After browsing through your "random attractive women" page, I now realize why you find a negative in the contestants of this beauty pageant. It is because you could not find nude pictures of them. It's extremely AMUSING that the "random" women you chose just happen to come along with naked pictures. And just so you know, of all the pictures I looked through, none of the women compared to ANY of these women. They were all extremly "bland". Different is beautiful, faces that blend in with the crowd, like your random attractives, are not all that special!!
Kelsea Keeble
This is insane. I own a formal wear shop, where I specialize in pageant wear, so that is right in my alley. Many pageants are not only focused on the "physical" appearance. Many other aspects are considered in determining the winner of a pageant; such as: talent, speech, class, the womens' portrayal of themselves, moral values, interview, etc. Unless you are the judge of an actual Beauty Pageant, I don't see where your opinion on the contestants is all that important.
To Quote You:
"If you believe that the attractive women that I have shown are fat, then something is wrong with you. As to whether my opinion is very biased, I have cited research that people overwhelmingly prefer feminine looks in women. In other words, my opinion is no more biased than that of the majority of humans. And, I look like a normal man and am normal in other aspects."
Who gets to decide what is feminine, and what is not? The majority of the women you pictured above as masculine, I consider to be very feminine. It's also nice to know that if we don't agree with you, than something is wrong with us? You look normal? Seeing as you got to decide which women are "masculine", can someone else get to decide what "normal" is?
What exactly is "normal" looking? Everyone is so unique and different looking. There are different kinds of beautiful. Open your eyes!
Anna: Porn stars are generally masculinized women, not hyperfeminine ones since feminine women are less inclined toward promiscuity. The nude models shown above are not porn stars and Zuzana is not flabby by a long shot. Eating lots of “junk food” will not give you Zuzana’s physique, especially her tiny waist, since it will add fat in the abdominal region. If you go through the attractive women section of this site, you will encounter women who are mostly slim but still feminine because of their skeletal structures and sufficient fat where they need it in order to look feminine. Do not confound class with sexual orientation. Masculinized women do not end up as fashion models because upper class heterosexual men appreciate their looks but because homosexual men dominate the fashion industry.
Monique: I know that I am not the only person to have figured out the gay factor as an explanation for why high-fashion models are typically very skinny, but thank you for pointing out the link. I am pleased to know that you decided not to lose the healthy amount of body fat that you possess, but other women may have little opportunity for success apart from fashion modeling, for which they will have to become skinny in the first place.
I myself lament the fact that I have had to mostly resort to nude models to obtain examples of feminine beauty. On the other hand, feminine women are uncommon in porn because most of them are not inclined toward promiscuity. The vast majority of the nude models shown in the attractive women section do not comprise of porn stars. If you believe Tyra Banks has always had natural breasts, then explain this.
As far as I know women in general do not seek external approval of their looks. Many women have a strong innate sense of aesthetics and know how attractive they are based on this sense; they do not primarily judge their attractiveness in terms of how others perceive them. But then there are women who are largely dependent on others to assess how attractive they are.
There is certainly nothing within this site that should be taken as women feeling less worthy, less successful, less loved and less validated if they fail to meet the standards for feminine beauty. Good looks last for a short time whereas people’s personality and nature last a lifetime. Surely, no woman should have the immaturity to derive a sense of worth or belonging from how attractive she is. The arguments within this site have nothing to do with acceptability vs. non-acceptability per se of different looks in women, but of appropriate looks – from an aesthetics perspective – among models in various settings and contestants in beauty pageants catering to the general public. There are numerous scenarios where a person’s attractiveness does not matter or should not matter, and nobody should base a general sense of worth upon how attractive she is.
As far as switching formulas go, men and women in general judge female attractiveness similarly. Therefore, if heterosexual women were in charge of women’s fashion, then mindful of the necessity of high-fashion wear conveying a sense of exclusivity [or else the elite would not patronize it], they will have to use a narrow range of physical variation among their models, which will need to be difficult to attain for most women, and this narrow range will obviously be one of feminine beauty.
Anyway, if you have an hourglass figure and are an attractive women, then please consider submitting your pictures to me; I sorely need non-nude pictures of attractive women.
Doug: There are plenty of feminine and attractive women around with prominent breasts that Victoria’s Secret should have no problems finding, especially given its high status and the fact that it does not require its models to pose nude. But why does it use so many masculinized women with breast implants? Obviously because the homosexuals involved wish to avoid anything beyond the minimum femininity that will do the job, and breast implants, posing tricks, etc. help them achieve this minimum femininity without having to actually use feminine women.
Speaking of plenty of nude models and porn starts with breast implants does not help since these women are disproportionately masculinized, too; feminine women are less likely to be involved in these roles. But feminine women with naturally prominent breasts, and there are a lot of them, will typically readily model for Victoria’s Secret if the company asked them to.
I have addressed Alessandra Ambrosio in numerous places within this site, including this and this entry within the blog. If you have gone through these entries and still think that there is nothing masculine about her face or that she looks good, then it is difficult to believe that you are a normal heterosexual man.
Your reference to hair color expresses appreciation for diversity, but there is a good amount of diversity, including all hair colors, that is found among feminine women. There is no apparent need for Victoria’s Secret to be using masculinized women, let alone a large number of them. More importantly, the Victoria’s Secret series addressed here is not about criticizing the models, which would be a useless endeavor, but about pointing out the people responsible for using them, and this cannot be done unless the masculinization of the models is clarified. The people involved are primarily responsible for the relative lack of feminine beauty in the [mainstream] limelight, which is what this site is aiming to change.
Richard: A response to your references to this site in your reply to Brenda...
Regarding examining the models part by part, yes this is being done to some extent to explain the subtlety of masculinity-femininity, but it is also clear that they need to be seen as a whole. A body part by itself is not necessarily informative about how feminine or masculine a woman is.
Regarding the cheating, I have already mentioned the bias on the cheekbones page and explained that it is necessary to clarify the directionality of the differences between high-fashion models and normal women (not necessarily feminine), and did address this issue in my previous reply to you. As far as the backside comparisons go, whereas it is true that there are posing differences, it is not an easy task to readily obtain pictures of glamour models from behind while they are walking. Anyway, any reasonable person can see that if the fashion models shown were posing with their lower backs arched, their backsides will still not look feminine, let alone as feminine as that of the glamour models shown. For instance, you ignored this picture of Heidi Klum showing her both walking and posing, yet in no case does her backside look feminine. Elsewhere I showed this picture of Heidi Klum with her back arched and added two comparisons with a feminine glamour model (on the right) (1, 2) but her backside still doesn’t look feminine for the simple reason that it isn’t and cannot be made to look feminine by posing alone unless the picture is a butt-sticking-in-your-face type. It is an exaggeration on your part that the glamour models are “sticking their butts in your face” because these kinds of photos will be useless for evaluating femininity. You have also ignored that many high-fashion models are shown in three-quarters view whereas many glamour models are not shown in this view.
Glamour models will look super skinny in real life? Certainly not the ones in the attractive women section of this site. However, if you consider normal to be 200 pounds then in comparison the glamour models will look very skinny in real life.
It is ridiculous that you mention the liked of P. Diddy and Jennifer Lopez in reference to fashion designers. These individuals became famous for reasons other than fashion designing, and have used their fame to branch into selling clothes, but proper top-notch fashion designers are those that have become famous through their clothes designing. Also, FUBUs and equivalent do not qualify as high-fashion. If you are going to talk about the dominant fashion designers, you must refer to those that design clothing meant for social settings for the elite, i.e., clothing that cannot be afforded by most people. These individuals convey a sense of exclusivity and have been responsible for specifying the narrow range of looks that high-fashion models need to possess. If there are comparable heterosexual designers that can get away with charging thousands of dollars per dress, there are too few of them in number to do anything about the looks of high-fashion models while being a part of the industry; if these heterosexuals were to start using feminine women, which they will have to find on their own, you bet the homosexuals will make sure that these heterosexuals function on their own rather than be regarded as their peers in the same industry.
You mentioned Adriana Lima and Heidi Klum ending up as top-ranked attractive women by public vote, and the sample size was huge. Well, it is easy to show, and it has been shown within this site, that these women are objectively masculinized, especially Heidi Klum, and it has been repeatedly shown in controlled laboratory settings that people strongly and overwhelmingly aesthetically prefer above average femininity in the looks of women. So how does one explain the discrepancy between what is seen in laboratory settings and what is seen in real life, as in the askmen.com poll? This is easy. In a laboratory setting, people are exposed to women ranging from feminine to masculine and asked to rate their attractiveness, but in real life, one observes mostly masculinized women as top-ranked models, and these women have a trickle-down effect, i.e., there are few feminine women in the limelight for comparative purposes. Add in airbrushing, make-up, posing tricks and breast implants in a number of cases, and it should not be surprising if some masculinized women end up widely regarded as attractive. The fact remains that in a controlled laboratory setting, these “attractive” women will be seen for what they are because they will be contrasted with feminine women, which is what this site is doing. For instance, Brenda has reevaluated her impression of Adriana Lima after coming across this site and even described encountering Heidi Klum’s description within this site as a moment of epiphany! She is far from the only one of her kind. Many years ago, I would myself have excluded Heidi Klum from a list of masculinized fashion models based on a handful of her pictures that I had encountered. Wait till there is a mainstream outlet for feminine beauty appreciation and then we shall see how many masculinized women end up as top-ranked attractive women by the public.
In your rebuttal to Brenda’s argument that the models are regarded as beautiful because they are famous and possess high status, you mentioned Oprah Winfrey, Hillary Clinton, Condoleezza Rice and Martha Stewart as famous women that are not considered to be attractive. However, apart from the fact that these women are middle aged, none of them became famous as models, and, as Brenda has mentioned, you bet that their status and perceived good nature/pleasing personality makes these women more attractive to many individuals than what would be the case otherwise.
Tastes will vary, and not all VS models are created equally, but I like the way the majority of them look. Maybe that's my ignorance about feminine trickery talking, but I've seen several fashion shows and tv interviews on top of the commercials and catalog photos, so I think I have some idea on the subject.
Yes, a lot of them have implants, but that's getting into how they theoretically would look moreso than how they actually do look. I don't see what it has to do with the modeling industry's tendencies. Clearly, Victoria's Secret wanted models that had relatively large breasts, not flat-cheated girls. Besides, silicone is no stranger to glamour modeling or the porn industry; in fact, the implants there tend to be more extreme and sometimes even ridiculous.
I love Alessandra Ambrosio's face, and I think she's possibly the hottest model working today. I like her body, perfect or not, but it's her gorgeous face that works wonders on the runway, in the commercials, and in the catalogs. Even in lingerie modeling, that makes a huge difference to me.
