Danielle: Steps that can be taken to set up an alternative fashion industry are described here. Your statement that there are plenty of alternatives for people not wearing designer clothing implies that you have not understood what an alternative fashion industry will be about. It will be about high-fashion/designer clothing and feminine models.
The shoe analogy is not weak. Whereas high fashion is a luxury for the masses, it is a necessity in social settings for the rich/elite. The prevalence of excess body fat is indeed lower among upper class white individuals, but this does not mean that their norms or desires pertaining to body fat level hover anywhere in the neighborhood of the skinniness of high-fashion models.
You should see my addressing Victoria’s secret in terms of a criticism of the homosexuals selecting the models rather than dissing the models themselves. The use of bizarre costumes for advertising purposes does not justify the use of masculinized lingerie models.
The “ideal figure” of women has gotten thinner because of the increasing impact of homosexual fashion designers. If brilliant marketing means that people should be made to covet what they cannot have, then feminine beauty is more difficult to achieve that skinny and masculine looks (at least the skinny part can be acquired by numerous women). The advertisers have not convinced the masses that high-fashion models are the epitome of beauty or else you would not observe a strong public preference for above average femininity and normal body fat levels in women. The homosexuals have unfortunately convinced some girls and women though.
Like I said before, I am not saying that the designers must change their visions and aesthetics to meet my demands. The designers will change nothing on their own. An alternative fashion industry needs to be set up.
You are right, I am a nobody. This does not mean that I will remain a nobody. I also do not need to be anybody to achieve some of my goals. And, I am not giving up.
There is a big difference between using skinny women and using voluptuous women for lingerie modeling. Victoria’s Secret uses a lot more women with breast implants than what you would see in a haute couture show. Why? Obviously because there is a need for some curves. But why not use feminine women with natural curves to start with?
You are saying that since wearing lingerie without a corset does not change a woman’s body type, it doesn’t matter whether a masculine or feminine model is used to sell lingerie. Well then, most women buying skin creams do not possess and cannot acquire blemishless, smooth baby-like skin seen in advertising. So why not use women with skin blemishes to sell skin creams? The answer is that you want to convey that “the use of our product will make you acquire these looks.” Therefore, there is an appropriate look. The message conveyed by a lingerie model should obviously be “use this product and acquire the sex appeal of this woman.” The sex appeal is in reference to the preferences of heterosexual men. In other words, the appropriate choice for a lingerie model is a woman on the feminine side, not a masculinized woman made to look more feminine via posing tricks and implants.
You may chose to think that beauty and femininity are not largely objective, but I have cited plenty of evidence to support my arguments. I am not trying to promote objective standards of beauty; I am trying to promote feminine beauty; the information on objectivity merely shows what most people prefer. If some female models have the looks of transsexuals, then it is sometimes necessary to say so.
The Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue has little competition and hence will sell reasonably well, which does not mean that it does so because of the looks of the women it features. The “tastes” I am promoting are harbored by the majority of individuals, and arguing that someone should cater to this majority is not being narcissistic.
Jack: Skinny high-fashion models do not help designers sell clothes. A good marketing principle is to avoid imagery that disturbs a potential buyer, but the skinniness of high-fashion models disturbs many potential buyers. The reason the designers can get away with it is because of the lack of competition and the high desirability of designer clothing.
Zoe: There is no need to be skinny in order to show clothes. Normal weight women do an excellent job at displaying clothing; see Table 2 here. I am not saying that masculinization necessarily makes one unattractive. The degree of masculinization is an important variable. Slight masculinization in women is a correlate of their sexiness to heterosexual men. Additionally, there are numerous factor affecting how attractive one looks apart from the degree of masculinization/feminization.
Industrialization is a relatively recent phenomenon compared to millennia of mate selection based on fertility cues. Therefore, industrialization is not going to alter anytime soon preferences shaped over eons.
