Erik, you are so full of shit! Angelina Jolie physique is quite androgenous. Her waist to hip ratio doesn't come even close to those you say here are femine. Her jaw and hairline is also "masculinalized." Even more so than some of this fashion models you have mentioned. What happens is that if you dare say Angelina Jolie has manly features, people will see right through the bullshit that is this site. You wont be able to blame homosexuals for her popularity with most men and even women. We all love Angelina's looks and are captivated by them. If she looked more traditionally femine when she was younger it was because of her facial "baby fat" that most women lose as they age, not because of her amazing bone structure.
And by the way, I didn't get a chance to answer in another page your ignorant assertion that women with Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (CAIS) are not biologically male from a scientific point of view. CAIS women (who are more femine than most biological females due to lack of testosterone sensitivity) ARE biologically male from a scientific point of view. Read a book before you post crap you know nothing about. Sex in human beings is defined by the sole presence or abscence of a Y chromosome. Eg. X=female XX=female XXX=female XY=male XXY=male XXYY=male etc. That is the reason why Complete Androgen Insensitivity (XY karyotype) is described as MALE PSEUDO-hermaphrodism.
You are so pathetically homophobic that you require women to look almost like Jessica Rabbit cartoons so you can feel confident in your heterosexuality. Pitiful!
ps. Zuzana is a buttaface with a gigantic fivehead, beady eyes, thin lips, clown makeup and big fake tits. She will NEVER be better than Karolina. She's a sloppy skank and I can smell her through the computer screen.
I think the main reason why high-fashion-models are so skinny, is that they have to show clothes and not lure men onto the stage. Besides, less body mass means less cloth to use. Okay, they're tall so this means they still have a lot of body mass, but the audience sitting in the last row have a better chance to witness the show, if the models on stage have towering heights.
I am a female with masculinized features but this does not make me unattractive. I sometimes wonder why so many people even tell me I am beautiful. Even good looking masculine and feminine men, find me attractive. There is sonething about the evolution that leads us into accepting unisexuality. I have a theory that this could actually be caused by industrialization. Men and women no longer feel assigned to produce offspring but have the urge to gain personal and communal productivity. A man or a woman's priority nowadays is not to populate the world in order to secure mankind but to save and pamper themselves with their immediate society...consider this.
btw- erik, your model selection sucks. gemma ward, caroline trentini, and lily cole are all PLENTY feminine looking (at least facially). doll face is IN.
Caterina: A high placement of the cheekbones will not by itself make a woman look masculine. The masculine element in Ms. Barros' face can be seen by comparing various parts of her face with Keeley Hazell's. Note that apart from higher cheekbones, Ms. Barros has a squarer chin, longer chin, sharper gonial angles (formed by vertical and horizontal portions of the lower jaw), deeper-set eyes, a lower placement of the eyebrows and greater bony development right above her eyes.
Ashley: To decide whether a face is masculine or feminine upon inspection, you have to be familiar with population norms and variation. Go through the “feminine vs. masculine” page if you haven’t done so and look around this site. You should subsequently be able to describe why a face is masculine or feminine in reference to other faces just by looking at it, and this would not be subjective because of your ability to justify your description in reference to population norms and diversity.
Of course, you could measure face shape and show how two faces differ in shape using geometric morphometric methods if you wanted a rigorous analysis that cannot be faulted as subjective, but I wouldn’t bother with this unless I had to do it for a science paper.
Sam: Features that are more commonly observed, if masculine looking, will play a stronger role in making someone look masculine. For instance, a masculine-looking nose will be more commonly observed than a masculine-looking backside. Therefore, if both the nose and backside of a woman are of comparable masculine looks, then the nose will usually play a stronger role in making the woman look masculine to others. Of course, people vary as to what features they are more particular about. Therefore, other things being equal, one may prefer broad shoulders with a normal-to-feminine-looking chin to a combination of feminine-looking shoulders and a normal-to-masculine-looking chin, whereas another would prefer the opposite.
