic nude modeling.
8D: I did not imply that I hate freckles. People generally prefer spotless skin to freckled skin, and Alessandra has better skin on this count.
I just had an email from a person who will not be commenting here anymore because of your childish insults. I have asked you many times to behave, but you haven’t listened. So be warned that you will be banned from commenting if you keep coming up with childish insults against the commentators. Your insults are also senseless. Bron is a woman and most of your insults against her are not applicable.
Danielle: If the women in your picture had feminine faces, most people would find them a lot more appealing. There is no reason why one couldn’t use feminine models for selling high-end jewelry and lingerie. Of course, high-fashion models are meant to appeal to gay fashion designers, not heterosexual men. Once gain, I don’t believe that the homosexual designers can be made to change. One will have to come up with an alternative fashion industry, a difficult though not impossible task. When this alternative exists, we will see whether feminine models can compete with the masculine ones. It will take a while to come up with this alternative.
Sárika: I agree that female high-fashion models are not supposed to appeal to heterosexual men or lesbians who are into feminine women. These models are obviously meant to appeal to the homosexual designers who find the looks of boys in their early adolescence aesthetically appealing, and this is an example of how outsiders can make perfect sense of why high-fashion models look the way they do. It is also true that most women are not convinced that these models have a highly desirable look, but something needs to be done to educate the minority of girls/women who mistakenly believe that attractiveness lies in skinniness or else skinny fashion models would not occupy the top rung among female models. If you go through this site, you will also realize that the aesthetic preferences of gay fashion designers affect the selection of lingerie models and beauty pageant contestants, too. Something needs to be done about this. If feminine women are needed, feminine ones should be used.
8D: I have not ignored Savage’s passage. Firstly, I cited a link showing that in spite of access to an abundance of food, the great majority of people in Western societies do not find skinniness appealing, refuting Savage’s contention. Secondly, I pointed out that Savage argues that molding someone’s perception of the elements of good looks is equivalent to molding one’s sexual orientation, and since the latter is obviously absurd, the former is absurd, too. The very equation is absurd to start with. To some extent people are obviously influenced by the social environment when it comes to believing what are good looks.
o: The domination of the fashion business by homosexual men has made it difficult to find more mainstream feminine models for contrast purposes. For this entry I had to come up with a 6-feet-tall feminine woman, and I didn’t come across a more suitable alternative. Your use of “white/trailer trash” is unwarranted. Hair dyes are not unusual among fashion models. This article does not address clothing or related accessories. It addresses physical appearance. One could easily use feminine women to sell designer clothing and expensive accessories. There is no reason why high-fashion/high class need be associated with masculine looks in women.
Pages