Lena: I mostly avoid women in porn. I haven’t said that prominent cheekbones are masculine. Feminization causes the cheekbones to become more prominent. However, masculinization makes the cheekbones sit higher on the face. I am not aware of any evidence that fashion models tend to have thinner noses, more widely spaced eyes, etc. than average women. The women that you named such as Laetitia Casta, Brigitte Bardot, etc. have not been proper high-fashion models, which is evident in their greater femininity and/or non-skinniness than what you would normally see among high-fashion models. I did previously address the masculine looks of Daniella Sarahyba in the context of her Sports Illustrated appearance.
When you see a masculine high-fashion model marry a rich man, the rich man is a candidate for either having/having had a homosexual component to his attractions or narrowly escaping nonheterosexuality.
Joe: I am not saying that Angelina Jolie looks feminine, but there is no way she has “very androgynous” looks. Zuzana is not at the extreme end of femininity, though she does have above average femininity. On the other hand, she has sharp gonial angles and her face is on the narrow side, which altogether don’t render a very feminine look, but this is due to factors other than masculinization.
8D: I haven’t been saying that high-fashion models look like men, let alone that all of them do. A small minority of high-fashion models have faces leaning toward feminine norms. However, Gemma Ward isn’t one of them. Take a look at the first 4 pictures of Gemma here and compare them with your picture of Gemma. Gemma Ward looks doll-faced in only some pictures, which is an artifact of her flattened features and angle of photography. There is a masculine element in her face that is consistent with her masculinized physique. Similarly, look at the face pictures of Caroline Trentini and notice the masculine element. I haven’t addressed Lily Cole. Lily Cole comes closest to a doll face among your examples, but her squared chin and forehead shape (right above eyes) detract from a doll look.
Danielle: This article does not focus on facial features. It focuses on the body, and there is no way Karolina is beating Zuzana with respect to having a lingerie modeling-worthy body. Besides, Zuzana has natural breasts.
B.S. walks: Angelina Jolie does not have androgynous looks. You posted a picture of her in her 30s and it seems to be a recent picture where she has lost a lot of weight and has veins popping out. In this picture she has a masculine element to her face, but is not describable as androgynous. A picture of her in her 20s would be preferable. In the second picture, watch what happens when the gonial region is digitally altered.
After the digital transformation of the gonial region, she is not describable as androgynous. Masculinization transforms many parts of the face, but in Angelina’s case, it seems to have strongly affected the jaw but did not have much effect elsewhere. How is this possible? The answer is that masculinization isn’t the culprit. Angelina has some Native American ancestry, which shows in her jawline. Native Americans have more massive jaws than whites. You have to control for ancestry when addressing how masculine someone is and avoid assessing non-white women in reference to white norms.
If you were to show your second picture to a random sample of whites, most will tell you that they don’t like how she looks in it. People who like her looks have pictures like these in mind: 1, 2, 3 (note masculine element but not to a degree that would make one want to describe her as androgynous). Angelina’s physique isn’t very androgynous either.
Your assertion that sex in humans in defined by the sole presence or absence of a Y chromosome is easily refuted. Haven’t you heard of intersex individuals, namely people without a sex? All intersex individuals either possess or don’t possess a Y chromosome. So how is it possible to have people without a sex? Simple. Sex is defined based on concordance of external appearance with sex chromosomes; this concordance is found in a little over 99.98% of humans. Sex has historically been conceptualized in terms of physical appearance, and the sex chromosome requirement is only a decades-old addition. It is unlikely that physical appearance will be discarded with respect to defining sex given that it is what the general public takes into account to assign sex. Someone with an XY karyotype but also CAIS is not a biological male; this person does not have a sex.
I do not require women to look like Jessica Rabbit, and even if I did, this would have nothing to do with homophobia but with a preference for exaggerated feminine curves.
Bron: The study addressed by the daily news central article was added to this site a long time ago in the form of an article titled “estradiol and face shape in women.” By the way, 8D is a woman.
8D: Your definition of pornography is so inadequate that regular Hollywood movies with sex scenes or pictures of bikini-clad women in provocative poses (some would consider it sexually explicit) will qualify as pornography. A proper definition must include “uncensored depiction of sexual behavior.” As far as artificial object insertions at the FTV girls site goes, this is fake sexual behavior and not readily classifiable as pornography, though some would consider it pornography.
