Hi! At first I´ve got to say that I´m from Spain so , sorry for my english...
I think there are more important things to do than spend your time criticising models...they´re just doing their work! It´s true that lots of models have eating disorders , but not all of them!! I´ve been working as a model since I was 12 years old , an I´ve always been a thin girl , and obviously I´m not perfect( nobody is) , you can see the bones of my shoulders , but in my hips there are no signs of any bones you know...I eat all kind of food , but I´m care about eating too much sweets or too much fried food...the 90% of the food I normally have is home-made food , lots of fruit and vegetables. And I drink a a lot of water. I go to the gym with a personal trainer once hour every day.
As you can see , my habits are not very different from the other´s ones.And related to boys , there are boys who say " hey you´re so beautiful I love your face or your body" abd there are other boys who say "your face is ok , but you´re so thin...you should gain weight".
And that´s all! I love fashion and for me is a pleasure to let my image for a designer , just because I think that gigs they create are pieces of art! Every skirt , every t-shirt , shoes...they spend hours working on them...and they spend hours too thinking about who could be the girl or the boy who best represents the spirit of that creation...so please...stop talking that way!Do you mind if a designer is homosexual or heterosexual? Do you mind if Daria has a skinny body? Look at yourself and try to improve the bad things that exist in your personality or in your body...but let the others do whatever they want to do...
(sorry again for my writing...I know it´s really bad , so I´ll try to learn more in order to explain this kind of things better)
Richard: The need for creativity, talent and business sense in order to succeed in the fashion business is obvious. However, these elements do not require physical masculinization of fashion models. You have focused on the runway. Fashion industry reps repeatedly tell us that the models are skinny because they function as “clothes hangars.” If so, then why should their facial features matter on the runway? Why do they need to have “striking”-as-in-masculinized faces? They are selling clothes. You also need to note that most people and buyers are exposed to fashion imagery in the print media (e.g., magazines), and people can take their time to evaluate a model’s looks and the clothing on her, i.e., there is no need for masculinization in the models with respect to the print media.
Estrogens are actively involved in shaping the facial skeleton and do not merely stunt bone growth. Even androgens have a growth-stunting effect in addition to molding shape in particular ways, though estradiol has a more powerful effect on bone growth than testosterone.
Am I ignoring feminine features in high-fashion models? Whereas a woman can have a combination of masculine-looking and feminine-looking features, a woman cannot simultaneously be overall masculine and overall feminine. Masculinity-femininity is inferred from overall looks since sex hormones are not the only factors shaping looks. High-fashion models are clearly overall masculinized compared to the general female population, and hence cannot be said to have feminine features unless they are feminine, though a masculinized high-fashion model can have a few feminine-looking features. There are plenty of feminine women with full lips, large eyes, thin skin, tiny noses, slender bones, etc., and where is your evidence that high-fashion models, on average, have tinier noses and larger eyes compared to women in general? You have not cited any evidence that, controlling for ancestry, intercanthal distance is greater among high-fashion models or that their cheekbones are more forward projecting compared to the general female population. Submalar fullness? Hollowed-out cheeks are not unusual among runway models. Women’s buttocks are flatter compared to men, on average? This is ridiculous. Whereas men do have larger buttock muscles, the bone structure is more protruding in women and women have more fat in the buttocks, which make female buttocks protrude more than men’s, on average.
As Brenda has said, female high-fashion models will obviously look more feminine than their male counterparts; the femininity of female fashion models should be compared with women in general and especially feminine women. As far as make-up goes, female models in general use make-up, and typically to hide blemishes, make their skin look young and enhance overall looks, which is not achieved by making the face look more masculine among non-fashion models.
Kristin: I am pleased to know that you will not be commenting here anymore. Of all people leaving comments here, yours have been the most incoherent, the least informed and a “delight” to read with respect to grammar and spelling. You could be excused if English were not your native language, but I doubt this, and I am nowhere as bad as you even though English is not my native language. Besides, your comment beginning, "your blatant lack of..." is an accurate description of yourself.
Veronica: Unlike Kaczynski, I am not hiding my name, am not doing anything criminal and have never been diagnosed with a mental illness.
Daniel: I have not implied what you have stated. If you look up the “sexy fashion models?” page, you will encounter the following:
Quote:
Even if we lump all men who are not lifetime-exclusive heterosexuals with men who have narrowly escaped nonheterosexuality, this group will constitute a minority of men, and allowing for the fact that a small minority of the other group, the majority group, will have a preference for somewhat masculinized women and that a number of men belonging to the minority group will have a preference for feminine women...
In other words, I am acknowledging that some men who have narrowly escaped nonheterosexuality may find some level of masculinization in women appealing; these men have to be classified as heterosexual because they have not indulged in homosexual behavior or experienced same-sex attraction. I have also mentioned that a small minority of the majority group, i.e., lifetime-exclusive heterosexuals will have a preference for somewhat masculinized women. On the same page, I have mentioned that slight masculinization is a correlate of the sexiness of women to heterosexual men. Elsewhere, I have shown comparisons (e.g., 1, 2, 3, 4) and mentioned that the more masculine woman shown will be preferred by a number of heterosexual men because of her more European and finer facial features. Femininity is not the only correlate of beauty. I have seen some high-fashion models with fine and chiseled facial features, and notwithstanding their masculinization, their face is a work of art, and this will attract some heterosexual men, but heterosexual men will prefer a woman with above average femininity and fine facial features to a woman with below average femininity and fine facial features.