Joe / Abe: Sexual dimorphism doesn’t exist? Even apart from sexual organs, haven’t you observed physical differences between men and women, on average? Sexual dimorphism applies to differences between the sexes, not to differences between ethnic groups. So how can it have been shown to be racist? Why would I describe a woman as masculine or eunuchoid if I disliked her looks? I could dislike a woman’s looks for a variety of reasons. If a model looks masculine, then she has to be described as such as far as the article above is concerned, and beyond some level of masculinization, the odds that men who are attracted to her are proper heterosexuals are bound to drop.
Saskia: I usually avoid women with breast implants. An advantage of using nude models is that you get to see them bare-breasted from multiple angles, and it is typically clear who has breast implants and who doesn’t. Dana Benn does not have breast implants and it does not appear that Maria above has them either.
Whereas slender women can have naturally large breasts, the odds are low if the woman also happens to be masculine. Once again, if you look at this picture of Heidi Klum, it is obvious that her breasts are out of proportion with the slenderness and masculinization elsewhere. Additionally, the pictures here leave no doubt that Heidi Klum got breast implants at some point.
None of the three women that are properly contrasted with Heidi Klum -- Dana Benn, Maria A., Renee -- have been taken from porn sites. Renee is taken from a site that displays women inserting artificial objects inside their private parts but nothing more extreme...you may consider it to be porn, but the women are volunteering and not being exploited. As far as yellow teeth are concerned, this is an exaggeration, and you have to consider that the low-profile sites featuring nude models typically do not have the resources and couldn’t be bothered with getting a professional artist to airbrush sparkling white teeth on to the pictures.
Jenna: We are not talking about men. Anyway, I know that a number of women like cute men, where the cuteness refers to facial features that are not masculine, and some feminine element may be present. I suppose you mean to say that these cute men are less threatening and more approachable instead of what you wrote. However, do you like men who have effeminate/androgynous physiques? Heterosexual women who are into cute male faces would typically prefer men with a physical build that is above average in masculinity.
I know that homosexual men tend to be overrepresented in artistic endeavors, but this does not mean that their artistic works are necessarily of aesthetic merit to the general population. It is not unusual for the art coming from homosexuals to display the mental illnesses more common among them...sadomasochistic elements would be a good example.
What is compelling about Calvin Klein ads? A manly Natalia Vodianova posing in a seductive manner? Babies in underwear?
Angelina Jolie could not have become a successful high-fashion model because she is not masculine enough. If “dangerous” looks are required, a skinny look certainly does not fit the bill. And, what is more dangerous looking than a woman with a physique that is curvaceous enough to attract lots of men yet a masculine element, too, more so in her face than physique, that suggests that the woman does not lean toward demanding commitment before she is willing to engage in intimate behaviors? Do high-fashion models generally have such looks from the perspective of the general population? You are also digressing toward high-fashion modeling when this entry is focusing on lingerie modeling.
Danielle: I certainly am not dictating what people should find attractive. I am simply pointing out what most people find attractive. It is not the elite in general that are responsible for picking the looks of high-fashion models; the responsibility lies with the male homosexual fashion designer elite. Notwithstanding the high status of high-fashion models, only a minority of individuals end up regarding the masculine looks of high-fashion models as desirable or else you would not observe a strong public preference for femininity in the looks of women in controlled laboratory studies.
I don’t see how you can describe Zuzana as thin and average. Besides, at 5-foot-5, she is not short.
BS walks...: I suppose you meant to sign off as “BS talks...” Angelina Jolie is getting older, but if you look at her pictures as a young adult, in most of them she does not look “very androgynous.” There are many factors apart from testosterone that are behind sex drive in women. I have already mentioned that slight masculinization of women is a correlate of their sexiness to heterosexual men for the reason that you have described in a crude manner, but these sexy women look more like the women here than masculine fashion models like Karolina Kurkova.
Nasty crap: No vaginas are being shown here, but if you can see flab and ugliness in the women used for contrast purposes, then I suppose you could be seeing vaginas, too.