Quit posting this “white power” stuff. I know that you have a morbid fascination with it, but this is not the place where you should be letting others know about it.
Is the beauty analysis site right because you say so? What are the reasons Marquardt is right and I am wrong? Marquardt’s mask is that of a masculinized woman, and it also has a problem with mandibular profile, nasion placement and earlobe proportions...the mask is simply invalid.
Angel, Regina and Sarah do look good,I remember seeing their photos on some other web site I came across; it is sooo "Erik Holland", the terminology, style, cognate reasoning, and, yes, about fem beauty
Erik:
Is that everything you have to say in oppose to that mask? When you said that you will address it, I imagined that you will shatter it. Or there is more elsewhere on the site?
face is not beautiful solely because of longitudinal symmetry, for instance, monkey face, dog face, horse face is never pretty, notwithstanding how strikingly symmetrical it is. And those fashion models, regarding their outrageous honorars, money for nothing, except promoting unhealthy, masculinized looks, it is them, who are insulting,because their role is wrong, but stating facts, although unpleasant for them, is not an insult. I like petite stature in women, not too big breasts, but slender, dainty figure, fine facial features, but fashion models are nothing like this: too tall, projecting bones, knoby joints,wide shoulders, large feet, altogether bony, robust faces
BLAH
and also what about rich men who married topmodel? everyone can observe that top model often married very rich,beautiful and powerful men?do you think that this men don't really love their wives?I think yes and I think they want a topmodel in the biginning of their relashionship for their appereance.what do you think about?
I?m agree with you but I think you are not completely impartial...
fashion models are certanly less feminine and sexy in comparison with "glamour"(porn in my opinion)models. your ideal woman is not the most bautiful because for example you affirm that prominent cheekbones are masculine but you don't remember that if a woman has, during growing,high estrogen levels, she probably will have prominent high cheekbones...are you a doctor or similar?what do you do?
fashion models have more simmetrical faces than average women.do you consider simmetry to judje beauty?fashion models have also fuller lips, with a big distance between eyes, they have big eyes,thin noses,high forehead, beautiful skin...some of your "beautiful" woman have big noses,small eyes, irregular smiles...some of glamours are very beautiful and they are very sexy and feminine...I tell you some fashion models that are consider beautiful by the fashion industry and also by men.tell me what do yuo think about them:letitia casta,monica bellucci,daniella sarayhba and past models:brigitte bardot,carol alt...
I appreciate the rest of your articles and I think the majority of these are true. ciao.
Do you have that link already on your site, Erik? I see a lot of such news lately. A little contribution to the assertion of "powerful looks" of femininity. Woman looking manly is plain sick-looking, that is not looking powerful or intelligent. Same is pertaining to their tallness
I see a lot of cellulite on Karolina, funny, she only has bones and cellulite, and a large hole between her legs.And how can Zuzana be fat, when she has much thinner upper body than Karolina, except for breasts. Even her hips look smaller than Karolina's hips. She is shorter and that
attributes to her ratios and round and soft looks. And a woman should be such.
everyone I know and many people that post comments on various blogs find Angelina Jolie EXTREMELY UGLY, 'sausagelipps', 'hemorrhoid lipped', 'vaginalina', 'vagina on face', and so on. I agree sooo much. If she looks feminine, than I didn't learn anything from this site, her face looks rather manly, her looks are dirty. But, maybe, the only trait that contributes to that is her jaw. Still, she has tender eyes.
Karolina Kurkova is not only manly but HORSE face. Whoever says that is interesting, and better than any normal,cute feminine face, needs help.
Being anomalous is not very interesting, being nothing special is good,if it means that there are no deviations. ("feminine people look weak, like poor little kittens, nothing special, no flavor".... well, the nick of the author of that comment says something about him. Kittens are weak, are tender, and the very essence of insuperable perfection,BREATHTAKING BEAUTY. That DaVinci noticed it too, I agree with him on that)I would always wish to have cool cat, pretty cat face , rather than "interesting", "special" horse face or testosteron face
It is so sick to think and comment that these naked models are ugly, and not see that fashion models are much uglier.