Allwomenrock: I know that a woman does not have much control over her face and body structure, but this site is not saying that women should conform to a given look. It is about what kind of looks are suitable among models in various setting and contestants in beauty pageants catering to the general public.
You have a point in that fashion models should come in all forms because they are selling to women that come in a variety of shapes. However, there is an element of exclusivity to high-fashion, which is what makes high-end designer clothing highly desirable. Using models with all shapes is not consistent with conveying an impression of exclusivity, which requires a narrow range of looks among high-fashion models. There are a variety of looks consistent with implying exclusivity, and we know that the adolescent-boy central tendency chosen by fashion designers reflects the dominance of homosexual men in the fashion business. If one were to set up a viable heterosexual alternative to the gay-dominated fashion industry, one will have to use a narrow range of looks among models in order to imply exclusivity, and the most appropriate exclusive look will be of feminine beauty with an emphasis on high standards. Speaking of Victoria’s Secret, you will hopefully agree that given the purpose of wearing lingerie, feminine women are more appropriate for lingerie modeling rather than the mostly masculinized women this company uses.
The myshape site is a good idea, but given that it is targeting the general public, it is selling overpriced stuff. You could buy clothes there to fit your body, but if you wanted clothing that most others couldn’t afford and thereby end up conveying an impression of high status or if you are obliged to convey an impression of high status because you are a rich person and move in upper circles, then you will have to patronize top fashion designers, most of whom are gay and use boyish-looking models. In terms of negative societal consequences, feminine beauty cannot undermine health and will at most underminine body esteem to some extent in some women, which the skinny norm among high-fashion models already does. Therefore, you should have less of an objection to the setting up of a feminine beauty standard. Once again, unless this feminine beauty standard conveys a sense of exclusivity [by virtue of having a narrow range and an emphasis on high aesthetic standards], whereas you could sell clothing using feminine and attractive women as models, you will still have to turn to gay fashion designers in order to buy the most exclusive clothing.
Regarding the two women you pointed out, Katie and Lindsey, respectively, the women indeed do not have narrow rib cages, but they also lack large breasts. So why are they in the attractive women section? Whereas a combination of large breasts and narrow rib cage is an ideal with respect to feminine beauty, these features are not strict requirements for feminine beauty. The two women shown are feminine and attractive notwithstanding their shortcomings. Alessandra Ambrosio herself does not have a broad ribcage, but the woman is far from feminine looking. One needs to consider overall looks. You are mistaken about hourglass-shaped women having broad rib cages. In order to have an hourglass figure, a woman needs to have large breasts, sufficiently wide plus rounded hips and a narrow body in between the breasts and hips, i.e., a tiny waist and small rib cage (see example). There is no need for a woman to have a similar bust and hip circumference in order to have an hourglass figure because the hourglass approximation applies to front view only.
If you have not been able to figure out whether you have broad shoulders or not, chances are that they are normal. Regarding “insults,” an accurate description of the looks of many fashion models and beauty pageant contestants may be seen as insulting, but what can I do if I simply must describe the looks in words? It doesn’t help that English is not my native language and I don’t know how to say it better; you should cut me some slack.
Samantha: Women are fleshier/plumper in terms of body fat than men, but the range of body fat level that would appeal to most men is a subset of the medically normal range; look at the diagrams in this study and note the look most appealing to men in the age range you are most interested in. If you are a white female, you would be best advised to keep your BMI in the low twenties; the BMI is the weight in kilograms divided by the square of the height in meters. If you are a tall woman, then acquiring a 26-inch waist would not be a problem if you correspondingly gain an appreciable amount of fat in the bust and hips, but stick with 25 if you are short. Questions like yours are best answered after a photographic evaluation. You should consider emailing me your pictures, obscuring/cutting out the face if you wish.
I side with Erik. I have never thought high fashion models look striking. In fact, I have always thought they are the blandest looking women in the planet. All people I know used to think the same until supermodels reached the popularity that they have now.
I think Erik did not overlook their feminine features. Of course it is a given that they will have feminine features because they are biological women. However, compared to the average women, they look masculine. That is what Erik is giving emphasis in this website.
Another thing: your suggestion that Erik should instead compare the female runway models to male runway models is INVALID. It does not make any sense to compare two things of different kinds. It's like comparing a monkey to a cat...to see which of them looks more like a monkey. Duh. Of course women would look feminine beside men! There is no question in that. But the female runway models are BIOLOGICAL FEMALES and so they should be compared to other biological females. And compared to the average female, runway models do indeed have the tendency to look like adolescent boys.
I am impressed by and grateful for all your work and research, but your conclusion that fashion designers' decisions (at least when they choose their models) are based solely on their homosexuality is ludicrous. To be a successful fashion designer requires top tier creative talent and top tier business sense. Business sense means knowing how to sell your clothes - and since your fashion line lives or dies on the runway - you better know how to make those clothes look great.
In a fashion show you have fifteen minutes to make an impact on everybody in the room, including those people who are sitting 200 feet away--because they're the ones deciding whether to buy your line.
To make an impact at a distance (and, as Marquart would say - to look recognizably human), a model needs striking facial features--and striking means robust cheekbones, large eyes, a strong jaw and chin, and a strong forehead.
