Chris/Elijah: You must stop using multiple aliases and repeating your points over and over again.
g2go: If you believe that these fashion models are feminine and that the feminine women that I am showing are "plain jane fat cows with hanging cellulite" then you are wasting your time here.
Noooooooo. I by far prefer the Sports Illustarted Swimsit models.
Like one of the posters in this thread,I prefer slender/petite women. Not a women with big saggy breasts (regardless if they are natural or not)and not a big ass.
I find those features disgusting, and matronly.
Sorry.
Small to medium breats and butt hips,bone structure and slim. All of those sports Illustrated Swimsuit modles have hot faces and bodies.
Chris2 I have had enough of you repeating that you are a "straight guy." You need to stop and not post using multiple aliases. I don't think that you are going to understand this site. Instead of browsing this site, do something else.
Chris2: I am not saying that Keira looks bad. However, if after going through this site you cannot observe a masculine element in her face, then you shouldn't bother trying to understand it. Keira came up in the comments thread of the first entry; you may want to look up some of her pictures there, read the comments on it and if you feel like leaving a comment on Keira, leave it there, not here.
8D: Sarah's comment is useless because she has pointed out what I have been saying all along but without explaining the underlying reason; her comment is useless because she has added nothing new and provided no explanation of the observation.
"Sarah: You need to stop commenting here. Your comments are at best useless, and the comment you left above is one of your best ones. You are telling me that Victoria’s Secret is using “photoshopping/airbrushing, etc.” to make its models look more feminine in the ads. What have I been saying all along? "
Wait wait wait....
Sarah's comments = useless
Sarah says something that is basically the same as something you've previously declared.
So...you basically admitted that what you said was useless? huh?
Frank: So you have come across mistakes and non-sequiturs in my reply to you? Let us what these are.
Searching the net for pictures of people of different ethnic backgrounds isn’t a “major activity” of mine. I needed some pictures to address aesthetics in international beauty pageants...that is about it. Regarding the three faces in a row above, I didn’t search the regular net for it. The image is taken from a peer-reviewed journal article, which I came across while doing a Pubmed search.
I have already noted that the average East Asian obviously isn’t the same as the average Korean, but Koreans, Chinese and Japanese are a lot closer to each other than either of them is to Europeans. Therefore, the central tendency of what the Choe et al.’s study shows is easily applicable to Chinese vs. European or Japanese vs. European, especially since the Chinese and Japanese, too, are known to prefer facial features shifted toward less ethnic [also more European] norms.
If early anthropologists picked East Asians with more Asian than average features to show representative examples, then this is not relevant to this discussion. Of course, you have not cited a single example, let alone the many examples needed to back up this assertion. Your comment to Brenda was:
Quote:
Brenda, note that because the average typical Asian face is more “caucasian” than the supposed stereotypical one, many of the Asians who seem to be wanting to look more “caucasian”, are doing so because that is actually making them look more like the true average typical Asian. Thus the “caucasian” aspect isn’t the real goal.
Am I supposed to believe that your reference to the “stereotypical” Asian face is a decades-old reference when you are using it to try to explain a contemporary phenomenon? The appropriate conclusion is that your point is refuted because any reasonable person would conclude that you are talking about the supposed “stereotypical” face as of present.
Your description of a European with exaggerated European features from the viewpoint of a naïve East Asian observer was clearly off the mark. Anyone who is aware of basic human physical variation and travels from the Mediterranean region to Northern Europe would clearly note that Northern Europeans look more European, even if you ignore pigmentation. This has been shown in craniofacial studies, too. How could this naïve East Asian fail to notice a reduction in body hairiness as he goes up north? How could he fail to notice that whereas lips get thinner as he goes north, the Scandinavians get thicker-lipped? How could this person fail to notice a drastic reduction in the frequency of hooked noses as he goes up north? I have not insisted that there are no hook-nosed Northern Europeans; hooked-noses are found in all populations (see East Asian). The average North European nose profile is so far removed from a hooked nose that it is not possible to imagine an exaggerated version of it being hooked, especially since in the north the nasal bones are more prominent but the lower part of the nose is less prominent, the opposite tendency that would be required for a high frequency of a hook-nosed appearance. Your exaggerated European is fiction. The naïve East Asian would not come up with it. And, once again, you have not backed up your assertion about early European anthropologists using comparably exaggerated ethnic examples en masse...this appears to be another straw man by you.