This may be where Erik accuses me of being homosexual or "nearly escaping homosexuality", but I'd wager that most other heterosexual men would at least find her attractive. When I look at her, I don't see anything remotely masculine, and the physiology debate between Richard and Erik (some of which I didn't even understand) isn't going to change that.
Keeley Hazell is one of my favorite models, too, and I'll readily admit that she's more attractive than Ana. However, I can appreciate both women in their own way.
For me, it's no different than hair color. I'd have a hard enough time trying to choose an ideal between blondes, redheads, and brunettes, and I certainly wouldn't want everyone to have the same hair color. Rather than looking at models at Gisele or Ana and criticizing them for not serving some ideal, I enjoy what they bring to the table. I don't see there being anything gay about that.
Despite your (unsubstantiated but opiniated) claim, I personally feel #7 is "undoubtedly" the most attractive of the group.
Just curious, what is the overall motive of this site? To expose the gay fashionista? To make sure men understand what they should be attracted to ? Or to get some plus (I'm sorry, feminine) models jobs?
Erik, with your Dove ad example above, you state that if legistated, gay fashion designers wouldn't choose more than a 19% BMI, rejecting all of the women in the Dove ad. Then you state, "In addition, the prospect of Dove's ordinary-looking models being popular with heterosexual men are nil, which eliminates an alternative possibility of making the ordinary-looking models acquire high status."
You are stating here only gay or heterosexual men have the ability to give women "high status." Listen to yourself!
While you state, against gay designers, that women's fashion is supposed to have the purpose of marketing clothing to women, you have stated that only models who are attractive to heterosexual men should be allowed to achieve "high status." Your agenda is very clear for switching back to hour-glass models, but you can't then use the argument that fashion is supposed to be about marketing clothes to women! I'm an hour-glass, but believe me, I know how rare natural hour-glass women are -- you yourself said only 8%!
Well, how about this! How about men staying out of women's fashion all together, and ordinary women give ordinary women "high status," for being an actual reflection of reality. The Dove ad is great! It is great for women to see themselves. If the audience is truly women for women's fashion, rather than gay men or heterosexual men, then why should male opinion, including yours, matter?
How about kicking men out of women's fashion & letting women's fashion be for women, how about getting rid of porn that is disrespectful to girlfriends, wives, mothers, sisters & daughters. How about the most revolutionary move of all -- how about heterosexual men focusing on the body of the woman they love as the most beautiful! How about that body being the first and only female body a heterosexual man sees nude! Wow! What a concept! Marriage rates would soar and divorce rates would plummet, and men & women could actually have a chance to achieve sacred love.
I'm not sure about your assumptions here. You say that "the general public overwhelmingly and strongly aesthetically prefers above average femininity in the looks of women," and you cite some studies concerning this claim, but the studies themselves don't make specifications regarding the sample used. Thus, as a reader I have no idea what your "general public" is, since I know that ideas of beauty vary vastly between cultures as well as individuals within cultures.
"There are numerous correlates of beauty. It is common observation that people do not unanimously agree about the minutiae of what constitutes beauty. However, some people have defective eyesight/vision and/or a variety of brain abnormalities. Therefore, universal agreement cannot be expected, but one should still consider whether there is broad agreement and how mentally normal are those who deviate from the broad agreement."
Your conclusions in the above quote are ridiculous. You say that people who do not conform to your personal ideas of "male heterosexual" beauty preferences must be mentally or physiologically defective. Additionally, you make sweeping generalizations suggesting that your own preferences in women correspond with those of other heterosexual men, and that these opinions are the only ones worth including in your argument. I find it a glaring indication of personal bias that you fail to include the opinions of persons of varying sexuality, including homosexual or transgendered men and women.
"It is well known that what these gays find aesthetically appealing are looks approximating those of adolescent boys." This is not "well known;" you are again making generalizations that make your overall argument hard to swallow.
"The central tendency of backside protrusion among Northern/Central European women is nowhere as flattened as in Heidi Klum." You do not cite a study of the tendencies of backside protrusion among Northern/Central European women in relation to that of Heidi Klum.
"Women buy lingerie to make themselves more pleasing to their male partners, and these will typically be lifetime-exclusive heterosexual." Homosexual, bisexual, and transgendered women buy lingerie as well, not to mention men who enjoy wearing women's lingerie but are not necessarily homosexual. Also, there is no unified concept of beauty among heterosexual males.
"A young adult attractive non-overweight woman who has breast that are ready to burst out of her clothing is a sight for sore eyes as far as the typical heterosexual man is concerned." This is a personal opinion, and while there is nothing wrong with your preference in women, I disagree with the fact that you apply your own preferences to those of others', and that you attempt to give your argument more authority by citing scientific studies that are loosely applied to your personal opinions.
I can get behind your intention... fashion models are often way too thin and uphold unhealthy ideas of aesthetic beauty in women. My main concern is that you fail to address sexual preferences which are not your own, and assume that male heterosexuality (which is not a unified entity) is the dominant opinion within the "general public" that you don't clearly specify anyway.
That's the sad thing. Voluptuous women end up in porn mags because they have naturally alluring figures. Yet, they are not being appreciated in the mainstream because of the gay fashion designers who dominate the industry.
Thin models were not chosen because thin equals classy. Thin certainly does not equal classy. They became classy because of the gay fashion designers' taste in models. You can ask any red-blooded heterosexual male around to see who they'd prefer.
Beauty has not evolved, honey. You should read some psychobiology researches on beauty. A lot are available on the internet.
Even though most of the glamour models arch their backs exaggeratedly, there are a few who don't. And even if these glamour models do not arch their backs exaggeratedly, you will be able to see that their buttocks have more meat than those of the high fashion models.
Quoting from you again: "As far as the glamor models being 'voluptuous,' if you ever see a fashion model or a 'glamor model,' in real life, they will both look super skinny - of course the fashion model will look skinnier, but you will be surprised. I prefer voluptuos to skinny."
I do not really get what you mean when you said I will be surprised. Yes, there are glamour models who are skinny, as can be observed from their arms and waistlines. However, even though both the high fashion and the glamour models are skinny, it is the glamour model who has the breasts, the hips, and the more protruding buttocks.
1.) Yes, that is what Erik is doing, but only because he does have a point to prove. You, on the other hand, can't achieve the opposite of Erik's goal using the same method as Erik's because the fashion models obviously look masculine at the very first glance.
2.) I don't need to do this because I've seen many pictures of men, feminine women, and masculine female fashion models together. Yes, the fashion models look striking in the sense that they'd get your attention and make you ask, "Hey, why does this woman look masculine?"
3.) Quoting you: "When you make your 'feature comparisons,' instead of juxtaposing photographs of runway models and average women, you juxtapose photographs of runway models and ABNORMAL WOMEN (emphasis mine). This is an egregious cheat."
4.) As Erik has said, gay fashion designers do not conspire to choose masculine looking women. They don't have to, it's in their taste already. And it's the homosexual fashion designers that dominate the industry. Those designers you mentioned had to imitate and follow the designers who were there before them in order to be recognized themselves.
5.) Posing tricks, make-up, and other possible tricks at work. I myself at first thought Adriana Lima was cute when I first saw her in a Maybelline ad. But when I saw pics of her that showed the truth, I then realized she's not as feminine as she seemed. As, for Heidi Klum, I had an epiphany when I discovered this site for myself. Moreover, even if Ask Men is a website for men, we are not really sure if the voters are all heterosexuals. Plus, people can vote more than once. I know because I myself have participated in the votation.
The last high status women you mentioned may not be pretty but they look better in the eyes of the people because of their status. Besides, they are already old and the high fashion models are young. It's unfair for you to compare their appearances to the young high fashion models' appearances.
Now, let's see you leave a comment in response to Erik's reply since it's he who has the more in-depth explanation and more arguments against your comment.
Your so-called "feminine" girls are the ones that appear in porn mags and rapping monkey videos. It's the slender toned women that represent a more classy, high-end beauty worthy of victoria's secret, haute couture etc. Perceptions of beauty have changed, and most women would obviously rather belong in the 'slim and toned' category, rather than settle for the sloppy porn-worthy bodies. It's all about class -typically, men of low socio-economic status (largest group of porn viewers) will be attracted to the stumpy women with big 'booties' and flab because they are of equal status (ie. living off McDonalds and not exercising) While women who have the means, financially and intellectualy, to eat healthy and exercise will be more attractive to men of higher status. Women don't want to look hyperfeminine like pornstars, they want to have the more slim & elegant femininity (which you call transexual for some odd reason) and not be looked at by men in such a shallow way.
What is wrong with this blog/bullshit..everything. seriously, she doesn't look anything like a man, and in fact in my eyes is the sexiest woman alive. she is all natural, not a fake thing in her body except fake eyelashes maybe once in awhile at a photo shoot. But if anything Gisele Bunchen (sp?) i believe was a man. or is still a man. she has a thick jaw line even greater than Jay Leno himself. I mean come on, why write such garbage about adriana. not everyone in the world is fat and has saggy tits. she was just blessed with good genes great tits and nice slim body.
I found another site that was talking about gays dictating women's size, www.paradunai.org, in a blog titled "To Be or Not To Be: Gay, Lesbian, Transgendered," and then searched and found you.
As a model/athlete, at 18% bodyfat my agent told me I needed to lose in my hips -- needless to say, I didn't get rid of my hips, I got rid of my agent!
I am a classic, Sophia Loren hourglass. My waist has always been 12 inches smaller than my bust and hips since I was twelve! My bust and hips have always been the same.
An artist asked me to model for a Vargas tribute (the famous 40s pin-up artist -- not nude)and he was the first one I heard say this about gays setting the fashion standard. It makes so much sense.
It's definitely not fun when the only place you can see your body type these days is in pornography -- which is disgusting and so sad to me because it wrecks relationships, and is so disrespectful. Or Anna Nicole Smith or faked-out Pamela Anderson -- pathetic and so embarrassing!
I'm always cheering on any intelligent, self-respecting women I see like me in the public eye, but they are so rare. I can tell in a second who is a natural hour-glass but is starving herself to be thinner. I can also easily spot a boob job with 100% accuracy. (By the way, Tyra Banks is real.)
I have to say Erik, while your efforts are much appreciated, and participants, while it's great you are considering alternative definitions of beauty, for some reason, women in general seem to seek external approval and want to squish themselves into numbers. I see that happening here. From one squish to another? Ladies, your mirror needs to be your magazine and your guide -- not Erik, not anyone else. Honestly, greet your body naked in the mirror every morning, ("Hi body, you're looking great!") run around your house naked, exercise naked and watch yourself in the mirror -- love your body! Appreciate your body!