Unfortunately for human biology, striking can resemble masculine because a woman's softer facial features are a direct result of estrogen stunting the developement of her facial skeleton. That is why a woman looks more childlike than a man.
Fashion designers choose models with highly articulated facial skeletons and use them as blank slates, applying cosmetics to achieve any look they want, including super-feminine, while ensuring that the models will still make a strong impression at a distance.
Your argument is also one sided: you only point out the what you call - masculine - facial features of the models - but you ignore their feminine features - large eyes (which also are there to be seen at a distance), large intercanthal distance, great anterior projection of the cheekbones (a major marker of feminity), submalar fullness, tiny noses, full lips, thin skin, tiny frail bones and flatness of the buttocks (this is a major misconception on your part - a man's buttocks are bulging and muscular - a woman's are flat as a result of reduced musculature/lack of testosterone - rent a porn film if you don't believe me.)
Instead of comparing these runway models to non-runway models, you should be comparing them to male runway models - then you will see that they have strong female faces, not male faces.
P.S. Non-runway model women use cosmetics to look more striking, ie to compensate for a less developed face (think about why men do not use them). Are these women trying to look more masculine to attract homosexual men?
at first, your site intrigued me, i tried to find room to agree--but your blatant lack of knowledge of the industry, refusal to see the truth smacking you in the face, and muddling good information with personal bias while parading it around as 'expert opinions'--- quite frankly i feel sad for any woman who would email pics of themselves--asking if Erik things they are feminine? are the daft???? there is not one representitive from the industry you relentlessly are criticizing---- and i am sorry---but you really know just a smidge more than the general public (which knows nothing).
don't worry , i won't clog up your sight further trying to challenge the deeply embedded beliefs of a loud but uninformed mouth.
after looking through your list of "attractive" women, erik, i must say i'm very surprised. it seems like at times you don't even stick to your own claims.
what exactly does a broad rib cage look like? except for very pear-shaped women, all women have broad rib cages. hour glasse shape women, in essence, have broad rib cages because their bust is the same size as their hips. only, their lower ribs extend in more than a rectangular/tubular shaped woman, such as alessandra.
the funny thing is, i came upon this site while looking for women who don't have broad shoulders because i didn't know if i have them or not. strangely enough, i still don't know the difference between broad shoulders and non-broad ones. i know what square shoulders are, but all shoulders that extend downward look basically the same unless the bust and shoulders extend outward more than the hips, thereby giving a top heavy or cone appearance.
from reading other posts of yours, i get the jist that you don't want to put women down to be an ass. you just want something mainstream that represents what is considered "very feminine." you actually seem to have some science that backs up your claims. i cannot fault you for that.
but i can fault you about some ways you try to get your message across. putting down women for any reason about their appearance is mean. and what might be considered a more selfish reason for yourself: erik, many are not going to listen to you if use insults. i think if you used your scientific evidence and simply put a picture of a woman with more feminine attributes next to one with more masculine attributes, all this will speak for itself. and it will save you a lot of heartache and needless explanations to people who think you're saying women who don't fit a certain quota aren't attractive, deserve to made to feel beautiful, etc..
look at gisele next to sophia loren and it's obvious to anyone which is the more fem. it's like looking at a rock compared to a mountain and saying, "the rock is smaller than the mountain" to saying "gisele is less feminine than sophia."
It's interesting how you say heterosexual men are ONLY attracted to (your perception of) a "feminine" woman. It's a big generalization to say that it's not in the realm of possibilities that a heterosexual man could be attracted to a high-fashion model's body and/or face. I agree with Hally that the world is diverse and that some men are attracted to certain aesthetics while some are not, and I don't think you can possibly speak for every heterosexual man out there as to their preferences. While yes, most men prefer a very feminine body and face, there are exceptions to the rule, and I think you should keep that in mind.
Appalled: You have not identified any instance of circular logic being used here. What is narrow-minded about lifetime-exclusive heterosexual men preferring feminine women? What would be the point of being heterosexual if heterosexuality made one attracted to physical characteristics closer to the same sex? You need to examine your own logic. Why would a man in fear of his latent homosexuality go through the trouble of creating this site? If a woman created this site to say “real men love women like me,” then this woman would be feminine and attractive, and would be attracting a lot of male attention to start with. How many such women in your estimation would have low self-esteem related to their body?
As far as the solutions to the problems that this site is tackling go, read the solutions page. Telling women that everyone is beautiful in their own way will not help; most people know better, and women at-risk for developing anorexia will generally not be convinced by this statement because they see skinny fashion models making a huge amount of money and having their pictures splashed all over. If there are objective beauty standards that correspond to health, then it is necessary to describe them in some detail to undermine the negative effects of skinny fashion models. Note that negative health behaviors will detract from feminine beauty, not lead to it.
People already know that it is important to be healthy, and health does not correspond to skinniness or obesity, i.e., one cannot simultaneously say that everyone is beautiful in their own way, which would imply that one should accept oneself, and also that one should be healthy, which would imply that those with a body fat level outside the healthy range should do something about it.
The argument here is surely not that men attracted to women who are not examples of feminine beauty are repressed homosexuals. There are feminine women who are not examples of feminine beauty. There are also plenty of women who are neither feminine nor masculine for a woman, but somewhere in the middle. Slight masculinization is even a correlate of the sexiness of women to heterosexual men. However, it should be clear that masculinized women are disproportionately at risk for attracting men who are not lifetime-exclusive heterosexual.