Dollface models as Heather Marks and Gemma Ward are prettier than the rest of their fellow models, but I see them more like cute boys, they have slightly longer faces and stronger jaws, but that is not visible on every photo. Take into account also big feet and palms, looong limbs,...
I totally agree with emma whoever erik is really needs a life and you know what he also plays with polly pockets and groovy girls and he doesnt deserve to have friends so in your face ERIK what a weiny.
well so yeaaa...oh by the way i love margaux claire kassidy maddy goosey and all of the people that say abbie is sweet but i also love abbie the most!!!!
Love you tons abberz,
Abby Ku./ abbanuster
Femininity is a correlate of beauty, beauty is not a correlate of femininity in other words you dont have to be beautiful to be feminine but you have to be feminine to be beautiful as beauty has many correlates and femininity is just one of them perhaps a powerful one but not the only one. There are many other correlates too i.e skin tone, height, eye colour, hair colour, nose shape, facial strucutre etc... and even as you have pointed out Erik slight masculinity of the right features is not only a correlate of sexiness but also beauty. So one without the other feature does not amount to one being beautifull overall although they may possess some beautiful physical features as beauty does not need words it naturally moves a person thats the beauty and mystery of beauty.
Leroy: With respect to South Asian norms, Mallika Sherawat appears to have normal/average masculinity-femininity and above average attractiveness.
Danielle: Steps that can be taken to set up an alternative fashion industry are described here. Your statement that there are plenty of alternatives for people not wearing designer clothing implies that you have not understood what an alternative fashion industry will be about. It will be about high-fashion/designer clothing and feminine models.
The shoe analogy is not weak. Whereas high fashion is a luxury for the masses, it is a necessity in social settings for the rich/elite. The prevalence of excess body fat is indeed lower among upper class white individuals, but this does not mean that their norms or desires pertaining to body fat level hover anywhere in the neighborhood of the skinniness of high-fashion models.
You should see my addressing Victoria’s secret in terms of a criticism of the homosexuals selecting the models rather than dissing the models themselves. The use of bizarre costumes for advertising purposes does not justify the use of masculinized lingerie models.
The “ideal figure” of women has gotten thinner because of the increasing impact of homosexual fashion designers. If brilliant marketing means that people should be made to covet what they cannot have, then feminine beauty is more difficult to achieve that skinny and masculine looks (at least the skinny part can be acquired by numerous women). The advertisers have not convinced the masses that high-fashion models are the epitome of beauty or else you would not observe a strong public preference for above average femininity and normal body fat levels in women. The homosexuals have unfortunately convinced some girls and women though.
Like I said before, I am not saying that the designers must change their visions and aesthetics to meet my demands. The designers will change nothing on their own. An alternative fashion industry needs to be set up.
You are right, I am a nobody. This does not mean that I will remain a nobody. I also do not need to be anybody to achieve some of my goals. And, I am not giving up.
There is a big difference between using skinny women and using voluptuous women for lingerie modeling. Victoria’s Secret uses a lot more women with breast implants than what you would see in a haute couture show. Why? Obviously because there is a need for some curves. But why not use feminine women with natural curves to start with?
You are saying that since wearing lingerie without a corset does not change a woman’s body type, it doesn’t matter whether a masculine or feminine model is used to sell lingerie. Well then, most women buying skin creams do not possess and cannot acquire blemishless, smooth baby-like skin seen in advertising. So why not use women with skin blemishes to sell skin creams? The answer is that you want to convey that “the use of our product will make you acquire these looks.” Therefore, there is an appropriate look. The message conveyed by a lingerie model should obviously be “use this product and acquire the sex appeal of this woman.” The sex appeal is in reference to the preferences of heterosexual men. In other words, the appropriate choice for a lingerie model is a woman on the feminine side, not a masculinized woman made to look more feminine via posing tricks and implants.
You may chose to think that beauty and femininity are not largely objective, but I have cited plenty of evidence to support my arguments. I am not trying to promote objective standards of beauty; I am trying to promote feminine beauty; the information on objectivity merely shows what most people prefer. If some female models have the looks of transsexuals, then it is sometimes necessary to say so.
The Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue has little competition and hence will sell reasonably well, which does not mean that it does so because of the looks of the women it features. The “tastes” I am promoting are harbored by the majority of individuals, and arguing that someone should cater to this majority is not being narcissistic.
Jack: Skinny high-fashion models do not help designers sell clothes. A good marketing principle is to avoid imagery that disturbs a potential buyer, but the skinniness of high-fashion models disturbs many potential buyers. The reason the designers can get away with it is because of the lack of competition and the high desirability of designer clothing.
Zoe: There is no need to be skinny in order to show clothes. Normal weight women do an excellent job at displaying clothing; see Table 2 here. I am not saying that masculinization necessarily makes one unattractive. The degree of masculinization is an important variable. Slight masculinization in women is a correlate of their sexiness to heterosexual men. Additionally, there are numerous factor affecting how attractive one looks apart from the degree of masculinization/feminization.
Industrialization is a relatively recent phenomenon compared to millennia of mate selection based on fertility cues. Therefore, industrialization is not going to alter anytime soon preferences shaped over eons.
Lena: I mostly avoid women in porn. I haven’t said that prominent cheekbones are masculine. Feminization causes the cheekbones to become more prominent. However, masculinization makes the cheekbones sit higher on the face. I am not aware of any evidence that fashion models tend to have thinner noses, more widely spaced eyes, etc. than average women. The women that you named such as Laetitia Casta, Brigitte Bardot, etc. have not been proper high-fashion models, which is evident in their greater femininity and/or non-skinniness than what you would normally see among high-fashion models. I did previously address the masculine looks of Daniella Sarahyba in the context of her Sports Illustrated appearance.
When you see a masculine high-fashion model marry a rich man, the rich man is a candidate for either having/having had a homosexual component to his attractions or narrowly escaping nonheterosexuality.
Sam: Both Catherine Zeta Jones and Kylie Minogue appear to be normal/average in regard to masculinity-femininity.
Mark: An individual can certainly be more overall beautiful than another based on the judgment of a majority.
Joe: I am not saying that Angelina Jolie looks feminine, but there is no way she has “very androgynous” looks. Zuzana is not at the extreme end of femininity, though she does have above average femininity. On the other hand, she has sharp gonial angles and her face is on the narrow side, which altogether don’t render a very feminine look, but this is due to factors other than masculinization.
8D: I haven’t been saying that high-fashion models look like men, let alone that all of them do. A small minority of high-fashion models have faces leaning toward feminine norms. However, Gemma Ward isn’t one of them. Take a look at the first 4 pictures of Gemma here and compare them with your picture of Gemma. Gemma Ward looks doll-faced in only some pictures, which is an artifact of her flattened features and angle of photography. There is a masculine element in her face that is consistent with her masculinized physique. Similarly, look at the face pictures of Caroline Trentini and notice the masculine element. I haven’t addressed Lily Cole. Lily Cole comes closest to a doll face among your examples, but her squared chin and forehead shape (right above eyes) detract from a doll look.
Danielle: This article does not focus on facial features. It focuses on the body, and there is no way Karolina is beating Zuzana with respect to having a lingerie modeling-worthy body. Besides, Zuzana has natural breasts.
B.S. walks: Angelina Jolie does not have androgynous looks. You posted a picture of her in her 30s and it seems to be a recent picture where she has lost a lot of weight and has veins popping out. In this picture she has a masculine element to her face, but is not describable as androgynous. A picture of her in her 20s would be preferable. In the second picture, watch what happens when the gonial region is digitally altered.
After the digital transformation of the gonial region, she is not describable as androgynous. Masculinization transforms many parts of the face, but in Angelina’s case, it seems to have strongly affected the jaw but did not have much effect elsewhere. How is this possible? The answer is that masculinization isn’t the culprit. Angelina has some Native American ancestry, which shows in her jawline. Native Americans have more massive jaws than whites. You have to control for ancestry when addressing how masculine someone is and avoid assessing non-white women in reference to white norms.
If you were to show your second picture to a random sample of whites, most will tell you that they don’t like how she looks in it. People who like her looks have pictures like these in mind: 1, 2, 3 (note masculine element but not to a degree that would make one want to describe her as androgynous). Angelina’s physique isn’t very androgynous either.