Can I explain how “derived” differs from “more evolved” or how ancestral differs from “less evolved” or “primitive”? What is meant by “more evolved” or “less evolved”? I have not encountered these concepts in my readings of the biological sciences. You are coming up with more straw men. “Primitive” is easy to explain; it used to mean ancestral, but acquired a negative connotation, namely inferior, presumably because of a stupid straw man, and is thereby best avoided. “Ancestral” is value-neutral. My usage of derived and ancestral is value-neutral. Nowhere have I asserted that ancestral is not feminine or that derived is feminine.
Just because I have talked about objective correlates of beauty does not mean that I have argued that it is possible to objectively compare the attractiveness of individuals from different ethnic groups. My argument is that individuals within an ethnic group can be objectively compared as far as most people are concerned but not individuals belonging to separate ethnic groups.
Your intelligence analogy is nonsense. The reason why a preference for a somewhat more overall derived than average face shape is not the same as a preference for Europeanization is because this discriminant is not coincident with Europeanization; it just considerably overlaps with it. And, whereas a superficial reading could suggest that by virtue of having a face shape that is overall more derived than other humans, Europeans are favored in the beauty department, I have clearly argued that there are many other correlates of beauty, an important one being averageness, which applies within ethnic groups but not between ethnic groups, which is what prevents an objective comparison between individuals from different ethnic groups. Therefore, I have not argued that European women look better. You have simply failed to understand the argument.
I have no doubts that you would be able to find prominent and reputable anthropologists who would disagree that Europeans have the overall most derived face shape or insist that all modern human populations are comparably derived in facial features from their common ancestor or that ancestral vs. derived has no scientific value “in this context.” For instance, the deceased S. J. Gould comes to mind. However, I’d be impressed if you could find anthropologists who can scientifically justify any of these arguments.
I have not asserted that European faces are not the most derived on all counts because I am “prepared to allow that a few significant “derived” features might be allowed to other groups,” but because I know of features such as the extent of flattening of the forehead in side view, the depth of the infraglabellar notch and the robusticity of the supra-orbital region where Europeans are not the most derived. However, the overall issue is clear.
So an ancestral feature at one time can be more derived at another and vice versa. What is this? Think about overall looks like the tendency of mid-facial flattening to correlate with jaw protrusion; take a look at the canonical correlates analysis that I cited previously and also our closest primate relatives. It should be very clear what more overall derived means.
I have not described mid-facial flattening as ugly. I have also cited extensive data about variation in the extent of flatness of different parts of the mid-face across various human populations. Therefore, don’t tell me about different types of mid-facial flattening. If mid-facial flattening is a result of neoteny in any human population, then I am not aware of such data. I have cited evidence that the concept of neoteny does not apply to human face shape, with at most the regression of the jaw being partly neotenous. Neoteny does apply to face size in humans though, but the face of East Asians is absolutely larger than in Europeans in spite of East Asians having a smaller average body size. The mid-facial flatness of East Asians compared to Europeans has nothing to do with neoteny.
This is a useless discussion. Please stop coming up with straw men and make an effort to understand what I have argued.
Sarah: You need to stop commenting here. Your comments are at best useless, and the comment you left above is one of your best ones. You are telling me that Victoria’s Secret is using “photoshopping/airbrushing, etc.” to make its models look more feminine in the ads. What have I been saying all along?
Quote:
I have been saying that this company is using airbrushing, posing tricks and a number of models with breast implants to make these masculinized models look more feminine, thereby acknowledging that lingerie models need to be on the feminine side. However, the question is why not use feminine models in the first place? I don’t believe I should have to repeat the answer. Read the previous parts.