Hally: I have obviously taken into account differences in aesthetic preferences; this entry, along with others, contrasts the central tendency of the preferences of heterosexual men with the preferences of nonheterosexual (homosexual and bisexual) men. Whereas not all heterosexual men are necessarily into large breasts or large buttocks, they are into femininity. Femininity manifests in diverse forms, including women with small breasts; just go through the attractive women section. The most relevant example of the evolution of beauty over the past couple of centuries that you could provide would be one of shape, especially pertaining to masculinity-femininity, but the example you have chosen is of skin color. Depending on the amount of sun exposure, the three women above could be made to vary from pasty white to light brown, i.e., they do not differ on this count. It is true that pale skin was preferred in Europe in the 18th century, but then lower class people had to labor in the sun and got tanned, i.e., pale skin became associated with higher socioeconomic status. After industrialization, when most jobs moved indoors, lower class people became pale because of limited sun exposure and upper class people tanned because they could spend more time outside, i.e., a tan became associated with higher socioeconomic status. Therefore, the principle that a characteristic associated with higher socioeconomic status will be disproportionately preferred has remained; only the superficial manifestation of it has changed, and not permanently. With the cropping up of tanning salons, dihydroxyacetone and other fake tan technologies, tanned skin will increasingly become dissociated with socioeconomic status.
Erik, what bothers me most about your site is that a womans facial and body structure cannot be controlled.
Here, Im now going to stress body issues because this is what the site seems most concentrated on concerning models and the clothing industry. Some women are cone or apple shaped and therefore their bust and waist are simply naturally bigger than their hips. Some women are hour glassed shape and their busts and hips are the same size, with a deep indentation of the waist. Some women are pear shaped and their hips are way bigger than their busts and waists. And some women, like many models seem to be, are rectangular-shaped and their hips and busts are about the same size without such a big indentaion of the waist. Shouldnt clothing models represent all four of these female body structures? Regardless of what most or many men find "most attractive," the clothing is being sold to women. Why should Victoria Secret models represent what is "sexy?" They should represent what all women look like! Models with all body types should be shown so that women with similar body types know whats best for them.
www.myshape.com does a good job of that. girls. And, they totally skipped the models anyway! :-D
I don't even know where to begin or where to post this. This site is filled with circular logic and ludicrous assumptions. No matter how you attempt to shroud your narrow minded pre-determinations that “life time heterosexual males” generally prefer more feminine women, it doesn’t change the fact that its all a bunch of bullshit. It must have taken a lot of time, and I commend you for that, but the rest of this site screams either “I’m a guy who fears my own latent homosexuality so I’m going to make a site whose motto is ‘agree with me or you’re gay’” or “I’m a girl who is a little chunky with low self esteem so I’m going to make a site that says ‘real men love women like me’” Either way it’s a waste of time. In your FAQ, you address this specific question but do nothing to answer it. Instead of defending your position you just point fingers at the fashion industry and say “they are worse, bunch of gays trying to force their man-women on us” Yeah, the fashion industry promotes an unrealistic image of female attractiveness. We get it. That’s been out there for a while. It’s not a surprise. You are not clever. What is your solution? Do we tell women “Hey, its ok. Everyone is beautiful in their own way and its important to be healthy”? No. You tell them that there is an actual objective standard of beauty. Its different, but you probably can’t live up to that either and anyone who finds you attractive is probably just a repressed fag. Good job dipshit. You are out helping the world. Your objectivity is subjective bullshit. Go see a shrink, loser.
Eeew, they say Marianne Berglund is "breathtaking and sensational?" Maybe she does take your breath away - when you see her and gasp at how sickly she looks!
Jen Hunter looks waaaay better. She kind of reminds me of Marilyn Monroe.
Listen, I definitely understand your logic here. But you have to take into account peoples differences in aesthetic. Not everyone is going to like women with a large backside and large breasts. Nature loves diversity so of course there is going to be a diverse range in body type and structure. People like different things, imagine how boring this world would be if only one type of woman or man was considered attractive. The definition of beauty most assuredly has evolved. If you were living in 16th century Europe you would prefer a very pale woman wearing a tall white wig with a fake mole on her face. Beauty changes, people change and the world changes and there is nothing wrong with that IT'S GREAT! I'm sorry if I sounded angry, it was'nt really my intention.
Kristin: No high-fashion in Uruguay? This is just nonsense. You may attempt to use your idiosyncratic definition of high-fashion modeling to include only the regions where the top-ranked designers mostly reside, i.e. New York, Paris, Milan, etc., but it is clear that you are beating a dead horse. The fashion industry cannot be absolved of blame because the show that was part of Fashion Week in Uruguay was supposedly not about high-fashion. What in the world was it about?
Regarding Luisel’s age, it is true that a 22-year-old woman who is attempting to start her career as a high-fashion model will most likely be rejected. However, fashion models who are well-established in their teens can easily be found doing high-fashion modeling in their early twenties. Luisel started fashion modeling (on the runway) when she was 18, which would be older than many others, but not too old. Luisel’s sister, Eliana, was 18 when she died...well-within the teenage range most high-fashion models are found in, and Eliana was better established than Luisel; Eliana had been modeling regularly in Argentina.
I have already pointed out that fashion designers generally have a preference for girls in their mid-teens for fashion modeling purposes. You must make an effort to properly read and understand the arguments here prior to commenting and not assume that I know nothing about the fashion world.