Your assertion that sex in humans in defined by the sole presence or absence of a Y chromosome is easily refuted. Haven’t you heard of intersex individuals, namely people without a sex? All intersex individuals either possess or don’t possess a Y chromosome. So how is it possible to have people without a sex? Simple. Sex is defined based on concordance of external appearance with sex chromosomes; this concordance is found in a little over 99.98% of humans. Sex has historically been conceptualized in terms of physical appearance, and the sex chromosome requirement is only a decades-old addition. It is unlikely that physical appearance will be discarded with respect to defining sex given that it is what the general public takes into account to assign sex. Someone with an XY karyotype but also CAIS is not a biological male; this person does not have a sex.
I do not require women to look like Jessica Rabbit, and even if I did, this would have nothing to do with homophobia but with a preference for exaggerated feminine curves.
Bron: The study addressed by the daily news central article was added to this site a long time ago in the form of an article titled “estradiol and face shape in women.” By the way, 8D is a woman.
8D: Your definition of pornography is so inadequate that regular Hollywood movies with sex scenes or pictures of bikini-clad women in provocative poses (some would consider it sexually explicit) will qualify as pornography. A proper definition must include “uncensored depiction of sexual behavior.” As far as artificial object insertions at the FTV girls site goes, this is fake sexual behavior and not readily classifiable as pornography, though some would consider it pornography.
Quit posting this “white power” stuff. I know that you have a morbid fascination with it, but this is not the place where you should be letting others know about it.
Is the beauty analysis site right because you say so? What are the reasons Marquardt is right and I am wrong? Marquardt’s mask is that of a masculinized woman, and it also has a problem with mandibular profile, nasion placement and earlobe proportions...the mask is simply invalid.
8D: HAHA, someone else told me she looked 'grotesque' also, but I like her exaggerated curves, somehow.
Also, I looked again at the models, and I find Sarah K. the hottest!
zoe, the first model you posted is soooooooooooooooooooooo ew. hopefully it's just the posing.
this whole blog is about white power, bb.
if you claim that an attractive asian person looks like an average white person, what you're saying is that white > asian.
pwnt.
-8D
Angel, Regina and Sarah do look good,I remember seeing their photos on some other web site I came across; it is sooo "Erik Holland", the terminology, style, cognate reasoning, and, yes, about fem beauty
Oh and these models have pretty faces but I don't particularly fancy their bodies...
I don't see the point in censoring the nipples. :/
I've become obsessed with women who have small waists and large hips - therefore I have a few images of women with attractive physiques to share!
http://img242.imageshack.us/img242/7745/editedhc2vr2.jpg
http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/1300/annasrockchickcoverlcn1.jpg
http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/3765/mischa11220504ko0.jpg
http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/9797/mischabartonbikini12uu3.jpg
I generally prefer small breasts, but the woman in the first pic has lovely hips.
Erik:
Is that everything you have to say in oppose to that mask? When you said that you will address it, I imagined that you will shatter it. Or there is more elsewhere on the site?
8D
I bet you are pederast
fivehead. bad taste.
bron-
i bet you have a small penis. :)
belly dance costume | clothing plus size woman | clothing plus size womens | costume rental | dance costume | dress plus size wedding | halloween costume | lingerie plus size | mardi gras costume | pirate costume | plus size swim wear | renaissance costume
face is not beautiful solely because of longitudinal symmetry, for instance, monkey face, dog face, horse face is never pretty, notwithstanding how strikingly symmetrical it is. And those fashion models, regarding their outrageous honorars, money for nothing, except promoting unhealthy, masculinized looks, it is them, who are insulting,because their role is wrong, but stating facts, although unpleasant for them, is not an insult. I like petite stature in women, not too big breasts, but slender, dainty figure, fine facial features, but fashion models are nothing like this: too tall, projecting bones, knoby joints,wide shoulders, large feet, altogether bony, robust faces
BLAH
and also what about rich men who married topmodel? everyone can observe that top model often married very rich,beautiful and powerful men?do you think that this men don't really love their wives?I think yes and I think they want a topmodel in the biginning of their relashionship for their appereance.what do you think about?