I think someone is coocoo for Cocoa Puffs. I assume you are probably in your mid-twenties to early forties. You are fat, pasty, unsahven, unkempt, unwashed and sit at your computer all day arrogantly judging perfectly healthy, normal, attractive human beings who actually have a life. Or you are a pidgeon chested, pasty, asthmatic geek. I stand by the pasty. I don't think you get out much. You really need to get your dick wet. You give yourself away as being threatened by grown women who don't look like Tinkerbell or Betty Boop, a childlike face on the body of a Russ Meyer girl. Your prefernces are really perfectly normal but you really shouldn't expose your inadequacies by focusing on the physical traits of females that make your fragile manhood shrink up. It makes you sound like a nut job. Now please go out and get your sac stroked. You really need it.
Wonderful website! I showed it to all of my guy friends and we all agree. I always thought most fashion models looked like hideous hags! The women posting to you must be ugly twiglets who like the idea of the fashion industry portraying ugliness as something to strive to attain! While I disagree with some of the comments (I think Heidi Klum is very pretty, and exotic features like a strong jawline can be exotic and appealing on a female) most of what you said is dead on! My girlfriend showed me the pictures of the top fashion models...good Lord...I would do a double take if I walked past them on the street - out of sheer horror- are they women? are they men? are they mutants? aliens? I cannot tell!
Since when is a size 6,8,10 or 12 woman with hips, curves, a delicious waist line, nice tushy, breasts and smooth skin a BAD THING? When did skin and bones, knobby knees, sallow complexions and masculine features become standards of "feminine beauty." I wonder how many of these high fashion models actually menstruate and are capable of bearing children? The key to female beauty is all biological. As males, we are driven towards youth and beauty - clear skin, feminine features, hourglass figures, breasts, hips - all signs of youth, health and fertility. These walking skeletons with dog faces DEFY the rules of nature and the rules of attraction.
These models do help designers sell clothes...but probably only out of shock value...I mean, you will remember the image of a hideous creature scuttling down the runway like a tarantula in a trench coat...that image is burned into your brain forver (nooooooooooooo! nightmares!) Beautiful women: Charlize Theron, Sophia Loren, MArilyn MOnroe, Jennifer Lopez, the old shcool playboy models (before they all started having implants, nosejobs and fake blonde highlights. Fashion models : BOW WOW WOW.
I disagree with what you said about "the homosexuals avoiding feminine women even where they are needed." "Feminine" women aren't really "needed" anywhere. You would like to see them in lingerie but what you want doesn't matter to "the homosexuals." There is no difference between putting a skinny model or a "glamour" model with an hour glass figure on the Victoria's Secret runway. Straight men might find them more sexually appealing than the skinny girls but it doesn't change the fact that the average woman does not look like either one of these two types of models. That is the exchange of one unobtainable ideal to the other. It may give straight men more jack off material but thats it. You say the purpose of lingerie is to make women look more sexually appealing to their male partners so they should choose models whose bodies appeal to straight men. That makes little sense because lingerie (unless its a constricting corset) does not change a woman's body type, it cannot make their bodies meet "objective" standards. Either way most women will fall short. Nothing is achieved.
You say that beauty and femininity is largely objective. I think that is bull. As a matter of fact I think the promotion of an "objective" beauty standard is big waste of time unless you want to sell some shit or you have other shrouded idealogical dogma to promote. Despite what you may think, there is nothing worthy, noble or important about promoting "objective" standards of beauty. I think you goals are shallow, worthless and unachievable. Insulting these young models by likening them to transexuals does not help your case either. If you don't think that calling them M-F trannys is not insulting then you are more delusional thanI thought. You say that these skinny girls don't belong in Sports Illustrated, but I say that if the issues they are in sell well then they belong in Sports Illustrated. Admit that you're a narcissist who thinks that his tastes should be catered to and promoted over other people's tastes even though these other tastes are dominant and very profitable.
How the hell do you intend to "establish an alternative fahion industry." There are already plenty of alternatives for people who don't wear high fashion. Most people already buy their shit from Target or Lane Bryant.The fashion industry is selling an image of decadence, wealth, and outrageousness. There is plenty of choice involved in buying a $3,000 skirt. High fashion buyers aren't forced to do anything. Your shoe analogy was weak because shoes are a necessity, high fashion is pure luxury. These wealthy people could always buy beautiful, tailored clothes from a good tailor or dressmaker but they don't do that because they are not just paying for the clothes, they are also paying for the image attached to a designer label. Designer clothes are associated with wealth and so is thinness. Ever hear the saying "You can never be too rich or too thin?" That pretty much sums up the image that the designers want to project.