Ana Carolina Reston alone shows your criticism to be lacking and flawed. How she lost weight is not relevant to the discussion; what made her lose weight is relevant, and the factor responsible is industry pressure. Ms. Reston was never overweight (big) in a medical sense by a long shot. She started out young, and her slimness made it possible, but the abnormal aesthetic preferences of gay fashion designers meant that she had to be skinnier still in order to end up highly ranked among high-fashion models.
I don't know. Maybe your husband is the exception rather than the rule. Or maybe he just told you that because you look like them.
Hi! At first I´ve got to say that I´m from Spain so , sorry for my english...
I think there are more important things to do than spend your time criticising models...they´re just doing their work! It´s true that lots of models have eating disorders , but not all of them!! I´ve been working as a model since I was 12 years old , an I´ve always been a thin girl , and obviously I´m not perfect( nobody is) , you can see the bones of my shoulders , but in my hips there are no signs of any bones you know...I eat all kind of food , but I´m care about eating too much sweets or too much fried food...the 90% of the food I normally have is home-made food , lots of fruit and vegetables. And I drink a a lot of water. I go to the gym with a personal trainer once hour every day.
As you can see , my habits are not very different from the other´s ones.And related to boys , there are boys who say " hey you´re so beautiful I love your face or your body" abd there are other boys who say "your face is ok , but you´re so thin...you should gain weight".
And that´s all! I love fashion and for me is a pleasure to let my image for a designer , just because I think that gigs they create are pieces of art! Every skirt , every t-shirt , shoes...they spend hours working on them...and they spend hours too thinking about who could be the girl or the boy who best represents the spirit of that creation...so please...stop talking that way!Do you mind if a designer is homosexual or heterosexual? Do you mind if Daria has a skinny body? Look at yourself and try to improve the bad things that exist in your personality or in your body...but let the others do whatever they want to do...
(sorry again for my writing...I know it´s really bad , so I´ll try to learn more in order to explain this kind of things better)
Richard: The need for creativity, talent and business sense in order to succeed in the fashion business is obvious. However, these elements do not require physical masculinization of fashion models. You have focused on the runway. Fashion industry reps repeatedly tell us that the models are skinny because they function as “clothes hangars.” If so, then why should their facial features matter on the runway? Why do they need to have “striking”-as-in-masculinized faces? They are selling clothes. You also need to note that most people and buyers are exposed to fashion imagery in the print media (e.g., magazines), and people can take their time to evaluate a model’s looks and the clothing on her, i.e., there is no need for masculinization in the models with respect to the print media.
Estrogens are actively involved in shaping the facial skeleton and do not merely stunt bone growth. Even androgens have a growth-stunting effect in addition to molding shape in particular ways, though estradiol has a more powerful effect on bone growth than testosterone.
Am I ignoring feminine features in high-fashion models? Whereas a woman can have a combination of masculine-looking and feminine-looking features, a woman cannot simultaneously be overall masculine and overall feminine. Masculinity-femininity is inferred from overall looks since sex hormones are not the only factors shaping looks. High-fashion models are clearly overall masculinized compared to the general female population, and hence cannot be said to have feminine features unless they are feminine, though a masculinized high-fashion model can have a few feminine-looking features. There are plenty of feminine women with full lips, large eyes, thin skin, tiny noses, slender bones, etc., and where is your evidence that high-fashion models, on average, have tinier noses and larger eyes compared to women in general? You have not cited any evidence that, controlling for ancestry, intercanthal distance is greater among high-fashion models or that their cheekbones are more forward projecting compared to the general female population. Submalar fullness? Hollowed-out cheeks are not unusual among runway models. Women’s buttocks are flatter compared to men, on average? This is ridiculous. Whereas men do have larger buttock muscles, the bone structure is more protruding in women and women have more fat in the buttocks, which make female buttocks protrude more than men’s, on average.
As Brenda has said, female high-fashion models will obviously look more feminine than their male counterparts; the femininity of female fashion models should be compared with women in general and especially feminine women. As far as make-up goes, female models in general use make-up, and typically to hide blemishes, make their skin look young and enhance overall looks, which is not achieved by making the face look more masculine among non-fashion models.
Kristin: I am pleased to know that you will not be commenting here anymore. Of all people leaving comments here, yours have been the most incoherent, the least informed and a “delight” to read with respect to grammar and spelling. You could be excused if English were not your native language, but I doubt this, and I am nowhere as bad as you even though English is not my native language. Besides, your comment beginning, "your blatant lack of..." is an accurate description of yourself.
Kristin: Looks like you only want people to be able to set up websites if you agree with what they have to say. Well, keep wishing!
Veronica: Unlike Kaczynski, I am not hiding my name, am not doing anything criminal and have never been diagnosed with a mental illness.
Daniel: I have not implied what you have stated. If you look up the “sexy fashion models?” page, you will encounter the following:
Quote:
In other words, I am acknowledging that some men who have narrowly escaped nonheterosexuality may find some level of masculinization in women appealing; these men have to be classified as heterosexual because they have not indulged in homosexual behavior or experienced same-sex attraction. I have also mentioned that a small minority of the majority group, i.e., lifetime-exclusive heterosexuals will have a preference for somewhat masculinized women. On the same page, I have mentioned that slight masculinization is a correlate of the sexiness of women to heterosexual men. Elsewhere, I have shown comparisons (e.g., 1, 2, 3, 4) and mentioned that the more masculine woman shown will be preferred by a number of heterosexual men because of her more European and finer facial features. Femininity is not the only correlate of beauty. I have seen some high-fashion models with fine and chiseled facial features, and notwithstanding their masculinization, their face is a work of art, and this will attract some heterosexual men, but heterosexual men will prefer a woman with above average femininity and fine facial features to a woman with below average femininity and fine facial features.