Erik, I know, you're a guy, and you appreciate women's beautiful bodies, which women appreciate, (though the very young-looking, blondes seem to be significantly over-represented here) and I see you trying to assure participants that not being a classic hour glass doesn't mean they are not attractive.
After teaching wanna-be models about fitness and nutrition I learned to veer away from these "perfection" landmines, and refused to go down that path when I identified someone who was wanting an external formula for who they should be in order to be: loved, validated, successful, attractive, etc., etc., etc. Please encourage ladies to love themselves because classic hour-glass or any other formula can be as impossible as skinny. You're in danger of just switching formulas! Heterosexual men used to be in charge of women's fashion (hour-glass sex symbols) and now gay men are in charge of women's fashion. How about women being in charge of women's fashion? Then we could see the whole beautiful kaleidescope of women's beauty!
You've alluded to some great solutions -- one that could be accentuated, and is necessary for this to be successful, is our cultural messages to our daughters about self-respect, self-worth and healthy self-image in the first place. In other words, we can't just suggest a different look in a magazine, we must raise women who don't need to look at a magazine at all to feel great about themselves.
This falls in the mother and the father arena -- mothers how's your self-image, what kind of role model are you for your daughters? Specifically tell your daughters how amazing they are -- they listen, trust me. Fathers, how do you treat women? What value do women have to you? What kind of role model are you for respecting & valuing women for who they are? Specifically tell your daughters how beautiful they are -- so they don't fall for that line from the first player that comes along! They listen, trust me!
1)"You don't need to examine models body part by body part" - That's exactly what Erik is doing on this site to prove his point - notice the sections titled "Cheekbones", "Jaw Structure", "Nasoglabellar region", "Physique", "Shoulders", "Backside" and so on.
2)"Putting a picture of a man beside the pictures of a fashion model and a very feminine woman would mean disaster for the fashion model in terms of how feminine she looks" - I think you should try this at home - then you will see the fashion model looks just as feminine - but more striking and beautiful.
3)"Those women the fashion models are compared to are not abnormal" - I never made that generalization. I said most of the glamor models in the "Cheekbones" section have unattractively/abnormally high forheads/narrow cheeks, and that Erik chose them, not randomly (out of a hat with his eyes closed) and not from a sample of glamor models which meet some attractiveness criteria (because anyone can put photos of themselves on a website and call themselves a glamor model), but in a biased way. Compare the unattractively high forehead/narrow cheeked models to any of the glamor models in Erik's other sections and see for yourself.
For a more obvious example of "cheating" look at the "backside" section - where Erik argues that fashion models have flat rears akin to men. Notice how all of the fashion models are either standing up straight or walking, while all of the glamor models are bent over and sticking their butts in your face - making their butts look twice as big as they really are (look how much they are arching their backs). Also, notice how the bent over glamor models are in three-quarters view, which makes their butts look even bigger.
As far as the glamor models being "voluptuous," if you ever see a fashion model or a "glamor model," in real life, they will both look super skinny - of course the fashion model will look skinnier, but you will be surprised. I prefer voluptuos to skinny.
4)Straight fashion designers will be "ostracized and not recognized if they go against the flow." Gay fashion designers can't gang up and ostracize someone because there is no "powerful group" that gay fashion designers belong to. The way fashion designers stay in business is to secure investors (who often don't know anything about the fashion business), make attractive clothes that women want to buy, and market those clothes effectively. They are all in competition with each other.
Anyway, why would you gang up on someone because you don't like the models they are using? - that's just over the top. Secondly, who is going to "not recognize" P.Diddy (Sean Jean) or Jennifer Lopez (J.Lo) or Russell Simmons (FUBU) or Ralph Lauren (Polo) or Tommy Hilfiger? They have more fame and influence than most of these designers ever will.
"They only become beautiful because they are famous and high status." Oprah Winfrey, Hillary Clinton, Condoleezza Rice, Martha Stewart -- all famous and high status, none beautiful.
Sarah: This website is not about how women are supposed to look like or about flaws in the looks of women or about attacking differences. Women come in a wide variety of forms and just because you have small breasts, a squared jaw and very broad shoulders does not make you less of a woman than a woman with more feminine features.
This site is about models and beauty pageant contestants. When feminine women are required, feminine women should be used. I don't think the latter is an inappropriate wish, but what other than coming up with a site like this could be done to realize this wish?
Regarding promoting a healthy body image, not all physical forms are healthy and it cannot be pretended that all shapes are equally healthy. Feminine beauty represents health, though it is not the only configuration that is healthy, i.e., this site's goals are consistent with health promotion.
Richard: Your latest comment reflects muddled thinking. Nowhere have I asserted that fashion runway models look like men. I don’t know how you have inferred this. If you plan on leaving comments such as the following…
Quote:
They [runway models] would not just look more feminine [compared to men], they would look inarguably like women.
If she looks more like the woman, then she is “overall female.”
...then please don’t comment since I am getting tired of having to defend myself against ridiculous caricatures of my arguments. Of course, female high-fashion models generally look female, but they generally do not look feminine. My assertion is that high-fashion models, on average, are masculinized women. Masculinized women obviously look more feminine than men but they are not as feminine as feminine women. The comparisons here are among women, not between men and women.
You have described high-fashion models as strikingly beautiful, which explains why they are used for modeling, but I have already asserted that indeed gay fashion designers who dominate the fashion business find the models they use very good looking. Please don’t tell me that the general public finds these women strikingly beautiful, too, because I have cited plenty of evidence within this site showing that this is far from the case. And, I have not argued that the typical looks of high-fashion models are entirely explicable in terms of the homosexuality of the dominant gay fashion designers. The homosexuality of gay fashion designers explains the typical masculinization of high-fashion models, but not their typical skinniness and the penchant for female models in their mid-teens on the part of the fashion industry. The latter two items are explained by the appeal of adolescent boys to many of the dominant gays in the fashion business; skinny and masculinized teenage girls come closest to approximating boys in their early adolescence. I have already explained that non-gay fashion designers have to comply with the status quo set up by the dominant gays in the fashion business.
Your comment has extensively focused on the face, oblivious to the fact that people are supposed to be looking at the clothes these women are wearing rather than their facial features. Reproducing a 3-dimensional object in a 2-dimensional photograph will introduce slight distortion, but is this the reason why runway models with “striking” faces are used? Are people supposed to look at their faces? Once again, people can take their time to look at photographs, and do not operate under the principle that “I will take a good look at the clothing if the face of the woman catches my attention.” My response to your absurd portrayal of my arguments regarding facial features follows:
Quote:
You have accused me of asserting that a protruding forehead is a definitively masculine trait. I have made no such assertion. I have pointed out that foreheads project more with masculinization. Your comment mentioning differences between men and women, which should be portrayed in terms of differences “on average” rather than either-or differences, is irrelevant since the comparisons are among women, not between men and women. High-fashion models do not need to have foreheads similar to those of men in order to be described as masculinized compared to women in general and especially feminine women. Besides, you will find examples of projecting foreheads among brachycephalic European crania.
You have accused me of asserting that an “angular jawline with a squared chin and a sharp gonial angle is definitively masculine,” but I haven’t said this. I have said that increasing masculinization makes the jawline more angular and the gonial angles sharper, and have cited data published in peer-reviewed journals to back up this assertion and refute yours that the sharpness of the gonial angle and the angularization of the jawline are sex-independent; see the “feminine vs. masculine” page. Why don’t you make an effort to read the site before commenting? Once gain, your comment about male-female differences in terms of jaw structure [and also cheekbones] portrays the differences in terms of either-or, whereas the differences are of a continuous nature, which is what makes it possible to talk about masculine and feminine women. A masculine woman does not have to look like a man in order to be designated as such.
I have not made the assertion that a “robust, high cheekbone is definitively masculine,” but that increasing masculinization makes the cheekbones more robust (not a sex-independent trait) and higher. Regarding your assertion, “I never said runway models’ cheeks project more than the average woman’s, but that they project in a characteristically feminine way,” you have clearly mentioned, without evidence, the “great anterior projection of the cheekbones (a major marker of feminity (sic))” of runway models. You have said that high and defined cheekbones in women are universally regarded as beautiful, but whereas the “defined” part is obvious, where is the evidence for the “high” part? Your link doesn’t appear to mention this. Regarding the “bias” in the comparisons on the cheekbones page, I have already pointed out that the selections are biased to exaggerate the magnitude of the differences between the groups, fashion models vs. normal women (basically Northern European norms), but not the directionality of differences between the groups. It is not my argument that women should have regressed cheekbones. The right column on the “cheekbones” comparison page does not focus on feminine women; it features a mix of women ranging from slightly masculine to slightly feminine; the point is to show normal Northern European tendency; you should check out the regressed cheekbones of the average North American white female in Fig. 1c on this page. If you believe that the differences with respect to cheekbone volume and height between the fashion models featured on the cheekbones page and the glamour models featured on the jaw structure page are several orders of magnitude less than the differences involving the glamour models on the cheekbones page, then you apparently do not know what is meant by an order of magnitude, and have failed to note that the glamour models shown on the jaw structure page do not have high cheekbones and are typically feminine and hence will have wider faces, which is not primarily due to larger cheekbones, whereas the glamour models shown on the cheekbones page are, as mentioned earlier, not selected for femininity. I suppose I should more clearly imply this on the cheekbones page.
Regarding your comment, “A facial feature cannot be called masculine if...,” I am not calling individual facial features masculine or feminine, just describing how various features are altered with varying levels of masculinization and feminization. Designating a face masculine or feminine requires an overall evaluation, and it is obvious that high-fashion models are typically masculinized. Am I supposed to infer from Giselle’s features like you have described, namely “high, robust cheekbones, but a tiny narrow jaw, retracted forehead and a round chin” that she is not masculine looking? What do her photos reveal? Gisele has had a nose job but her nose still doesn’t look feminine. Look carefully at the lateral bony part of her nose, where the nasal bones meet the maxillary bones; the region is not flattened and is robust. If you ignore size and focus on shape, then masculinization makes the jaw narrower, i.e.., Giselle’s narrow jaw in terms of shape is not making her look feminine. Additionally, look carefully at Giselle’s face pictures right below Grace’s face pictures above and ask yourself if you see a rounded or a squared chin in Giselle.
When you talk about me juxtaposing “photographs of runway models and abnormal women,” the “abnormal” women are simply feminine ones. Models and actresses get multiple nose jobs? All of them? What is this? And, if “a smaller nose is a genetic female trait,” then why do some females have large noses if they are female?