I don’t know if I have a picture of Elise in a VS show, but VS has used her for its lingerie show. In a VS show, she would look like in her picture above with a blue two-piece dress and handbag.
T: I do not consider Elise to be ugly; she is just masculine/unattractive. I haven’t made my case by just citing her; look up the previous parts. Part 6 addressed Adriana Lima whom I don’t think anybody would consider to be ugly or manly by a long shot.
You are right that female high-fashion models are meant to sell clothes to women, not turn men on. But does this mean that the looks of high-fashion models are chosen with sales in mind? There is a great deal of evidence that what most men find attractive in women is also what most women find attractive in women; see this. Even if one were to assume that it is best to avoid very attractive women to avoid making buyers jealous, it certainly makes sense to use women with at least mildly pleasant looks from the perspective of most women, which would translate to feminine but not very attractive women. And what is the bright idea of using skinny models when their looks disturb many women who are potential buyers?
You need to reconsider your jealously assumption. Whereas a number of women who realize that the models shown in the attractive women section have above average attractiveness will dislike them, this will not solely be a result of the models’ attractiveness, but also because most of these women are nude models. Nudity will not be an issue with respect to modeling clothes. In addition, you would have noted that cosmetics models are shown with perfect skin. Should this make potential buyers jealous and avoid the product or buy the product to acquire the skin of the model shown? Many products are marketed as “buy this and look like this or acquire the charisma/other attribute of this person,” which is especially true of the exclusivity element conveyed by high-fashion merchandize. Therefore, does it not make sense to use high-fashion models (I am not talking about mere fashion models) with looks that avoid disturbing the majority, are consistent with majority preferences and convey a sense of exclusivity, something that wouldn’t be even close to the adolescent-boy look preferred by gay fashion designers? You have to understand that the looks of high-fashion models have nothing to do with the requirements of effective marketing. Designer clothing is highly desirable and, in the absence of alternatives, women will patronize the fashion designers even if they mostly use models whom they find unattractive and often disturbing to look at.
I am not discouraged by negative posts. I have work to do and I will do it regardless of what kind of comments I get. And, I am going to bring down the prevalence of anorexia.
Paris Hilton’s fame is not a result of her looks, but because she is a super-rich woman who cannot seem to avoid controversy and has a bunch of nude pictures and action videos circulating around. I have addressed Claudia Schiffer’s more important comments regarding skinny fashion models here.
Steve: What most women find attractive in women is the same as what most men find attractive in women. See my reply to “T” above. Tricia Helfer is masculine, but I don’t see how you can call her ugly. There are numerous top-ranked high-fashion models that look less attractive than her.
Chris2: If you were referring to Grace in the second part of this series, then this is not the entry where you should have left your comment. Anyway, Grace is less curvaceous than Keeley and is not "flabby" either.
Chris2: What is your comment doing in this entry? Adriana Lima obviously has a masculine element to her face, which you most likely cannot observe because you cannot even see the masculine element in Keira Knightley. Don't tell me to f**k off my own site. You are the one who needs to leave. How many times do you have to tell us that you are a straight guy who likes more masculine women?
Adriana Lima's face masculine????? WTF!!!!!!!!!!!!!! She is one of the most gorgeous FEMMININE FACES EVER!
All the womens faces are horrible, plain,dull as hell. Not pretty. Keira Knightley,Michelle Pfeiffer imo has one of the most beautiful faces ever! Here are some woemn I think are the hottest and most beautiful in the world
This is coming from a straight guy!
If you disagree and tell me they're masculine and not pretty f uck off!
Chris2: I have not been featuring "flabby" glamour models. Of course, if you are a homosexual like the homosexual fashion designers but are pretending to be straight, I can understand why you would find the likes of Keeley "flabby."
Keeley Hazell is not short; she is at least 5-foot-7. Annie B. above doesn't look short either.
Jenna: There is a tremendous amount of data showing that the typical masculinization of high-fashion models reflects a gay influence. I have cited a great deal of evidence showing that most people have a strong preference for above average femininity in the looks of women. You may prefer androgyny in women and find it charismatic, but your preferences are atypical.