Allwomenrock: I know that a woman does not have much control over her face and body structure, but this site is not saying that women should conform to a given look. It is about what kind of looks are suitable among models in various setting and contestants in beauty pageants catering to the general public.
You have a point in that fashion models should come in all forms because they are selling to women that come in a variety of shapes. However, there is an element of exclusivity to high-fashion, which is what makes high-end designer clothing highly desirable. Using models with all shapes is not consistent with conveying an impression of exclusivity, which requires a narrow range of looks among high-fashion models. There are a variety of looks consistent with implying exclusivity, and we know that the adolescent-boy central tendency chosen by fashion designers reflects the dominance of homosexual men in the fashion business. If one were to set up a viable heterosexual alternative to the gay-dominated fashion industry, one will have to use a narrow range of looks among models in order to imply exclusivity, and the most appropriate exclusive look will be of feminine beauty with an emphasis on high standards. Speaking of Victoria’s Secret, you will hopefully agree that given the purpose of wearing lingerie, feminine women are more appropriate for lingerie modeling rather than the mostly masculinized women this company uses.
The myshape site is a good idea, but given that it is targeting the general public, it is selling overpriced stuff. You could buy clothes there to fit your body, but if you wanted clothing that most others couldn’t afford and thereby end up conveying an impression of high status or if you are obliged to convey an impression of high status because you are a rich person and move in upper circles, then you will have to patronize top fashion designers, most of whom are gay and use boyish-looking models. In terms of negative societal consequences, feminine beauty cannot undermine health and will at most underminine body esteem to some extent in some women, which the skinny norm among high-fashion models already does. Therefore, you should have less of an objection to the setting up of a feminine beauty standard. Once again, unless this feminine beauty standard conveys a sense of exclusivity [by virtue of having a narrow range and an emphasis on high aesthetic standards], whereas you could sell clothing using feminine and attractive women as models, you will still have to turn to gay fashion designers in order to buy the most exclusive clothing.
Regarding the two women you pointed out, Katie and Lindsey, respectively, the women indeed do not have narrow rib cages, but they also lack large breasts. So why are they in the attractive women section? Whereas a combination of large breasts and narrow rib cage is an ideal with respect to feminine beauty, these features are not strict requirements for feminine beauty. The two women shown are feminine and attractive notwithstanding their shortcomings. Alessandra Ambrosio herself does not have a broad ribcage, but the woman is far from feminine looking. One needs to consider overall looks. You are mistaken about hourglass-shaped women having broad rib cages. In order to have an hourglass figure, a woman needs to have large breasts, sufficiently wide plus rounded hips and a narrow body in between the breasts and hips, i.e., a tiny waist and small rib cage (see example). There is no need for a woman to have a similar bust and hip circumference in order to have an hourglass figure because the hourglass approximation applies to front view only.
If you have not been able to figure out whether you have broad shoulders or not, chances are that they are normal. Regarding “insults,” an accurate description of the looks of many fashion models and beauty pageant contestants may be seen as insulting, but what can I do if I simply must describe the looks in words? It doesn’t help that English is not my native language and I don’t know how to say it better; you should cut me some slack.
Samantha: Women are fleshier/plumper in terms of body fat than men, but the range of body fat level that would appeal to most men is a subset of the medically normal range; look at the diagrams in this study and note the look most appealing to men in the age range you are most interested in. If you are a white female, you would be best advised to keep your BMI in the low twenties; the BMI is the weight in kilograms divided by the square of the height in meters. If you are a tall woman, then acquiring a 26-inch waist would not be a problem if you correspondingly gain an appreciable amount of fat in the bust and hips, but stick with 25 if you are short. Questions like yours are best answered after a photographic evaluation. You should consider emailing me your pictures, obscuring/cutting out the face if you wish.
I side with Erik. I have never thought high fashion models look striking. In fact, I have always thought they are the blandest looking women in the planet. All people I know used to think the same until supermodels reached the popularity that they have now.
I think Erik did not overlook their feminine features. Of course it is a given that they will have feminine features because they are biological women. However, compared to the average women, they look masculine. That is what Erik is giving emphasis in this website.
Another thing: your suggestion that Erik should instead compare the female runway models to male runway models is INVALID. It does not make any sense to compare two things of different kinds. It's like comparing a monkey to a cat...to see which of them looks more like a monkey. Duh. Of course women would look feminine beside men! There is no question in that. But the female runway models are BIOLOGICAL FEMALES and so they should be compared to other biological females. And compared to the average female, runway models do indeed have the tendency to look like adolescent boys.
I am impressed by and grateful for all your work and research, but your conclusion that fashion designers' decisions (at least when they choose their models) are based solely on their homosexuality is ludicrous. To be a successful fashion designer requires top tier creative talent and top tier business sense. Business sense means knowing how to sell your clothes - and since your fashion line lives or dies on the runway - you better know how to make those clothes look great.