Earlier you said that “large intercanthal distance” was a characteristic of female high-fashion models, and now you have stated that “minimally wide set eyes” are a requirement for runway modeling. What is this? Masculinization alters face shape by bringing the eyes closer together, i.e., the closer-set eyes of high-fashion models, on average, are consistent with their greater masculinization.
Do not accuse me of basing the whole site on photographic evidence. Just because this site is richly illustrated does not mean that the arguments are based on photographs. There are numerous references to articles in peer-reviewed journals here, and in many cases the pictures are illustrating the arguments/conclusions in the papers cited.
Regarding Playboy centerfolds, they have gotten masculinized over the years; see this comment for possible underlying reasons. I don’t see the point of your comment on Marquardt...it is irrelevant to the entry. Besides, this entry is about lingerie modeling, not high-fashion modeling.
I find this website EXTREMELY insulting. I have broad shoulders, small breasts and a square jaw. In fact, my shoulders are extremely broad for a woman and I hate them. To come to a site like this that is basically pointing out these flaws, comparing photos to other photos, saying we need more femine women in the media and fashion etc - it just plain hurts.
We can not help what we are born with. We don't chose it. I certainly didn't chose my body shape. And we can't change it. I've never come across such crap in all my time of searching the internet. And there's a hell of a lot of crap out there.
Maybe you should be putting forward more healthy arguments that promote HEALTHY body image in women (because nobody else will bloody do it) instead of pointing out why some women are more feminine than others and pointing out "flaws". Women are women - no matter what our bone structure or fat distribution may be, and shouldn't these differences be celebrated rather than attacked?
1.) You don't really need to examine fashion models body part by body part. One look and you'll see that they look masculine, regardless of whether all their traits are masculine or not. They are mostly masculine looking compared to the average woman.
2.) Again, you can NOT compare a woman to a man to see who looks more like a woman. Of course, a woman IS a woman so she will look feminine compared to a man. Erik is not saying that the fashion models look exactly like men. He says that they resemble adolescent boys, or that compared to the average woman, these fashion models look more masculine. Erik here is comparing female models to more feminine women. Putting a picture of a man beside the pictures of a fashion model and a very feminine woman would mean disater for the fashion model in terms of determining how feminine that fashion model really looks. You know why. It is that simple. Don't tell me you don't get it still.
3.) Those women the fashion models were compared to are not abnormal. They are normal women with beautiful, feminine physiques. Do you see them as abnormal? If so, you just gave me reason to think you are homosexual. Normal, heterosexual men all will be salivating the moment they see the pictures of those luscious, voluptuous, "abnormal" women.
4.) Erik has mentioned in at least one page of this website that heterosexual designers use the same kind of models as the homosexual designers because they will risk being ostracized and not recognized if they go against the flow.
5.) Most fashion models do not look aesthetically pleasing to the general population. They only become beautiful because they are famous and high status - the halo effect.
Now, I think we should wait for Erik to say something because he's the one with more knowledge about this.
Isabel: It is not your fault that English is not your native language, but I have understood what you are trying to convey. To view this entry as an attempt to criticize the looks of a high-fashion model is to miss the point since such criticism would be a useless endeavor. The point is to get people to think about what kind of people appreciate the looks of the likes Daria Werbowy, as shown above, to make her a top-ranked high-fashion model. These people surely have highly atypical aesthetic preferences, and their preferences are causing numerous problems. It needs to be pointed out that the fashion people involved are male homosexuals so that fewer women are convinced that attractiveness lies in skinniness and subsequently end up indulging in negative health behaviors such as unnecessary dieting to acquire the skinny look. Like you have said, some fashion models eat well and remain skinny and healthy, which appears to be your description, but others starve themselves to comply with industry requirements, and they shouldn’t have to do this. It is necessary to force the fashion industry to stop using models below the threshold of underweight unless it proves that the women involved eat adequately and are healthy. This requires that the looks of high-fashion models be addressed and other issues discussed within this site brought to the attention of the general public. The purpose of this entry is not to criticize the looks of Daria Werbowy.
I thought I was clear in my comments but I guess I was wrong. I think fashion runway models are intentionaly used because they are strikingly beautiful women, not striking women who look like men. The latter is your assertion. Your assertion, however, relies on faulty observations and biased, inadequate comparisons.
I. Why are the aformentioned women striking, but not masculine? Let me break it down feature by feature.
Forehead/brow area- You assert that a protruding forehead is a definitively masculine trait. This is false. A masculine forehead is characterized by a combination of being protruding, high, square(around the head), sloping backwards (in profile), and having a coarse orbital rim. A man's eyebrows are thick, straight and sit at or below the orbital rim. In contrast, a woman's
forehead is characterized by a combination of being less protruding, low, bulbous (rounded around the head) and straight (in profile). A woman's eyebrows are thin, sit atop the orbital rim and curve upwards and outwards lateraly (towards the sides of the head).
In your examples of fashion runway models, there is not a single example of a woman with either a high, sloping, square, or coarse forehead: all the foreheads are low, straight, round and delicate. Neither is there a single example of a
woman with a flat, thick eyebrow that sits at or below the orbital rim: they are all thin, curve upward and sit above the orbital rim.
All you have is left is your observation of forehead protrusion, and you don't even have that. Look at your "jaw structure" section. 90% of the fashion models pictured there have almost no protrusion. Your choice of comparisons shows bias. More importantly, protrusion by itself is attributable to a normal dolichocephalic headform, which is sex independant. In other words, it is normal to see a protruding forehead in a human being, whether it be a man or woman.
Jaw - You assert that a angular jawline with a squared chin and a sharp gonial angle is definitively masculine. This is also false. A masculine jawline is characterized by a combination of width (as wide as the temples and/or the cheekbones), height (compared to the width of the face), and volume and coarseness at the posterior jaw (from enlarged masseter muscles). A masculine chin is characterized by a combination of width (compared to the height of the face), height (compared to the width of the face), projection and squareness. In contrast, a woman's jawline is characterized by it relative narrowness (considerably narrower than the cheekbones or temples), relative shortness (this
is partly why a woman's face looks short and round), and decreased volume/more refinement at the posterior jaw (from smaller masseter muscles). A woman's chin is characterized by a combination of relative narrowness, roundness and
shortness. Two qualities, roundness of the gonial angle (back corner) and an inverted triangle shape of the jaw (with the chin at the bottom corner and the bottom of the ears at the side corners) are sex independant but associated with
femininity.
In your examples of runway models, there is not a single example of a woman with a jaw of male width (as wide as her temples or cheekbones), a jaw of male height (compare to the jaws of the adjacent glamor models), a jaw of male crudeness, a chin of male width, a chin of male height, or a chin of male protrusion (usually well beyond the lower lip).
All you have left is your observation of squared chins and angular jawlines. But your photo examples do not even proove your point. Look at your "faces" section. 95% of the fashion runway models pictured have rounded, pointy chins.
Of the 15% of squared chin girls I see in your "jaw structure" section, the chin
width is barely enough to get most of them out of the "round" category. And as I said before, sharp gonial angles and angular jawlines are sex independent.
Cheekbones - In your opinion a robust, high cheekbone is definitively masculine. Again, this is not the case. A male cheekbone is defined by a combination of appearing high, robust, narrow (no wider than the temples and jaw), flat (as a
result of less fat under the cheekbone), and retracted (because the male nose
is more protrusive). A female cheekbone is defined by a combination of appearing wide (wider than the temples and jaw), full (as a result of more fat under the cheekbone), protruding (as a result of the nose being less protruding) and somewhat lower. As a result, the female cheekbone appears more prominent and defined, and appears to take up more surface area on the face. (See the transgender surgery sight at http://www.genderways.com/N3/cheek_implants.htm.)
In your photos of runway models, there is not a single example of a woman with narrow, flat, or retracted cheekbones. (By the way, I never said runway models' cheeks project more than the average woman's, but that they project in a characteristically feminine way). Nor is there a woman whose cheekbones do not appear prominent, defined or to take up a large portion of her face - in fact, the very opposite is true: all of the runway models depicted have cheekbones which appear to take up greater than normal portions of their faces.
Your comparison choices again show your tendency towards bias. Most of the glamor models in your "cheekbones" section have abnormally high foreheads and abnormally narrow cheeks, making their cheeks look egregiously deficient.
Going by the mistaken belief that a woman's cheeks should be "regressed," you intentionally go to extremes to prove your point and shoot yourself in the foot.
Also note that, when you compare the fashion runway models in your "cheekbones" section to the glamor models in your "jaw structure" section, you will notice that the differences in
cheekbone height and volume are smaller by several orders of magnitude, with the
fashion models looking more striking, not more masculine.
A facial feature cannot be called masculine if it only contains 1 out of 5 or 6 characterisitics which, when combined, constitute
masculine. In the same way, a facial feature must be called feminine if it contains all or all but one of the characteristics which, when combined, constitute feminine. This is why the fashion runway models you have pictured here are not masculinized, but striking, beautiful women.
Some additional notes -
1) You argue that runway fashion models are overall masculine by giving examples of models who possess certain specific features you observe (though wrongly) as masculine. You cannot build an argument like this. "Overall" means "overall,"
not one specific feature which one specific model has, so that when I leave the "forehead section," everyone in the "cheekbone section" has a small forehead, etc. Giselle's face, for example: high, robust cheekbones, but a tiny narrow jaw, retracted forehead and a round chin.
2) When you make your "feature comparisons," instead of juxtaposing photographs of runway models and average women, you
juxtapose photographs of runway models and abnormal women. This is an egregious
cheat.
Along the same lines, you argue that juxtaposing female fashion models with male fashion
models to assess femininity is pointless because the women would look more feminine in comparison. You are wrong. They would not just look more feminine, they would look inarguably like women. Why? Because by not picturing men, you don't get a good sense of what they look like. (C'mon, your whole website is based on photographic evidence) (http://www.models.com to see the top 50 male models).
If you really want to be objective, take every fashion/glamor comparison photo, and add to it a photo of a man. Then ask yourself, "does this fashion model look more like the man or the woman?" If she looks more like the woman, then she is "overall female."
3) Models and actressess get multiple nosejobs (a smaller nose is a genetic female trait - see http://orthodontics.case.edu/facialgrowth/textbook/chapter8.html). Minimally wide set eyes (intracanthal distance equals intercanthal distance) are a requirement for runway modeling - ask a model or a plastic surgeon.
4. Why do fashion designers need striking women to model their clothes in a fashion show? Because beautiful people sell product. This is a fundamental marketing principal and I am frankly surprised that I would need to call something so obvious to your attention. If, as you say, all that is needed of a fashion runway model is to serve as a "hanger," then fashion shows would consist of headless mannequins on a conveyor belt or models with paper bags over their heads, so as not to draw attention away from the clothes. Obviously, fashion designers are shelling out tens of thousands of dollars in model fees because they know they will see a return.