On what basis are high-fashion models representations of power? Many of these women do not even have the power to eat as much as they desire lest they gain weight and lose their job. If you believe they represent “ideal beauty,” you once again are part of a minority.
The glamour models that I have been posting would not be looking like they want others to like them if they weren’t often posing in a seductive manner, but then they are being made to pose in this manner.
Chris: Nowhere have I implied that a woman needs to have a “huge ass and fat hips and big tits to be femminine (sic).” The femininity of a woman needs to be judged by her overall looks, and if you believe that Karolina has a feminine body structure, you shouldn’t be wasting your time with this site. You also need to stop posting in multiple entries that you are a straight man and prefer the clearly more masculine fashion model. Thank you for letting us know about your preferences; there is no need for you to repeat it.
Sorry but I def think Ana Beatriz Barros face is prettier. I don't see any masculization at all. But I don't like her body its not femminine at all. But I don't like Kealy Hazel mface or body. The faces you show and compare with the supermodles are very average,dull and boring,plain. I don't like most of the bodys becasue they're breasts are way too big and they're too short and flabby.
I defintkey prefer Veronika over Gisele. Most EAstern European women, are generally really hott. But Abby winters may we say EWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!! She is just untoned,flabby nasty saggin everywhere.
If I were to send you a picture would just judge the masculinity of the face on a scale of 1 to 10?
Thanks,
Tim
Chris/Elijah: You must stop using multiple aliases and repeating your points over and over again.
g2go: If you believe that these fashion models are feminine and that the feminine women that I am showing are "plain jane fat cows with hanging cellulite" then you are wasting your time here.
Chris2/Adrianchris: You need to stop using multiple aliases. You have made your point...stop repeating it.
Omg Abbie! you know i love you withh all my heart and dammn girl these pictures are dope! I love you stay beautiful!
What the fuck is wribg with you Erik?!
All the women supermodles and such are all very femminine!
The other women you think are femminine are plain jane fat cows with hanging cellulite and need to trim their bushes! Nasty!
what do you mean by : These women are not feminine, but they look decent to me. They are also unlikely to become big-name fashion models.
Noooooooo. I by far prefer the Sports Illustarted Swimsit models.
Like one of the posters in this thread,I prefer slender/petite women. Not a women with big saggy breasts (regardless if they are natural or not)and not a big ass.
I find those features disgusting, and matronly.
Sorry.
Small to medium breats and butt hips,bone structure and slim. All of those sports Illustrated Swimsuit modles have hot faces and bodies.
Yes I'm a hetrosexual male. Sorry
Well this site imo is horribly inacuerate about these beautiful models.
Erik you jsut wish you could have Gisele,Adriana,Ana, and ll the Sports Illustrated swimsuit models as your gf/s!
Chris2 I have had enough of you repeating that you are a "straight guy." You need to stop and not post using multiple aliases. I don't think that you are going to understand this site. Instead of browsing this site, do something else.
Chris2: I am not saying that Keira looks bad. However, if after going through this site you cannot observe a masculine element in her face, then you shouldn't bother trying to understand it. Keira came up in the comments thread of the first entry; you may want to look up some of her pictures there, read the comments on it and if you feel like leaving a comment on Keira, leave it there, not here.
Ok, how in the hell is Keira Knightley masculine? She considered one of the msot grogeous woman on earth!
Adriana
has one of the most womanly,beautiful faces ever. I don't care for the Victoria Secert bodies. But they all have gorgeous faces!
all you say about these beautiful women haveing masculine faces is a bunch of bullshit. By the way I am a straight guy.
8D: Sarah's comment is useless because she has pointed out what I have been saying all along but without explaining the underlying reason; her comment is useless because she has added nothing new and provided no explanation of the observation.
"Sarah: You need to stop commenting here. Your comments are at best useless, and the comment you left above is one of your best ones. You are telling me that Victoria’s Secret is using “photoshopping/airbrushing, etc.” to make its models look more feminine in the ads. What have I been saying all along? "
Wait wait wait....
Sarah's comments = useless
Sarah says something that is basically the same as something you've previously declared.