You diss Victoria's Secret models but they are also selling an image of glamour. The Victoria's Secret fashion show is more of a promotional event than anything else. No one is going to wear the bizarre angel wings or popcorn bras to bed with their partner. These are costumes. The show is purely advertising. The "ideal figure" of a woman has gotten thinner while the average woman has gotten fatter. People covet and idolize what they can't have. It is brilliant marketing. If these advertisers have convinced the masses that these girls are the epitome of beauty then they have done their jobs well. You say that, in person, these girls do not appeal to the average person, I agree with you, but who are you to say that the designers must change their vision and their aesthetics to meet your demands? They have been very successful at promoting their own aesthetic thus far and judging from some of the comments on this board and the fact that high fashion is a billion dollar industry, they have been more successful than you. They have all the connections, and money and access to the media to promote themselves. What do you have? This little website isn't gonna affect shit. You gathered all this "scientific" data and it isn't going to make a bit of difference because you are a nobody. Your goal to establish an alternative fashion industry is ridiculous pipe dream. Give up!
http://www.jordanisyourhomeboy.com/photos/angelina-jolie-04.jpg
http://www.711net.com/store/angelina_jolie_images/angelina_jolie008.jpg
Erik, you are so full of shit! Angelina Jolie physique is quite androgenous. Her waist to hip ratio doesn't come even close to those you say here are femine. Her jaw and hairline is also "masculinalized." Even more so than some of this fashion models you have mentioned. What happens is that if you dare say Angelina Jolie has manly features, people will see right through the bullshit that is this site. You wont be able to blame homosexuals for her popularity with most men and even women. We all love Angelina's looks and are captivated by them. If she looked more traditionally femine when she was younger it was because of her facial "baby fat" that most women lose as they age, not because of her amazing bone structure.
And by the way, I didn't get a chance to answer in another page your ignorant assertion that women with Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (CAIS) are not biologically male from a scientific point of view. CAIS women (who are more femine than most biological females due to lack of testosterone sensitivity) ARE biologically male from a scientific point of view. Read a book before you post crap you know nothing about. Sex in human beings is defined by the sole presence or abscence of a Y chromosome. Eg. X=female XX=female XXX=female XY=male XXY=male XXYY=male etc. That is the reason why Complete Androgen Insensitivity (XY karyotype) is described as MALE PSEUDO-hermaphrodism.
You are so pathetically homophobic that you require women to look almost like Jessica Rabbit cartoons so you can feel confident in your heterosexuality. Pitiful!
Erik
what about actress catherine zeta jones and singer kylie minouge? are they feminine/masculine by your assessment?
Great site! I agree with everything you say.
By the way, what do you think of the Indian acress Mallika Sherawat? I can assure you she's all-natural.
Eric
What do you think of the winner-Miss Japan?
Where does she stand in your assessment
Regards
Mishelle
ps. Zuzana is a buttaface with a gigantic fivehead, beady eyes, thin lips, clown makeup and big fake tits. She will NEVER be better than Karolina. She's a sloppy skank and I can smell her through the computer screen.
Gemma is so sweet
I think the main reason why high-fashion-models are so skinny, is that they have to show clothes and not lure men onto the stage. Besides, less body mass means less cloth to use. Okay, they're tall so this means they still have a lot of body mass, but the audience sitting in the last row have a better chance to witness the show, if the models on stage have towering heights.
I am a female with masculinized features but this does not make me unattractive. I sometimes wonder why so many people even tell me I am beautiful. Even good looking masculine and feminine men, find me attractive. There is sonething about the evolution that leads us into accepting unisexuality. I have a theory that this could actually be caused by industrialization. Men and women no longer feel assigned to produce offspring but have the urge to gain personal and communal productivity. A man or a woman's priority nowadays is not to populate the world in order to secure mankind but to save and pamper themselves with their immediate society...consider this.
btw- erik, your model selection sucks. gemma ward, caroline trentini, and lily cole are all PLENTY feminine looking (at least facially). doll face is IN.
http://www.style.com/slideshows/fashionshows/S2007RTW/CHANEL/DETAILS/00810m.jpg
THAT is not a man. lol. failz. D:
-white power,
8D
women are women and no woman can win!