In a fashion show you have fifteen minutes to make an impact on everybody in the room, including those people who are sitting 200 feet away--because they're the ones deciding whether to buy your line.
To make an impact at a distance (and, as Marquart would say - to look recognizably human), a model needs striking facial features--and striking means robust cheekbones, large eyes, a strong jaw and chin, and a strong forehead.
Unfortunately for human biology, striking can resemble masculine because a woman's softer facial features are a direct result of estrogen stunting the developement of her facial skeleton. That is why a woman looks more childlike than a man.
Fashion designers choose models with highly articulated facial skeletons and use them as blank slates, applying cosmetics to achieve any look they want, including super-feminine, while ensuring that the models will still make a strong impression at a distance.
Your argument is also one sided: you only point out the what you call - masculine - facial features of the models - but you ignore their feminine features - large eyes (which also are there to be seen at a distance), large intercanthal distance, great anterior projection of the cheekbones (a major marker of feminity), submalar fullness, tiny noses, full lips, thin skin, tiny frail bones and flatness of the buttocks (this is a major misconception on your part - a man's buttocks are bulging and muscular - a woman's are flat as a result of reduced musculature/lack of testosterone - rent a porn film if you don't believe me.)
Instead of comparing these runway models to non-runway models, you should be comparing them to male runway models - then you will see that they have strong female faces, not male faces.
P.S. Non-runway model women use cosmetics to look more striking, ie to compensate for a less developed face (think about why men do not use them). Are these women trying to look more masculine to attract homosexual men?
This site reminds me of Ted Kaczynski's (aka The Unibomber) manifesto:
http://www.courttv.com/trials/unabomber/manifesto/
You definitely have waaayyy too much time on your hands AND you are insane.
Hmmm, I took a second look at the photos and it now seems to me that Monica, aside from having a better physique than Elle, is prettier.
at first, your site intrigued me, i tried to find room to agree--but your blatant lack of knowledge of the industry, refusal to see the truth smacking you in the face, and muddling good information with personal bias while parading it around as 'expert opinions'--- quite frankly i feel sad for any woman who would email pics of themselves--asking if Erik things they are feminine? are the daft???? there is not one representitive from the industry you relentlessly are criticizing---- and i am sorry---but you really know just a smidge more than the general public (which knows nothing).
don't worry , i won't clog up your sight further trying to challenge the deeply embedded beliefs of a loud but uninformed mouth.
you site is the unfortunate result of the unfiltered, unfettered access of the web to the public.
after looking through your list of "attractive" women, erik, i must say i'm very surprised. it seems like at times you don't even stick to your own claims.
http://www.femininebeauty.info/images/katie.4.jpg
doesn't have a broad rib cage?
http://www.femininebeauty.info/images/lindsey.marshal.3.jpg
doesn't have one either?
what exactly does a broad rib cage look like? except for very pear-shaped women, all women have broad rib cages. hour glasse shape women, in essence, have broad rib cages because their bust is the same size as their hips. only, their lower ribs extend in more than a rectangular/tubular shaped woman, such as alessandra.
the funny thing is, i came upon this site while looking for women who don't have broad shoulders because i didn't know if i have them or not. strangely enough, i still don't know the difference between broad shoulders and non-broad ones. i know what square shoulders are, but all shoulders that extend downward look basically the same unless the bust and shoulders extend outward more than the hips, thereby giving a top heavy or cone appearance.
from reading other posts of yours, i get the jist that you don't want to put women down to be an ass. you just want something mainstream that represents what is considered "very feminine." you actually seem to have some science that backs up your claims. i cannot fault you for that.
but i can fault you about some ways you try to get your message across. putting down women for any reason about their appearance is mean. and what might be considered a more selfish reason for yourself: erik, many are not going to listen to you if use insults. i think if you used your scientific evidence and simply put a picture of a woman with more feminine attributes next to one with more masculine attributes, all this will speak for itself. and it will save you a lot of heartache and needless explanations to people who think you're saying women who don't fit a certain quota aren't attractive, deserve to made to feel beautiful, etc..
look at gisele next to sophia loren and it's obvious to anyone which is the more fem. it's like looking at a rock compared to a mountain and saying, "the rock is smaller than the mountain" to saying "gisele is less feminine than sophia."
It's interesting how you say heterosexual men are ONLY attracted to (your perception of) a "feminine" woman. It's a big generalization to say that it's not in the realm of possibilities that a heterosexual man could be attracted to a high-fashion model's body and/or face. I agree with Hally that the world is diverse and that some men are attracted to certain aesthetics while some are not, and I don't think you can possibly speak for every heterosexual man out there as to their preferences. While yes, most men prefer a very feminine body and face, there are exceptions to the rule, and I think you should keep that in mind.
Appalled: You have not identified any instance of circular logic being used here. What is narrow-minded about lifetime-exclusive heterosexual men preferring feminine women? What would be the point of being heterosexual if heterosexuality made one attracted to physical characteristics closer to the same sex? You need to examine your own logic. Why would a man in fear of his latent homosexuality go through the trouble of creating this site? If a woman created this site to say “real men love women like me,” then this woman would be feminine and attractive, and would be attracting a lot of male attention to start with. How many such women in your estimation would have low self-esteem related to their body?