So...you basically admitted that what you said was useless? huh?
rite. kkbb.
ps:
white power!!
Frank: So you have come across mistakes and non-sequiturs in my reply to you? Let us what these are.
Searching the net for pictures of people of different ethnic backgrounds isn’t a “major activity” of mine. I needed some pictures to address aesthetics in international beauty pageants...that is about it. Regarding the three faces in a row above, I didn’t search the regular net for it. The image is taken from a peer-reviewed journal article, which I came across while doing a Pubmed search.
I have already noted that the average East Asian obviously isn’t the same as the average Korean, but Koreans, Chinese and Japanese are a lot closer to each other than either of them is to Europeans. Therefore, the central tendency of what the Choe et al.’s study shows is easily applicable to Chinese vs. European or Japanese vs. European, especially since the Chinese and Japanese, too, are known to prefer facial features shifted toward less ethnic [also more European] norms.
If early anthropologists picked East Asians with more Asian than average features to show representative examples, then this is not relevant to this discussion. Of course, you have not cited a single example, let alone the many examples needed to back up this assertion. Your comment to Brenda was:
Quote:
Am I supposed to believe that your reference to the “stereotypical” Asian face is a decades-old reference when you are using it to try to explain a contemporary phenomenon? The appropriate conclusion is that your point is refuted because any reasonable person would conclude that you are talking about the supposed “stereotypical” face as of present.
Your description of a European with exaggerated European features from the viewpoint of a naïve East Asian observer was clearly off the mark. Anyone who is aware of basic human physical variation and travels from the Mediterranean region to Northern Europe would clearly note that Northern Europeans look more European, even if you ignore pigmentation. This has been shown in craniofacial studies, too. How could this naïve East Asian fail to notice a reduction in body hairiness as he goes up north? How could he fail to notice that whereas lips get thinner as he goes north, the Scandinavians get thicker-lipped? How could this person fail to notice a drastic reduction in the frequency of hooked noses as he goes up north? I have not insisted that there are no hook-nosed Northern Europeans; hooked-noses are found in all populations (see East Asian). The average North European nose profile is so far removed from a hooked nose that it is not possible to imagine an exaggerated version of it being hooked, especially since in the north the nasal bones are more prominent but the lower part of the nose is less prominent, the opposite tendency that would be required for a high frequency of a hook-nosed appearance. Your exaggerated European is fiction. The naïve East Asian would not come up with it. And, once again, you have not backed up your assertion about early European anthropologists using comparably exaggerated ethnic examples en masse...this appears to be another straw man by you.
Can I explain how “derived” differs from “more evolved” or how ancestral differs from “less evolved” or “primitive”? What is meant by “more evolved” or “less evolved”? I have not encountered these concepts in my readings of the biological sciences. You are coming up with more straw men. “Primitive” is easy to explain; it used to mean ancestral, but acquired a negative connotation, namely inferior, presumably because of a stupid straw man, and is thereby best avoided. “Ancestral” is value-neutral. My usage of derived and ancestral is value-neutral. Nowhere have I asserted that ancestral is not feminine or that derived is feminine.
Just because I have talked about objective correlates of beauty does not mean that I have argued that it is possible to objectively compare the attractiveness of individuals from different ethnic groups. My argument is that individuals within an ethnic group can be objectively compared as far as most people are concerned but not individuals belonging to separate ethnic groups.
Your intelligence analogy is nonsense. The reason why a preference for a somewhat more overall derived than average face shape is not the same as a preference for Europeanization is because this discriminant is not coincident with Europeanization; it just considerably overlaps with it. And, whereas a superficial reading could suggest that by virtue of having a face shape that is overall more derived than other humans, Europeans are favored in the beauty department, I have clearly argued that there are many other correlates of beauty, an important one being averageness, which applies within ethnic groups but not between ethnic groups, which is what prevents an objective comparison between individuals from different ethnic groups. Therefore, I have not argued that European women look better. You have simply failed to understand the argument.