This idea that the model choices of homosexual fashion designers is being dictated by their homosexuality is like something stuck in your craw. They don't work their fingers to the bone and stay up nights thinking about how to sell to their demographic, and then, suddenly, when it comes to choosing a model, get gay tunnel vision. Give them a little credit.
Most importantly, your argument completely fails to account for female and straight fashion designers who use the same models as the homosexual fashion designers. Ralph Lauren, Tommy Hilfiger, Donna Karan, J.Lo, Russell Simmons (FUBU), etc. They are powerful and influential, but are not looking for men.
P.S. Why do fashion models need to be "striking at a distance" when most buyers and people are exposed to fashion throught the media or runway shows? The major buyers either attend the runway show or send photographs to take pictures/video of the show. The photographers stand in the back of the "theater" and must use long lenses to photograph the models. Long lenses create compression distortion (compress facial features, making them smaller and blander). Striking facial features will remain interesting in photographs. When buyers and normal people
access fashion through the media, that media is created with cameras which use long lenses.
People in the performing arts, and also in politics, usually have a robust, protruding facial skeleton: it just attracts more attention.
Also, a note about Marquart: the Marquart mask was devised in the abstract by drawing a centered vertical line between the middle of the pupil and the point where the lips meet (on an imaginary face), and then by projecting decahedrons
of certain geometric relationships around that line. The mask fails both because it fails to account for ethnic differences and that many beautiful people fit the mask poorly while many ugly people fit the mask perfectly.
After browsing through your "random attractive women" page, I now realize why you find a negative in the contestants of this beauty pageant. It is because you could not find nude pictures of them. It's extremely AMUSING that the "random" women you chose just happen to come along with naked pictures. And just so you know, of all the pictures I looked through, none of the women compared to ANY of these women. They were all extremly "bland". Different is beautiful, faces that blend in with the crowd, like your random attractives, are not all that special!!
Kelsea Keeble
This is insane. I own a formal wear shop, where I specialize in pageant wear, so that is right in my alley. Many pageants are not only focused on the "physical" appearance. Many other aspects are considered in determining the winner of a pageant; such as: talent, speech, class, the womens' portrayal of themselves, moral values, interview, etc. Unless you are the judge of an actual Beauty Pageant, I don't see where your opinion on the contestants is all that important.
To Quote You:
"If you believe that the attractive women that I have shown are fat, then something is wrong with you. As to whether my opinion is very biased, I have cited research that people overwhelmingly prefer feminine looks in women. In other words, my opinion is no more biased than that of the majority of humans. And, I look like a normal man and am normal in other aspects."
Who gets to decide what is feminine, and what is not? The majority of the women you pictured above as masculine, I consider to be very feminine. It's also nice to know that if we don't agree with you, than something is wrong with us? You look normal? Seeing as you got to decide which women are "masculine", can someone else get to decide what "normal" is?
What exactly is "normal" looking? Everyone is so unique and different looking. There are different kinds of beautiful. Open your eyes!
Anna: Porn stars are generally masculinized women, not hyperfeminine ones since feminine women are less inclined toward promiscuity. The nude models shown above are not porn stars and Zuzana is not flabby by a long shot. Eating lots of “junk food” will not give you Zuzana’s physique, especially her tiny waist, since it will add fat in the abdominal region. If you go through the attractive women section of this site, you will encounter women who are mostly slim but still feminine because of their skeletal structures and sufficient fat where they need it in order to look feminine. Do not confound class with sexual orientation. Masculinized women do not end up as fashion models because upper class heterosexual men appreciate their looks but because homosexual men dominate the fashion industry.
Monique: I know that I am not the only person to have figured out the gay factor as an explanation for why high-fashion models are typically very skinny, but thank you for pointing out the link. I am pleased to know that you decided not to lose the healthy amount of body fat that you possess, but other women may have little opportunity for success apart from fashion modeling, for which they will have to become skinny in the first place.
I myself lament the fact that I have had to mostly resort to nude models to obtain examples of feminine beauty. On the other hand, feminine women are uncommon in porn because most of them are not inclined toward promiscuity. The vast majority of the nude models shown in the attractive women section do not comprise of porn stars. If you believe Tyra Banks has always had natural breasts, then explain this.
As far as I know women in general do not seek external approval of their looks. Many women have a strong innate sense of aesthetics and know how attractive they are based on this sense; they do not primarily judge their attractiveness in terms of how others perceive them. But then there are women who are largely dependent on others to assess how attractive they are.
There is certainly nothing within this site that should be taken as women feeling less worthy, less successful, less loved and less validated if they fail to meet the standards for feminine beauty. Good looks last for a short time whereas people’s personality and nature last a lifetime. Surely, no woman should have the immaturity to derive a sense of worth or belonging from how attractive she is. The arguments within this site have nothing to do with acceptability vs. non-acceptability per se of different looks in women, but of appropriate looks – from an aesthetics perspective – among models in various settings and contestants in beauty pageants catering to the general public. There are numerous scenarios where a person’s attractiveness does not matter or should not matter, and nobody should base a general sense of worth upon how attractive she is.
As far as switching formulas go, men and women in general judge female attractiveness similarly. Therefore, if heterosexual women were in charge of women’s fashion, then mindful of the necessity of high-fashion wear conveying a sense of exclusivity [or else the elite would not patronize it], they will have to use a narrow range of physical variation among their models, which will need to be difficult to attain for most women, and this narrow range will obviously be one of feminine beauty.
Anyway, if you have an hourglass figure and are an attractive women, then please consider submitting your pictures to me; I sorely need non-nude pictures of attractive women.
Doug: There are plenty of feminine and attractive women around with prominent breasts that Victoria’s Secret should have no problems finding, especially given its high status and the fact that it does not require its models to pose nude. But why does it use so many masculinized women with breast implants? Obviously because the homosexuals involved wish to avoid anything beyond the minimum femininity that will do the job, and breast implants, posing tricks, etc. help them achieve this minimum femininity without having to actually use feminine women.
Speaking of plenty of nude models and porn starts with breast implants does not help since these women are disproportionately masculinized, too; feminine women are less likely to be involved in these roles. But feminine women with naturally prominent breasts, and there are a lot of them, will typically readily model for Victoria’s Secret if the company asked them to.
I have addressed Alessandra Ambrosio in numerous places within this site, including this and this entry within the blog. If you have gone through these entries and still think that there is nothing masculine about her face or that she looks good, then it is difficult to believe that you are a normal heterosexual man.
Your reference to hair color expresses appreciation for diversity, but there is a good amount of diversity, including all hair colors, that is found among feminine women. There is no apparent need for Victoria’s Secret to be using masculinized women, let alone a large number of them. More importantly, the Victoria’s Secret series addressed here is not about criticizing the models, which would be a useless endeavor, but about pointing out the people responsible for using them, and this cannot be done unless the masculinization of the models is clarified. The people involved are primarily responsible for the relative lack of feminine beauty in the [mainstream] limelight, which is what this site is aiming to change.
Richard: A response to your references to this site in your reply to Brenda...
Regarding examining the models part by part, yes this is being done to some extent to explain the subtlety of masculinity-femininity, but it is also clear that they need to be seen as a whole. A body part by itself is not necessarily informative about how feminine or masculine a woman is.
Regarding the cheating, I have already mentioned the bias on the cheekbones page and explained that it is necessary to clarify the directionality of the differences between high-fashion models and normal women (not necessarily feminine), and did address this issue in my previous reply to you. As far as the backside comparisons go, whereas it is true that there are posing differences, it is not an easy task to readily obtain pictures of glamour models from behind while they are walking. Anyway, any reasonable person can see that if the fashion models shown were posing with their lower backs arched, their backsides will still not look feminine, let alone as feminine as that of the glamour models shown. For instance, you ignored this picture of Heidi Klum showing her both walking and posing, yet in no case does her backside look feminine. Elsewhere I showed this picture of Heidi Klum with her back arched and added two comparisons with a feminine glamour model (on the right) (1, 2) but her backside still doesn’t look feminine for the simple reason that it isn’t and cannot be made to look feminine by posing alone unless the picture is a butt-sticking-in-your-face type. It is an exaggeration on your part that the glamour models are “sticking their butts in your face” because these kinds of photos will be useless for evaluating femininity. You have also ignored that many high-fashion models are shown in three-quarters view whereas many glamour models are not shown in this view.
Glamour models will look super skinny in real life? Certainly not the ones in the attractive women section of this site. However, if you consider normal to be 200 pounds then in comparison the glamour models will look very skinny in real life.
It is ridiculous that you mention the liked of P. Diddy and Jennifer Lopez in reference to fashion designers. These individuals became famous for reasons other than fashion designing, and have used their fame to branch into selling clothes, but proper top-notch fashion designers are those that have become famous through their clothes designing. Also, FUBUs and equivalent do not qualify as high-fashion. If you are going to talk about the dominant fashion designers, you must refer to those that design clothing meant for social settings for the elite, i.e., clothing that cannot be afforded by most people. These individuals convey a sense of exclusivity and have been responsible for specifying the narrow range of looks that high-fashion models need to possess. If there are comparable heterosexual designers that can get away with charging thousands of dollars per dress, there are too few of them in number to do anything about the looks of high-fashion models while being a part of the industry; if these heterosexuals were to start using feminine women, which they will have to find on their own, you bet the homosexuals will make sure that these heterosexuals function on their own rather than be regarded as their peers in the same industry.
You mentioned Adriana Lima and Heidi Klum ending up as top-ranked attractive women by public vote, and the sample size was huge. Well, it is easy to show, and it has been shown within this site, that these women are objectively masculinized, especially Heidi Klum, and it has been repeatedly shown in controlled laboratory settings that people strongly and overwhelmingly aesthetically prefer above average femininity in the looks of women. So how does one explain the discrepancy between what is seen in laboratory settings and what is seen in real life, as in the askmen.com poll? This is easy. In a laboratory setting, people are exposed to women ranging from feminine to masculine and asked to rate their attractiveness, but in real life, one observes mostly masculinized women as top-ranked models, and these women have a trickle-down effect, i.e., there are few feminine women in the limelight for comparative purposes. Add in airbrushing, make-up, posing tricks and breast implants in a number of cases, and it should not be surprising if some masculinized women end up widely regarded as attractive. The fact remains that in a controlled laboratory setting, these “attractive” women will be seen for what they are because they will be contrasted with feminine women, which is what this site is doing. For instance, Brenda has reevaluated her impression of Adriana Lima after coming across this site and even described encountering Heidi Klum’s description within this site as a moment of epiphany! She is far from the only one of her kind. Many years ago, I would myself have excluded Heidi Klum from a list of masculinized fashion models based on a handful of her pictures that I had encountered. Wait till there is a mainstream outlet for feminine beauty appreciation and then we shall see how many masculinized women end up as top-ranked attractive women by the public.