Erik
are you saying angelina jolie is feminine looking?
Caterina: A high placement of the cheekbones will not by itself make a woman look masculine. The masculine element in Ms. Barros' face can be seen by comparing various parts of her face with Keeley Hazell's. Note that apart from higher cheekbones, Ms. Barros has a squarer chin, longer chin, sharper gonial angles (formed by vertical and horizontal portions of the lower jaw), deeper-set eyes, a lower placement of the eyebrows and greater bony development right above her eyes.
btw:
that beautyanalysis.com site is totally rite. and u r totally wrong.
white powerz, yay neonazism,
8D
"Renee is taken from a site that displays women inserting artificial objects inside their private parts"
..and that is not porn? wow, does the whole white power worship thing make you crazy and delusional? lolz.
pornography: any sexually explicit writing and/or picture intended to arouse sexual desire.
Ashley: To decide whether a face is masculine or feminine upon inspection, you have to be familiar with population norms and variation. Go through the “feminine vs. masculine” page if you haven’t done so and look around this site. You should subsequently be able to describe why a face is masculine or feminine in reference to other faces just by looking at it, and this would not be subjective because of your ability to justify your description in reference to population norms and diversity.
Of course, you could measure face shape and show how two faces differ in shape using geometric morphometric methods if you wanted a rigorous analysis that cannot be faulted as subjective, but I wouldn’t bother with this unless I had to do it for a science paper.
Sam: Features that are more commonly observed, if masculine looking, will play a stronger role in making someone look masculine. For instance, a masculine-looking nose will be more commonly observed than a masculine-looking backside. Therefore, if both the nose and backside of a woman are of comparable masculine looks, then the nose will usually play a stronger role in making the woman look masculine to others. Of course, people vary as to what features they are more particular about. Therefore, other things being equal, one may prefer broad shoulders with a normal-to-feminine-looking chin to a combination of feminine-looking shoulders and a normal-to-masculine-looking chin, whereas another would prefer the opposite.
Joe / Abe: Sexual dimorphism doesn’t exist? Even apart from sexual organs, haven’t you observed physical differences between men and women, on average? Sexual dimorphism applies to differences between the sexes, not to differences between ethnic groups. So how can it have been shown to be racist? Why would I describe a woman as masculine or eunuchoid if I disliked her looks? I could dislike a woman’s looks for a variety of reasons. If a model looks masculine, then she has to be described as such as far as the article above is concerned, and beyond some level of masculinization, the odds that men who are attracted to her are proper heterosexuals are bound to drop.
Saskia: I usually avoid women with breast implants. An advantage of using nude models is that you get to see them bare-breasted from multiple angles, and it is typically clear who has breast implants and who doesn’t. Dana Benn does not have breast implants and it does not appear that Maria above has them either.
Whereas slender women can have naturally large breasts, the odds are low if the woman also happens to be masculine. Once again, if you look at this picture of Heidi Klum, it is obvious that her breasts are out of proportion with the slenderness and masculinization elsewhere. Additionally, the pictures here leave no doubt that Heidi Klum got breast implants at some point.
None of the three women that are properly contrasted with Heidi Klum -- Dana Benn, Maria A., Renee -- have been taken from porn sites. Renee is taken from a site that displays women inserting artificial objects inside their private parts but nothing more extreme...you may consider it to be porn, but the women are volunteering and not being exploited. As far as yellow teeth are concerned, this is an exaggeration, and you have to consider that the low-profile sites featuring nude models typically do not have the resources and couldn’t be bothered with getting a professional artist to airbrush sparkling white teeth on to the pictures.