I have no doubts that you would be able to find prominent and reputable anthropologists who would disagree that Europeans have the overall most derived face shape or insist that all modern human populations are comparably derived in facial features from their common ancestor or that ancestral vs. derived has no scientific value “in this context.” For instance, the deceased S. J. Gould comes to mind. However, I’d be impressed if you could find anthropologists who can scientifically justify any of these arguments.
I have not asserted that European faces are not the most derived on all counts because I am “prepared to allow that a few significant “derived” features might be allowed to other groups,” but because I know of features such as the extent of flattening of the forehead in side view, the depth of the infraglabellar notch and the robusticity of the supra-orbital region where Europeans are not the most derived. However, the overall issue is clear.
So an ancestral feature at one time can be more derived at another and vice versa. What is this? Think about overall looks like the tendency of mid-facial flattening to correlate with jaw protrusion; take a look at the canonical correlates analysis that I cited previously and also our closest primate relatives. It should be very clear what more overall derived means.
I have not described mid-facial flattening as ugly. I have also cited extensive data about variation in the extent of flatness of different parts of the mid-face across various human populations. Therefore, don’t tell me about different types of mid-facial flattening. If mid-facial flattening is a result of neoteny in any human population, then I am not aware of such data. I have cited evidence that the concept of neoteny does not apply to human face shape, with at most the regression of the jaw being partly neotenous. Neoteny does apply to face size in humans though, but the face of East Asians is absolutely larger than in Europeans in spite of East Asians having a smaller average body size. The mid-facial flatness of East Asians compared to Europeans has nothing to do with neoteny.
This is a useless discussion. Please stop coming up with straw men and make an effort to understand what I have argued.
Sarah: You need to stop commenting here. Your comments are at best useless, and the comment you left above is one of your best ones. You are telling me that Victoria’s Secret is using “photoshopping/airbrushing, etc.” to make its models look more feminine in the ads. What have I been saying all along?
Quote:
I don’t know if I have a picture of Elise in a VS show, but VS has used her for its lingerie show. In a VS show, she would look like in her picture above with a blue two-piece dress and handbag.
T: I do not consider Elise to be ugly; she is just masculine/unattractive. I haven’t made my case by just citing her; look up the previous parts. Part 6 addressed Adriana Lima whom I don’t think anybody would consider to be ugly or manly by a long shot.
You are right that female high-fashion models are meant to sell clothes to women, not turn men on. But does this mean that the looks of high-fashion models are chosen with sales in mind? There is a great deal of evidence that what most men find attractive in women is also what most women find attractive in women; see this. Even if one were to assume that it is best to avoid very attractive women to avoid making buyers jealous, it certainly makes sense to use women with at least mildly pleasant looks from the perspective of most women, which would translate to feminine but not very attractive women. And what is the bright idea of using skinny models when their looks disturb many women who are potential buyers?
You need to reconsider your jealously assumption. Whereas a number of women who realize that the models shown in the attractive women section have above average attractiveness will dislike them, this will not solely be a result of the models’ attractiveness, but also because most of these women are nude models. Nudity will not be an issue with respect to modeling clothes. In addition, you would have noted that cosmetics models are shown with perfect skin. Should this make potential buyers jealous and avoid the product or buy the product to acquire the skin of the model shown? Many products are marketed as “buy this and look like this or acquire the charisma/other attribute of this person,” which is especially true of the exclusivity element conveyed by high-fashion merchandize. Therefore, does it not make sense to use high-fashion models (I am not talking about mere fashion models) with looks that avoid disturbing the majority, are consistent with majority preferences and convey a sense of exclusivity, something that wouldn’t be even close to the adolescent-boy look preferred by gay fashion designers? You have to understand that the looks of high-fashion models have nothing to do with the requirements of effective marketing. Designer clothing is highly desirable and, in the absence of alternatives, women will patronize the fashion designers even if they mostly use models whom they find unattractive and often disturbing to look at.
I am not discouraged by negative posts. I have work to do and I will do it regardless of what kind of comments I get. And, I am going to bring down the prevalence of anorexia.