In your rebuttal to Brenda’s argument that the models are regarded as beautiful because they are famous and possess high status, you mentioned Oprah Winfrey, Hillary Clinton, Condoleezza Rice and Martha Stewart as famous women that are not considered to be attractive. However, apart from the fact that these women are middle aged, none of them became famous as models, and, as Brenda has mentioned, you bet that their status and perceived good nature/pleasing personality makes these women more attractive to many individuals than what would be the case otherwise.
I meant anatomy, not physiology (although the talk on estrogen did take that route).
Tastes will vary, and not all VS models are created equally, but I like the way the majority of them look. Maybe that's my ignorance about feminine trickery talking, but I've seen several fashion shows and tv interviews on top of the commercials and catalog photos, so I think I have some idea on the subject.
Yes, a lot of them have implants, but that's getting into how they theoretically would look moreso than how they actually do look. I don't see what it has to do with the modeling industry's tendencies. Clearly, Victoria's Secret wanted models that had relatively large breasts, not flat-cheated girls. Besides, silicone is no stranger to glamour modeling or the porn industry; in fact, the implants there tend to be more extreme and sometimes even ridiculous.
I love Alessandra Ambrosio's face, and I think she's possibly the hottest model working today. I like her body, perfect or not, but it's her gorgeous face that works wonders on the runway, in the commercials, and in the catalogs. Even in lingerie modeling, that makes a huge difference to me.
This may be where Erik accuses me of being homosexual or "nearly escaping homosexuality", but I'd wager that most other heterosexual men would at least find her attractive. When I look at her, I don't see anything remotely masculine, and the physiology debate between Richard and Erik (some of which I didn't even understand) isn't going to change that.
Keeley Hazell is one of my favorite models, too, and I'll readily admit that she's more attractive than Ana. However, I can appreciate both women in their own way.
For me, it's no different than hair color. I'd have a hard enough time trying to choose an ideal between blondes, redheads, and brunettes, and I certainly wouldn't want everyone to have the same hair color. Rather than looking at models at Gisele or Ana and criticizing them for not serving some ideal, I enjoy what they bring to the table. I don't see there being anything gay about that.
Despite your (unsubstantiated but opiniated) claim, I personally feel #7 is "undoubtedly" the most attractive of the group.
Just curious, what is the overall motive of this site? To expose the gay fashionista? To make sure men understand what they should be attracted to ? Or to get some plus (I'm sorry, feminine) models jobs?
Erik, with your Dove ad example above, you state that if legistated, gay fashion designers wouldn't choose more than a 19% BMI, rejecting all of the women in the Dove ad. Then you state, "In addition, the prospect of Dove's ordinary-looking models being popular with heterosexual men are nil, which eliminates an alternative possibility of making the ordinary-looking models acquire high status."
You are stating here only gay or heterosexual men have the ability to give women "high status." Listen to yourself!
While you state, against gay designers, that women's fashion is supposed to have the purpose of marketing clothing to women, you have stated that only models who are attractive to heterosexual men should be allowed to achieve "high status." Your agenda is very clear for switching back to hour-glass models, but you can't then use the argument that fashion is supposed to be about marketing clothes to women! I'm an hour-glass, but believe me, I know how rare natural hour-glass women are -- you yourself said only 8%!
Well, how about this! How about men staying out of women's fashion all together, and ordinary women give ordinary women "high status," for being an actual reflection of reality. The Dove ad is great! It is great for women to see themselves. If the audience is truly women for women's fashion, rather than gay men or heterosexual men, then why should male opinion, including yours, matter?
How about kicking men out of women's fashion & letting women's fashion be for women, how about getting rid of porn that is disrespectful to girlfriends, wives, mothers, sisters & daughters. How about the most revolutionary move of all -- how about heterosexual men focusing on the body of the woman they love as the most beautiful! How about that body being the first and only female body a heterosexual man sees nude! Wow! What a concept! Marriage rates would soar and divorce rates would plummet, and men & women could actually have a chance to achieve sacred love.
I'm not sure about your assumptions here. You say that "the general public overwhelmingly and strongly aesthetically prefers above average femininity in the looks of women," and you cite some studies concerning this claim, but the studies themselves don't make specifications regarding the sample used. Thus, as a reader I have no idea what your "general public" is, since I know that ideas of beauty vary vastly between cultures as well as individuals within cultures.
"There are numerous correlates of beauty. It is common observation that people do not unanimously agree about the minutiae of what constitutes beauty. However, some people have defective eyesight/vision and/or a variety of brain abnormalities. Therefore, universal agreement cannot be expected, but one should still consider whether there is broad agreement and how mentally normal are those who deviate from the broad agreement."
Your conclusions in the above quote are ridiculous. You say that people who do not conform to your personal ideas of "male heterosexual" beauty preferences must be mentally or physiologically defective. Additionally, you make sweeping generalizations suggesting that your own preferences in women correspond with those of other heterosexual men, and that these opinions are the only ones worth including in your argument. I find it a glaring indication of personal bias that you fail to include the opinions of persons of varying sexuality, including homosexual or transgendered men and women.
"It is well known that what these gays find aesthetically appealing are looks approximating those of adolescent boys." This is not "well known;" you are again making generalizations that make your overall argument hard to swallow.
"The central tendency of backside protrusion among Northern/Central European women is nowhere as flattened as in Heidi Klum." You do not cite a study of the tendencies of backside protrusion among Northern/Central European women in relation to that of Heidi Klum.
"Women buy lingerie to make themselves more pleasing to their male partners, and these will typically be lifetime-exclusive heterosexual." Homosexual, bisexual, and transgendered women buy lingerie as well, not to mention men who enjoy wearing women's lingerie but are not necessarily homosexual. Also, there is no unified concept of beauty among heterosexual males.
"A young adult attractive non-overweight woman who has breast that are ready to burst out of her clothing is a sight for sore eyes as far as the typical heterosexual man is concerned." This is a personal opinion, and while there is nothing wrong with your preference in women, I disagree with the fact that you apply your own preferences to those of others', and that you attempt to give your argument more authority by citing scientific studies that are loosely applied to your personal opinions.
I can get behind your intention... fashion models are often way too thin and uphold unhealthy ideas of aesthetic beauty in women. My main concern is that you fail to address sexual preferences which are not your own, and assume that male heterosexuality (which is not a unified entity) is the dominant opinion within the "general public" that you don't clearly specify anyway.
That's the sad thing. Voluptuous women end up in porn mags because they have naturally alluring figures. Yet, they are not being appreciated in the mainstream because of the gay fashion designers who dominate the industry.
Thin models were not chosen because thin equals classy. Thin certainly does not equal classy. They became classy because of the gay fashion designers' taste in models. You can ask any red-blooded heterosexual male around to see who they'd prefer.
Beauty has not evolved, honey. You should read some psychobiology researches on beauty. A lot are available on the internet.
(Sorry, I forgot abot this one.)
Even though most of the glamour models arch their backs exaggeratedly, there are a few who don't. And even if these glamour models do not arch their backs exaggeratedly, you will be able to see that their buttocks have more meat than those of the high fashion models.
Quoting from you again: "As far as the glamor models being 'voluptuous,' if you ever see a fashion model or a 'glamor model,' in real life, they will both look super skinny - of course the fashion model will look skinnier, but you will be surprised. I prefer voluptuos to skinny."
I do not really get what you mean when you said I will be surprised. Yes, there are glamour models who are skinny, as can be observed from their arms and waistlines. However, even though both the high fashion and the glamour models are skinny, it is the glamour model who has the breasts, the hips, and the more protruding buttocks.
Richard,
1.) Yes, that is what Erik is doing, but only because he does have a point to prove. You, on the other hand, can't achieve the opposite of Erik's goal using the same method as Erik's because the fashion models obviously look masculine at the very first glance.
2.) I don't need to do this because I've seen many pictures of men, feminine women, and masculine female fashion models together. Yes, the fashion models look striking in the sense that they'd get your attention and make you ask, "Hey, why does this woman look masculine?"
3.) Quoting you: "When you make your 'feature comparisons,' instead of juxtaposing photographs of runway models and average women, you juxtapose photographs of runway models and ABNORMAL WOMEN (emphasis mine). This is an egregious cheat."
4.) As Erik has said, gay fashion designers do not conspire to choose masculine looking women. They don't have to, it's in their taste already. And it's the homosexual fashion designers that dominate the industry. Those designers you mentioned had to imitate and follow the designers who were there before them in order to be recognized themselves.
5.) Posing tricks, make-up, and other possible tricks at work. I myself at first thought Adriana Lima was cute when I first saw her in a Maybelline ad. But when I saw pics of her that showed the truth, I then realized she's not as feminine as she seemed. As, for Heidi Klum, I had an epiphany when I discovered this site for myself. Moreover, even if Ask Men is a website for men, we are not really sure if the voters are all heterosexuals. Plus, people can vote more than once. I know because I myself have participated in the votation.
The last high status women you mentioned may not be pretty but they look better in the eyes of the people because of their status. Besides, they are already old and the high fashion models are young. It's unfair for you to compare their appearances to the young high fashion models' appearances.
Now, let's see you leave a comment in response to Erik's reply since it's he who has the more in-depth explanation and more arguments against your comment.
That's so funny!
Your so-called "feminine" girls are the ones that appear in porn mags and rapping monkey videos. It's the slender toned women that represent a more classy, high-end beauty worthy of victoria's secret, haute couture etc. Perceptions of beauty have changed, and most women would obviously rather belong in the 'slim and toned' category, rather than settle for the sloppy porn-worthy bodies. It's all about class -typically, men of low socio-economic status (largest group of porn viewers) will be attracted to the stumpy women with big 'booties' and flab because they are of equal status (ie. living off McDonalds and not exercising) While women who have the means, financially and intellectualy, to eat healthy and exercise will be more attractive to men of higher status. Women don't want to look hyperfeminine like pornstars, they want to have the more slim & elegant femininity (which you call transexual for some odd reason) and not be looked at by men in such a shallow way.
p.s
i read this wrong and i'm sorry for complaining. haha.
What is wrong with this blog/bullshit..everything. seriously, she doesn't look anything like a man, and in fact in my eyes is the sexiest woman alive. she is all natural, not a fake thing in her body except fake eyelashes maybe once in awhile at a photo shoot. But if anything Gisele Bunchen (sp?) i believe was a man. or is still a man. she has a thick jaw line even greater than Jay Leno himself. I mean come on, why write such garbage about adriana. not everyone in the world is fat and has saggy tits. she was just blessed with good genes great tits and nice slim body.