Jenna: We are not talking about men. Anyway, I know that a number of women like cute men, where the cuteness refers to facial features that are not masculine, and some feminine element may be present. I suppose you mean to say that these cute men are less threatening and more approachable instead of what you wrote. However, do you like men who have effeminate/androgynous physiques? Heterosexual women who are into cute male faces would typically prefer men with a physical build that is above average in masculinity.
I know that homosexual men tend to be overrepresented in artistic endeavors, but this does not mean that their artistic works are necessarily of aesthetic merit to the general population. It is not unusual for the art coming from homosexuals to display the mental illnesses more common among them...sadomasochistic elements would be a good example.
What is compelling about Calvin Klein ads? A manly Natalia Vodianova posing in a seductive manner? Babies in underwear?
Angelina Jolie could not have become a successful high-fashion model because she is not masculine enough. If “dangerous” looks are required, a skinny look certainly does not fit the bill. And, what is more dangerous looking than a woman with a physique that is curvaceous enough to attract lots of men yet a masculine element, too, more so in her face than physique, that suggests that the woman does not lean toward demanding commitment before she is willing to engage in intimate behaviors? Do high-fashion models generally have such looks from the perspective of the general population? You are also digressing toward high-fashion modeling when this entry is focusing on lingerie modeling.
Danielle: I certainly am not dictating what people should find attractive. I am simply pointing out what most people find attractive. It is not the elite in general that are responsible for picking the looks of high-fashion models; the responsibility lies with the male homosexual fashion designer elite. Notwithstanding the high status of high-fashion models, only a minority of individuals end up regarding the masculine looks of high-fashion models as desirable or else you would not observe a strong public preference for femininity in the looks of women in controlled laboratory studies.
I don’t see how you can describe Zuzana as thin and average. Besides, at 5-foot-5, she is not short.
BS walks...: I suppose you meant to sign off as “BS talks...” Angelina Jolie is getting older, but if you look at her pictures as a young adult, in most of them she does not look “very androgynous.” There are many factors apart from testosterone that are behind sex drive in women. I have already mentioned that slight masculinization of women is a correlate of their sexiness to heterosexual men for the reason that you have described in a crude manner, but these sexy women look more like the women here than masculine fashion models like Karolina Kurkova.
Nasty crap: No vaginas are being shown here, but if you can see flab and ugliness in the women used for contrast purposes, then I suppose you could be seeing vaginas, too.
QQ: Sorry, I don't have her name. I do believe that I have the website correct. She should be there unless her pictures have been removed.
I think someone is coocoo for Cocoa Puffs. I assume you are probably in your mid-twenties to early forties. You are fat, pasty, unsahven, unkempt, unwashed and sit at your computer all day arrogantly judging perfectly healthy, normal, attractive human beings who actually have a life. Or you are a pidgeon chested, pasty, asthmatic geek. I stand by the pasty. I don't think you get out much. You really need to get your dick wet. You give yourself away as being threatened by grown women who don't look like Tinkerbell or Betty Boop, a childlike face on the body of a Russ Meyer girl. Your prefernces are really perfectly normal but you really shouldn't expose your inadequacies by focusing on the physical traits of females that make your fragile manhood shrink up. It makes you sound like a nut job. Now please go out and get your sac stroked. You really need it.
Wonderful website! I showed it to all of my guy friends and we all agree. I always thought most fashion models looked like hideous hags! The women posting to you must be ugly twiglets who like the idea of the fashion industry portraying ugliness as something to strive to attain! While I disagree with some of the comments (I think Heidi Klum is very pretty, and exotic features like a strong jawline can be exotic and appealing on a female) most of what you said is dead on! My girlfriend showed me the pictures of the top fashion models...good Lord...I would do a double take if I walked past them on the street - out of sheer horror- are they women? are they men? are they mutants? aliens? I cannot tell!
Since when is a size 6,8,10 or 12 woman with hips, curves, a delicious waist line, nice tushy, breasts and smooth skin a BAD THING? When did skin and bones, knobby knees, sallow complexions and masculine features become standards of "feminine beauty." I wonder how many of these high fashion models actually menstruate and are capable of bearing children? The key to female beauty is all biological. As males, we are driven towards youth and beauty - clear skin, feminine features, hourglass figures, breasts, hips - all signs of youth, health and fertility. These walking skeletons with dog faces DEFY the rules of nature and the rules of attraction.