Paris Hilton’s fame is not a result of her looks, but because she is a super-rich woman who cannot seem to avoid controversy and has a bunch of nude pictures and action videos circulating around. I have addressed Claudia Schiffer’s more important comments regarding skinny fashion models here.
Steve: What most women find attractive in women is the same as what most men find attractive in women. See my reply to “T” above. Tricia Helfer is masculine, but I don’t see how you can call her ugly. There are numerous top-ranked high-fashion models that look less attractive than her.
Chris2: If you were referring to Grace in the second part of this series, then this is not the entry where you should have left your comment. Anyway, Grace is less curvaceous than Keeley and is not "flabby" either.
Chris2: What is your comment doing in this entry? Adriana Lima obviously has a masculine element to her face, which you most likely cannot observe because you cannot even see the masculine element in Keira Knightley. Don't tell me to f**k off my own site. You are the one who needs to leave. How many times do you have to tell us that you are a straight guy who likes more masculine women?
Adriana Lima's face masculine????? WTF!!!!!!!!!!!!!! She is one of the most gorgeous FEMMININE FACES EVER!
All the womens faces are horrible, plain,dull as hell. Not pretty. Keira Knightley,Michelle Pfeiffer imo has one of the most beautiful faces ever! Here are some woemn I think are the hottest and most beautiful in the world
This is coming from a straight guy!
If you disagree and tell me they're masculine and not pretty f uck off!
http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2007/05/03/keira_knightley_narrowweb__300x450,2.jpg
http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/54/039_3307~Michelle-Pfeiffer-Posters.jpg
Monica Bellucci
http://www.cinematicwallpaper.com/movie-pictures/wallpapers/Monica_Bellucci_wallpaper/Monica_Bellucci.jpg
I don't think Kealy is flabby at all. I meant the others like Grace compared with Gisele Bundchen.
By the way most everybody thinks Ana Beatriz Barros has one of the most beautiful faces ever! Including me.
I like Def more femminie bodies but not as buxom and curvaceous as Kealy Hazel's.
Elsa Benitez,Christy Turlingotn are perfect example's of the kind of bodies I like in women
http://images.sports.cn/2004/04/05/129695A.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/Grounds/7850/4christyturlington2.jpg
Chris2: I have not been featuring "flabby" glamour models. Of course, if you are a homosexual like the homosexual fashion designers but are pretending to be straight, I can understand why you would find the likes of Keeley "flabby."
Keeley Hazell is not short; she is at least 5-foot-7. Annie B. above doesn't look short either.
Jenna: There is a tremendous amount of data showing that the typical masculinization of high-fashion models reflects a gay influence. I have cited a great deal of evidence showing that most people have a strong preference for above average femininity in the looks of women. You may prefer androgyny in women and find it charismatic, but your preferences are atypical.
On what basis are high-fashion models representations of power? Many of these women do not even have the power to eat as much as they desire lest they gain weight and lose their job. If you believe they represent “ideal beauty,” you once again are part of a minority.
The glamour models that I have been posting would not be looking like they want others to like them if they weren’t often posing in a seductive manner, but then they are being made to pose in this manner.
Chris: Nowhere have I implied that a woman needs to have a “huge ass and fat hips and big tits to be femminine (sic).” The femininity of a woman needs to be judged by her overall looks, and if you believe that Karolina has a feminine body structure, you shouldn’t be wasting your time with this site. You also need to stop posting in multiple entries that you are a straight man and prefer the clearly more masculine fashion model. Thank you for letting us know about your preferences; there is no need for you to repeat it.
Sorry but I def think Ana Beatriz Barros face is prettier. I don't see any masculization at all. But I don't like her body its not femminine at all. But I don't like Kealy Hazel mface or body. The faces you show and compare with the supermodles are very average,dull and boring,plain. I don't like most of the bodys becasue they're breasts are way too big and they're too short and flabby.
I defintkey prefer Veronika over Gisele. Most EAstern European women, are generally really hott. But Abby winters may we say EWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!! She is just untoned,flabby nasty saggin everywhere.
The first one is feintley the most attractive by far outof all of them.
Pages