I found another site that was talking about gays dictating women's size, www.paradunai.org, in a blog titled "To Be or Not To Be: Gay, Lesbian, Transgendered," and then searched and found you.
As a model/athlete, at 18% bodyfat my agent told me I needed to lose in my hips -- needless to say, I didn't get rid of my hips, I got rid of my agent!
I am a classic, Sophia Loren hourglass. My waist has always been 12 inches smaller than my bust and hips since I was twelve! My bust and hips have always been the same.
An artist asked me to model for a Vargas tribute (the famous 40s pin-up artist -- not nude)and he was the first one I heard say this about gays setting the fashion standard. It makes so much sense.
It's definitely not fun when the only place you can see your body type these days is in pornography -- which is disgusting and so sad to me because it wrecks relationships, and is so disrespectful. Or Anna Nicole Smith or faked-out Pamela Anderson -- pathetic and so embarrassing!
I'm always cheering on any intelligent, self-respecting women I see like me in the public eye, but they are so rare. I can tell in a second who is a natural hour-glass but is starving herself to be thinner. I can also easily spot a boob job with 100% accuracy. (By the way, Tyra Banks is real.)
I have to say Erik, while your efforts are much appreciated, and participants, while it's great you are considering alternative definitions of beauty, for some reason, women in general seem to seek external approval and want to squish themselves into numbers. I see that happening here. From one squish to another? Ladies, your mirror needs to be your magazine and your guide -- not Erik, not anyone else. Honestly, greet your body naked in the mirror every morning, ("Hi body, you're looking great!") run around your house naked, exercise naked and watch yourself in the mirror -- love your body! Appreciate your body!
Erik, I know, you're a guy, and you appreciate women's beautiful bodies, which women appreciate, (though the very young-looking, blondes seem to be significantly over-represented here) and I see you trying to assure participants that not being a classic hour glass doesn't mean they are not attractive.
After teaching wanna-be models about fitness and nutrition I learned to veer away from these "perfection" landmines, and refused to go down that path when I identified someone who was wanting an external formula for who they should be in order to be: loved, validated, successful, attractive, etc., etc., etc. Please encourage ladies to love themselves because classic hour-glass or any other formula can be as impossible as skinny. You're in danger of just switching formulas! Heterosexual men used to be in charge of women's fashion (hour-glass sex symbols) and now gay men are in charge of women's fashion. How about women being in charge of women's fashion? Then we could see the whole beautiful kaleidescope of women's beauty!
You've alluded to some great solutions -- one that could be accentuated, and is necessary for this to be successful, is our cultural messages to our daughters about self-respect, self-worth and healthy self-image in the first place. In other words, we can't just suggest a different look in a magazine, we must raise women who don't need to look at a magazine at all to feel great about themselves.
This falls in the mother and the father arena -- mothers how's your self-image, what kind of role model are you for your daughters? Specifically tell your daughters how amazing they are -- they listen, trust me. Fathers, how do you treat women? What value do women have to you? What kind of role model are you for respecting & valuing women for who they are? Specifically tell your daughters how beautiful they are -- so they don't fall for that line from the first player that comes along! They listen, trust me!
Anyway, there's my two cents...
Brenda,
In response to your comments -
1)"You don't need to examine models body part by body part" - That's exactly what Erik is doing on this site to prove his point - notice the sections titled "Cheekbones", "Jaw Structure", "Nasoglabellar region", "Physique", "Shoulders", "Backside" and so on.
2)"Putting a picture of a man beside the pictures of a fashion model and a very feminine woman would mean disaster for the fashion model in terms of how feminine she looks" - I think you should try this at home - then you will see the fashion model looks just as feminine - but more striking and beautiful.
3)"Those women the fashion models are compared to are not abnormal" - I never made that generalization. I said most of the glamor models in the "Cheekbones" section have unattractively/abnormally high forheads/narrow cheeks, and that Erik chose them, not randomly (out of a hat with his eyes closed) and not from a sample of glamor models which meet some attractiveness criteria (because anyone can put photos of themselves on a website and call themselves a glamor model), but in a biased way. Compare the unattractively high forehead/narrow cheeked models to any of the glamor models in Erik's other sections and see for yourself.
For a more obvious example of "cheating" look at the "backside" section - where Erik argues that fashion models have flat rears akin to men. Notice how all of the fashion models are either standing up straight or walking, while all of the glamor models are bent over and sticking their butts in your face - making their butts look twice as big as they really are (look how much they are arching their backs). Also, notice how the bent over glamor models are in three-quarters view, which makes their butts look even bigger.
As far as the glamor models being "voluptuous," if you ever see a fashion model or a "glamor model," in real life, they will both look super skinny - of course the fashion model will look skinnier, but you will be surprised. I prefer voluptuos to skinny.
4)Straight fashion designers will be "ostracized and not recognized if they go against the flow." Gay fashion designers can't gang up and ostracize someone because there is no "powerful group" that gay fashion designers belong to. The way fashion designers stay in business is to secure investors (who often don't know anything about the fashion business), make attractive clothes that women want to buy, and market those clothes effectively. They are all in competition with each other.
Anyway, why would you gang up on someone because you don't like the models they are using? - that's just over the top. Secondly, who is going to "not recognize" P.Diddy (Sean Jean) or Jennifer Lopez (J.Lo) or Russell Simmons (FUBU) or Ralph Lauren (Polo) or Tommy Hilfiger? They have more fame and influence than most of these designers ever will.
5) "Most models don't look beautiful ("aesthetically pleasing") to the general population." In 2005, Adriana Lima was voted #1 of AskMen.com's top 99 women, with 250,00 voters participating(http://www.askmen.com/specials/2005_top_99/1c.html), and Heidi Klum was voted #5 (http://www.askmen.com/specials/2005_top_99/5.html). I think 250,000 people is a fair sampling of the general population.
"They only become beautiful because they are famous and high status." Oprah Winfrey, Hillary Clinton, Condoleezza Rice, Martha Stewart -- all famous and high status, none beautiful.
Sarah: This website is not about how women are supposed to look like or about flaws in the looks of women or about attacking differences. Women come in a wide variety of forms and just because you have small breasts, a squared jaw and very broad shoulders does not make you less of a woman than a woman with more feminine features.
This site is about models and beauty pageant contestants. When feminine women are required, feminine women should be used. I don't think the latter is an inappropriate wish, but what other than coming up with a site like this could be done to realize this wish?
Regarding promoting a healthy body image, not all physical forms are healthy and it cannot be pretended that all shapes are equally healthy. Feminine beauty represents health, though it is not the only configuration that is healthy, i.e., this site's goals are consistent with health promotion.
Richard: Your latest comment reflects muddled thinking. Nowhere have I asserted that fashion runway models look like men. I don’t know how you have inferred this. If you plan on leaving comments such as the following…
Quote:
...then please don’t comment since I am getting tired of having to defend myself against ridiculous caricatures of my arguments. Of course, female high-fashion models generally look female, but they generally do not look feminine. My assertion is that high-fashion models, on average, are masculinized women. Masculinized women obviously look more feminine than men but they are not as feminine as feminine women. The comparisons here are among women, not between men and women.
You have described high-fashion models as strikingly beautiful, which explains why they are used for modeling, but I have already asserted that indeed gay fashion designers who dominate the fashion business find the models they use very good looking. Please don’t tell me that the general public finds these women strikingly beautiful, too, because I have cited plenty of evidence within this site showing that this is far from the case. And, I have not argued that the typical looks of high-fashion models are entirely explicable in terms of the homosexuality of the dominant gay fashion designers. The homosexuality of gay fashion designers explains the typical masculinization of high-fashion models, but not their typical skinniness and the penchant for female models in their mid-teens on the part of the fashion industry. The latter two items are explained by the appeal of adolescent boys to many of the dominant gays in the fashion business; skinny and masculinized teenage girls come closest to approximating boys in their early adolescence. I have already explained that non-gay fashion designers have to comply with the status quo set up by the dominant gays in the fashion business.
Your comment has extensively focused on the face, oblivious to the fact that people are supposed to be looking at the clothes these women are wearing rather than their facial features. Reproducing a 3-dimensional object in a 2-dimensional photograph will introduce slight distortion, but is this the reason why runway models with “striking” faces are used? Are people supposed to look at their faces? Once again, people can take their time to look at photographs, and do not operate under the principle that “I will take a good look at the clothing if the face of the woman catches my attention.” My response to your absurd portrayal of my arguments regarding facial features follows:
Quote:
Do not accuse me of basing the whole site on photographic evidence. Just because this site is richly illustrated does not mean that the arguments are based on photographs. There are numerous references to articles in peer-reviewed journals here, and in many cases the pictures are illustrating the arguments/conclusions in the papers cited.
Regarding Playboy centerfolds, they have gotten masculinized over the years; see this comment for possible underlying reasons. I don’t see the point of your comment on Marquardt...it is irrelevant to the entry. Besides, this entry is about lingerie modeling, not high-fashion modeling.
I find this website EXTREMELY insulting. I have broad shoulders, small breasts and a square jaw. In fact, my shoulders are extremely broad for a woman and I hate them. To come to a site like this that is basically pointing out these flaws, comparing photos to other photos, saying we need more femine women in the media and fashion etc - it just plain hurts.
We can not help what we are born with. We don't chose it. I certainly didn't chose my body shape. And we can't change it. I've never come across such crap in all my time of searching the internet. And there's a hell of a lot of crap out there.
Maybe you should be putting forward more healthy arguments that promote HEALTHY body image in women (because nobody else will bloody do it) instead of pointing out why some women are more feminine than others and pointing out "flaws". Women are women - no matter what our bone structure or fat distribution may be, and shouldn't these differences be celebrated rather than attacked?
Richard obviously doesn't get it.
1.) You don't really need to examine fashion models body part by body part. One look and you'll see that they look masculine, regardless of whether all their traits are masculine or not. They are mostly masculine looking compared to the average woman.
2.) Again, you can NOT compare a woman to a man to see who looks more like a woman. Of course, a woman IS a woman so she will look feminine compared to a man. Erik is not saying that the fashion models look exactly like men. He says that they resemble adolescent boys, or that compared to the average woman, these fashion models look more masculine. Erik here is comparing female models to more feminine women. Putting a picture of a man beside the pictures of a fashion model and a very feminine woman would mean disater for the fashion model in terms of determining how feminine that fashion model really looks. You know why. It is that simple. Don't tell me you don't get it still.