I?m agree with you but I think you are not completely impartial...
Sorry for my English.
fashion models are certanly less feminine and sexy in comparison with "glamour"(porn in my opinion)models. your ideal woman is not the most bautiful because for example you affirm that prominent cheekbones are masculine but you don't remember that if a woman has, during growing,high estrogen levels, she probably will have prominent high cheekbones...are you a doctor or similar?what do you do?
fashion models have more simmetrical faces than average women.do you consider simmetry to judje beauty?fashion models have also fuller lips, with a big distance between eyes, they have big eyes,thin noses,high forehead, beautiful skin...some of your "beautiful" woman have big noses,small eyes, irregular smiles...some of glamours are very beautiful and they are very sexy and feminine...I tell you some fashion models that are consider beautiful by the fashion industry and also by men.tell me what do yuo think about them:letitia casta,monica bellucci,daniella sarayhba and past models:brigitte bardot,carol alt...
I appreciate the rest of your articles and I think the majority of these are true. ciao.
http://health.dailynewscentral.com/content/view/0001851/43/
Do you have that link already on your site, Erik? I see a lot of such news lately. A little contribution to the assertion of "powerful looks" of femininity. Woman looking manly is plain sick-looking, that is not looking powerful or intelligent. Same is pertaining to their tallness
I see a lot of cellulite on Karolina, funny, she only has bones and cellulite, and a large hole between her legs.And how can Zuzana be fat, when she has much thinner upper body than Karolina, except for breasts. Even her hips look smaller than Karolina's hips. She is shorter and that
attributes to her ratios and round and soft looks. And a woman should be such.
everyone I know and many people that post comments on various blogs find Angelina Jolie EXTREMELY UGLY, 'sausagelipps', 'hemorrhoid lipped', 'vaginalina', 'vagina on face', and so on. I agree sooo much. If she looks feminine, than I didn't learn anything from this site, her face looks rather manly, her looks are dirty. But, maybe, the only trait that contributes to that is her jaw. Still, she has tender eyes.
Karolina Kurkova is not only manly but HORSE face. Whoever says that is interesting, and better than any normal,cute feminine face, needs help.
Being anomalous is not very interesting, being nothing special is good,if it means that there are no deviations. ("feminine people look weak, like poor little kittens, nothing special, no flavor".... well, the nick of the author of that comment says something about him. Kittens are weak, are tender, and the very essence of insuperable perfection,BREATHTAKING BEAUTY. That DaVinci noticed it too, I agree with him on that)I would always wish to have cool cat, pretty cat face , rather than "interesting", "special" horse face or testosteron face
It is so sick to think and comment that these naked models are ugly, and not see that fashion models are much uglier.
Dollface models as Heather Marks and Gemma Ward are prettier than the rest of their fellow models, but I see them more like cute boys, they have slightly longer faces and stronger jaws, but that is not visible on every photo. Take into account also big feet and palms, looong limbs,...
ohhh and by the way i love MADDY BOYLEN haha
I totally agree with emma whoever erik is really needs a life and you know what he also plays with polly pockets and groovy girls and he doesnt deserve to have friends so in your face ERIK what a weiny.
well so yeaaa...oh by the way i love margaux claire kassidy maddy goosey and all of the people that say abbie is sweet but i also love abbie the most!!!!
Love you tons abberz,
Abby Ku./ abbanuster
Femininity is a correlate of beauty, beauty is not a correlate of femininity in other words you dont have to be beautiful to be feminine but you have to be feminine to be beautiful as beauty has many correlates and femininity is just one of them perhaps a powerful one but not the only one. There are many other correlates too i.e skin tone, height, eye colour, hair colour, nose shape, facial strucutre etc... and even as you have pointed out Erik slight masculinity of the right features is not only a correlate of sexiness but also beauty. So one without the other feature does not amount to one being beautifull overall although they may possess some beautiful physical features as beauty does not need words it naturally moves a person thats the beauty and mystery of beauty.
erik
is zuzana on the extreme end of the feminine scale? is she too feminine or is there any masculine element in her as i cant see any.
Pages