These models do help designers sell clothes...but probably only out of shock value...I mean, you will remember the image of a hideous creature scuttling down the runway like a tarantula in a trench coat...that image is burned into your brain forver (nooooooooooooo! nightmares!) Beautiful women: Charlize Theron, Sophia Loren, MArilyn MOnroe, Jennifer Lopez, the old shcool playboy models (before they all started having implants, nosejobs and fake blonde highlights. Fashion models : BOW WOW WOW.
I disagree with what you said about "the homosexuals avoiding feminine women even where they are needed." "Feminine" women aren't really "needed" anywhere. You would like to see them in lingerie but what you want doesn't matter to "the homosexuals." There is no difference between putting a skinny model or a "glamour" model with an hour glass figure on the Victoria's Secret runway. Straight men might find them more sexually appealing than the skinny girls but it doesn't change the fact that the average woman does not look like either one of these two types of models. That is the exchange of one unobtainable ideal to the other. It may give straight men more jack off material but thats it. You say the purpose of lingerie is to make women look more sexually appealing to their male partners so they should choose models whose bodies appeal to straight men. That makes little sense because lingerie (unless its a constricting corset) does not change a woman's body type, it cannot make their bodies meet "objective" standards. Either way most women will fall short. Nothing is achieved.
You say that beauty and femininity is largely objective. I think that is bull. As a matter of fact I think the promotion of an "objective" beauty standard is big waste of time unless you want to sell some shit or you have other shrouded idealogical dogma to promote. Despite what you may think, there is nothing worthy, noble or important about promoting "objective" standards of beauty. I think you goals are shallow, worthless and unachievable. Insulting these young models by likening them to transexuals does not help your case either. If you don't think that calling them M-F trannys is not insulting then you are more delusional thanI thought. You say that these skinny girls don't belong in Sports Illustrated, but I say that if the issues they are in sell well then they belong in Sports Illustrated. Admit that you're a narcissist who thinks that his tastes should be catered to and promoted over other people's tastes even though these other tastes are dominant and very profitable.
How the hell do you intend to "establish an alternative fahion industry." There are already plenty of alternatives for people who don't wear high fashion. Most people already buy their shit from Target or Lane Bryant.The fashion industry is selling an image of decadence, wealth, and outrageousness. There is plenty of choice involved in buying a $3,000 skirt. High fashion buyers aren't forced to do anything. Your shoe analogy was weak because shoes are a necessity, high fashion is pure luxury. These wealthy people could always buy beautiful, tailored clothes from a good tailor or dressmaker but they don't do that because they are not just paying for the clothes, they are also paying for the image attached to a designer label. Designer clothes are associated with wealth and so is thinness. Ever hear the saying "You can never be too rich or too thin?" That pretty much sums up the image that the designers want to project.
You diss Victoria's Secret models but they are also selling an image of glamour. The Victoria's Secret fashion show is more of a promotional event than anything else. No one is going to wear the bizarre angel wings or popcorn bras to bed with their partner. These are costumes. The show is purely advertising. The "ideal figure" of a woman has gotten thinner while the average woman has gotten fatter. People covet and idolize what they can't have. It is brilliant marketing. If these advertisers have convinced the masses that these girls are the epitome of beauty then they have done their jobs well. You say that, in person, these girls do not appeal to the average person, I agree with you, but who are you to say that the designers must change their vision and their aesthetics to meet your demands? They have been very successful at promoting their own aesthetic thus far and judging from some of the comments on this board and the fact that high fashion is a billion dollar industry, they have been more successful than you. They have all the connections, and money and access to the media to promote themselves. What do you have? This little website isn't gonna affect shit. You gathered all this "scientific" data and it isn't going to make a bit of difference because you are a nobody. Your goal to establish an alternative fashion industry is ridiculous pipe dream. Give up!
I agree abe.
This is a little off-topic but do you know the name of the model in the image clothing.deformation.jpg?
You said that she is from KarupsPC but I'm having trouble finding her there.
-QQ
Pages