3.) Those women the fashion models were compared to are not abnormal. They are normal women with beautiful, feminine physiques. Do you see them as abnormal? If so, you just gave me reason to think you are homosexual. Normal, heterosexual men all will be salivating the moment they see the pictures of those luscious, voluptuous, "abnormal" women.
4.) Erik has mentioned in at least one page of this website that heterosexual designers use the same kind of models as the homosexual designers because they will risk being ostracized and not recognized if they go against the flow.
5.) Most fashion models do not look aesthetically pleasing to the general population. They only become beautiful because they are famous and high status - the halo effect.
Now, I think we should wait for Erik to say something because he's the one with more knowledge about this.
Isabel: It is not your fault that English is not your native language, but I have understood what you are trying to convey. To view this entry as an attempt to criticize the looks of a high-fashion model is to miss the point since such criticism would be a useless endeavor. The point is to get people to think about what kind of people appreciate the looks of the likes Daria Werbowy, as shown above, to make her a top-ranked high-fashion model. These people surely have highly atypical aesthetic preferences, and their preferences are causing numerous problems. It needs to be pointed out that the fashion people involved are male homosexuals so that fewer women are convinced that attractiveness lies in skinniness and subsequently end up indulging in negative health behaviors such as unnecessary dieting to acquire the skinny look. Like you have said, some fashion models eat well and remain skinny and healthy, which appears to be your description, but others starve themselves to comply with industry requirements, and they shouldn’t have to do this. It is necessary to force the fashion industry to stop using models below the threshold of underweight unless it proves that the women involved eat adequately and are healthy. This requires that the looks of high-fashion models be addressed and other issues discussed within this site brought to the attention of the general public. The purpose of this entry is not to criticize the looks of Daria Werbowy.
Erik,
I thought I was clear in my comments but I guess I was wrong. I think fashion runway models are intentionaly used because they are strikingly beautiful women, not striking women who look like men. The latter is your assertion. Your assertion, however, relies on faulty observations and biased, inadequate comparisons.
I. Why are the aformentioned women striking, but not masculine? Let me break it down feature by feature.
Forehead/brow area- You assert that a protruding forehead is a definitively masculine trait. This is false. A masculine forehead is characterized by a combination of being protruding, high, square(around the head), sloping backwards (in profile), and having a coarse orbital rim. A man's eyebrows are thick, straight and sit at or below the orbital rim. In contrast, a woman's
forehead is characterized by a combination of being less protruding, low, bulbous (rounded around the head) and straight (in profile). A woman's eyebrows are thin, sit atop the orbital rim and curve upwards and outwards lateraly (towards the sides of the head).
In your examples of fashion runway models, there is not a single example of a woman with either a high, sloping, square, or coarse forehead: all the foreheads are low, straight, round and delicate. Neither is there a single example of a
woman with a flat, thick eyebrow that sits at or below the orbital rim: they are all thin, curve upward and sit above the orbital rim.
All you have is left is your observation of forehead protrusion, and you don't even have that. Look at your "jaw structure" section. 90% of the fashion models pictured there have almost no protrusion. Your choice of comparisons shows bias. More importantly, protrusion by itself is attributable to a normal dolichocephalic headform, which is sex independant. In other words, it is normal to see a protruding forehead in a human being, whether it be a man or woman.
Jaw - You assert that a angular jawline with a squared chin and a sharp gonial angle is definitively masculine. This is also false. A masculine jawline is characterized by a combination of width (as wide as the temples and/or the cheekbones), height (compared to the width of the face), and volume and coarseness at the posterior jaw (from enlarged masseter muscles). A masculine chin is characterized by a combination of width (compared to the height of the face), height (compared to the width of the face), projection and squareness. In contrast, a woman's jawline is characterized by it relative narrowness (considerably narrower than the cheekbones or temples), relative shortness (this
is partly why a woman's face looks short and round), and decreased volume/more refinement at the posterior jaw (from smaller masseter muscles). A woman's chin is characterized by a combination of relative narrowness, roundness and
shortness. Two qualities, roundness of the gonial angle (back corner) and an inverted triangle shape of the jaw (with the chin at the bottom corner and the bottom of the ears at the side corners) are sex independant but associated with
femininity.
In your examples of runway models, there is not a single example of a woman with a jaw of male width (as wide as her temples or cheekbones), a jaw of male height (compare to the jaws of the adjacent glamor models), a jaw of male crudeness, a chin of male width, a chin of male height, or a chin of male protrusion (usually well beyond the lower lip).
All you have left is your observation of squared chins and angular jawlines. But your photo examples do not even proove your point. Look at your "faces" section. 95% of the fashion runway models pictured have rounded, pointy chins.
Of the 15% of squared chin girls I see in your "jaw structure" section, the chin
width is barely enough to get most of them out of the "round" category. And as I said before, sharp gonial angles and angular jawlines are sex independent.
(See the transgender surgery sight at
http://www.genderways.com/N3/jaw_reduction.htm. Also, see fifty years of playboy centerfolds at http://www.pierluigisurace.it/imagerie/play.htm or type "playboy centerfolds" in google image search. (That is if your concede that Hugh Heffner is not homosexual.)
Cheekbones - In your opinion a robust, high cheekbone is definitively masculine. Again, this is not the case. A male cheekbone is defined by a combination of appearing high, robust, narrow (no wider than the temples and jaw), flat (as a
result of less fat under the cheekbone), and retracted (because the male nose
is more protrusive). A female cheekbone is defined by a combination of appearing wide (wider than the temples and jaw), full (as a result of more fat under the cheekbone), protruding (as a result of the nose being less protruding) and somewhat lower. As a result, the female cheekbone appears more prominent and defined, and appears to take up more surface area on the face. (See the transgender surgery sight at http://www.genderways.com/N3/cheek_implants.htm.)
In your photos of runway models, there is not a single example of a woman with narrow, flat, or retracted cheekbones. (By the way, I never said runway models' cheeks project more than the average woman's, but that they project in a characteristically feminine way). Nor is there a woman whose cheekbones do not appear prominent, defined or to take up a large portion of her face - in fact, the very opposite is true: all of the runway models depicted have cheekbones which appear to take up greater than normal portions of their faces.
All that remains are your observations of high and robust cheekbones. But high, defined cheekbones are considered universally beautiful in women (look at famous actresses or playboy models or for a study see http://www.uni-regensburg.de/Fakultaeten/phil_Fak_II/Psychologie/Psy_II/beautycheck/english/virtuelle/virtuelle.htm). With respect to robustness, it is not by
itself definitive of a masculine cheekbone, varies by ethnicity and is sex independent.
Your comparison choices again show your tendency towards bias. Most of the glamor models in your "cheekbones" section have abnormally high foreheads and abnormally narrow cheeks, making their cheeks look egregiously deficient.
Going by the mistaken belief that a woman's cheeks should be "regressed," you intentionally go to extremes to prove your point and shoot yourself in the foot.
Also note that, when you compare the fashion runway models in your "cheekbones" section to the glamor models in your "jaw structure" section, you will notice that the differences in
cheekbone height and volume are smaller by several orders of magnitude, with the
fashion models looking more striking, not more masculine.
A facial feature cannot be called masculine if it only contains 1 out of 5 or 6 characterisitics which, when combined, constitute
masculine. In the same way, a facial feature must be called feminine if it contains all or all but one of the characteristics which, when combined, constitute feminine. This is why the fashion runway models you have pictured here are not masculinized, but striking, beautiful women.
Some additional notes -
1) You argue that runway fashion models are overall masculine by giving examples of models who possess certain specific features you observe (though wrongly) as masculine. You cannot build an argument like this. "Overall" means "overall,"
not one specific feature which one specific model has, so that when I leave the "forehead section," everyone in the "cheekbone section" has a small forehead, etc. Giselle's face, for example: high, robust cheekbones, but a tiny narrow jaw, retracted forehead and a round chin.
2) When you make your "feature comparisons," instead of juxtaposing photographs of runway models and average women, you
juxtapose photographs of runway models and abnormal women. This is an egregious
cheat.
Along the same lines, you argue that juxtaposing female fashion models with male fashion
models to assess femininity is pointless because the women would look more feminine in comparison. You are wrong. They would not just look more feminine, they would look inarguably like women. Why? Because by not picturing men, you don't get a good sense of what they look like. (C'mon, your whole website is based on photographic evidence) (http://www.models.com to see the top 50 male models).
If you really want to be objective, take every fashion/glamor comparison photo, and add to it a photo of a man. Then ask yourself, "does this fashion model look more like the man or the woman?" If she looks more like the woman, then she is "overall female."
3) Models and actressess get multiple nosejobs (a smaller nose is a genetic female trait - see
http://orthodontics.case.edu/facialgrowth/textbook/chapter8.html). Minimally wide set eyes (intracanthal distance equals intercanthal distance) are a requirement for runway modeling - ask a model or a plastic surgeon.
4. Why do fashion designers need striking women to model their clothes in a fashion show? Because beautiful people sell product. This is a fundamental marketing principal and I am frankly surprised that I would need to call something so obvious to your attention. If, as you say, all that is needed of a fashion runway model is to serve as a "hanger," then fashion shows would consist of headless mannequins on a conveyor belt or models with paper bags over their heads, so as not to draw attention away from the clothes. Obviously, fashion designers are shelling out tens of thousands of dollars in model fees because they know they will see a return.
This idea that the model choices of homosexual fashion designers is being dictated by their homosexuality is like something stuck in your craw. They don't work their fingers to the bone and stay up nights thinking about how to sell to their demographic, and then, suddenly, when it comes to choosing a model, get gay tunnel vision. Give them a little credit.
Most importantly, your argument completely fails to account for female and straight fashion designers who use the same models as the homosexual fashion designers. Ralph Lauren, Tommy Hilfiger, Donna Karan, J.Lo, Russell Simmons (FUBU), etc. They are powerful and influential, but are not looking for men.
P.S. Why do fashion models need to be "striking at a distance" when most buyers and people are exposed to fashion throught the media or runway shows? The major buyers either attend the runway show or send photographs to take pictures/video of the show. The photographers stand in the back of the "theater" and must use long lenses to photograph the models. Long lenses create compression distortion (compress facial features, making them smaller and blander). Striking facial features will remain interesting in photographs. When buyers and normal people
access fashion through the media, that media is created with cameras which use long lenses.
People in the performing arts, and also in politics, usually have a robust, protruding facial skeleton: it just attracts more attention.
Also, a note about Marquart: the Marquart mask was devised in the abstract by drawing a centered vertical line between the middle of the pupil and the point where the lips meet (on an imaginary face), and then by projecting decahedrons
of certain geometric relationships around that line. The mask fails both because it fails to account for ethnic differences and that many beautiful people fit the mask poorly while many ugly people fit the mask perfectly.
Pages