As far as the solutions to the problems that this site is tackling go, read the solutions page. Telling women that everyone is beautiful in their own way will not help; most people know better, and women at-risk for developing anorexia will generally not be convinced by this statement because they see skinny fashion models making a huge amount of money and having their pictures splashed all over. If there are objective beauty standards that correspond to health, then it is necessary to describe them in some detail to undermine the negative effects of skinny fashion models. Note that negative health behaviors will detract from feminine beauty, not lead to it.
People already know that it is important to be healthy, and health does not correspond to skinniness or obesity, i.e., one cannot simultaneously say that everyone is beautiful in their own way, which would imply that one should accept oneself, and also that one should be healthy, which would imply that those with a body fat level outside the healthy range should do something about it.
The argument here is surely not that men attracted to women who are not examples of feminine beauty are repressed homosexuals. There are feminine women who are not examples of feminine beauty. There are also plenty of women who are neither feminine nor masculine for a woman, but somewhere in the middle. Slight masculinization is even a correlate of the sexiness of women to heterosexual men. However, it should be clear that masculinized women are disproportionately at risk for attracting men who are not lifetime-exclusive heterosexual.
Hally: I have obviously taken into account differences in aesthetic preferences; this entry, along with others, contrasts the central tendency of the preferences of heterosexual men with the preferences of nonheterosexual (homosexual and bisexual) men. Whereas not all heterosexual men are necessarily into large breasts or large buttocks, they are into femininity. Femininity manifests in diverse forms, including women with small breasts; just go through the attractive women section. The most relevant example of the evolution of beauty over the past couple of centuries that you could provide would be one of shape, especially pertaining to masculinity-femininity, but the example you have chosen is of skin color. Depending on the amount of sun exposure, the three women above could be made to vary from pasty white to light brown, i.e., they do not differ on this count. It is true that pale skin was preferred in Europe in the 18th century, but then lower class people had to labor in the sun and got tanned, i.e., pale skin became associated with higher socioeconomic status. After industrialization, when most jobs moved indoors, lower class people became pale because of limited sun exposure and upper class people tanned because they could spend more time outside, i.e., a tan became associated with higher socioeconomic status. Therefore, the principle that a characteristic associated with higher socioeconomic status will be disproportionately preferred has remained; only the superficial manifestation of it has changed, and not permanently. With the cropping up of tanning salons, dihydroxyacetone and other fake tan technologies, tanned skin will increasingly become dissociated with socioeconomic status.
Erik, what bothers me most about your site is that a womans facial and body structure cannot be controlled.
Here, Im now going to stress body issues because this is what the site seems most concentrated on concerning models and the clothing industry. Some women are cone or apple shaped and therefore their bust and waist are simply naturally bigger than their hips. Some women are hour glassed shape and their busts and hips are the same size, with a deep indentation of the waist. Some women are pear shaped and their hips are way bigger than their busts and waists. And some women, like many models seem to be, are rectangular-shaped and their hips and busts are about the same size without such a big indentaion of the waist. Shouldnt clothing models represent all four of these female body structures? Regardless of what most or many men find "most attractive," the clothing is being sold to women. Why should Victoria Secret models represent what is "sexy?" They should represent what all women look like! Models with all body types should be shown so that women with similar body types know whats best for them.
www.myshape.com does a good job of that. girls. And, they totally skipped the models anyway! :-D
I don't even know where to begin or where to post this. This site is filled with circular logic and ludicrous assumptions. No matter how you attempt to shroud your narrow minded pre-determinations that “life time heterosexual males” generally prefer more feminine women, it doesn’t change the fact that its all a bunch of bullshit. It must have taken a lot of time, and I commend you for that, but the rest of this site screams either “I’m a guy who fears my own latent homosexuality so I’m going to make a site whose motto is ‘agree with me or you’re gay’” or “I’m a girl who is a little chunky with low self esteem so I’m going to make a site that says ‘real men love women like me’” Either way it’s a waste of time. In your FAQ, you address this specific question but do nothing to answer it. Instead of defending your position you just point fingers at the fashion industry and say “they are worse, bunch of gays trying to force their man-women on us” Yeah, the fashion industry promotes an unrealistic image of female attractiveness. We get it. That’s been out there for a while. It’s not a surprise. You are not clever. What is your solution? Do we tell women “Hey, its ok. Everyone is beautiful in their own way and its important to be healthy”? No. You tell them that there is an actual objective standard of beauty. Its different, but you probably can’t live up to that either and anyone who finds you attractive is probably just a repressed fag. Good job dipshit. You are out helping the world. Your objectivity is subjective bullshit. Go see a shrink, loser.
Eeew, they say Marianne Berglund is "breathtaking and sensational?" Maybe she does take your breath away - when you see her and gasp at how sickly she looks!
Jen Hunter looks waaaay better. She kind of reminds me of Marilyn Monroe.
I guess you do have a point.
Oh, yeah, and I also agree that Samantha Johnson looks masculine.
I meant 18th century not 16th lol
Listen, I definitely understand your logic here. But you have to take into account peoples differences in aesthetic. Not everyone is going to like women with a large backside and large breasts. Nature loves diversity so of course there is going to be a diverse range in body type and structure. People like different things, imagine how boring this world would be if only one type of woman or man was considered attractive. The definition of beauty most assuredly has evolved. If you were living in 16th century Europe you would prefer a very pale woman wearing a tall white wig with a fake mole on her face. Beauty changes, people change and the world changes and there is nothing wrong with that IT'S GREAT! I'm sorry if I sounded angry, it was'nt really my intention.
Kristin: No high-fashion in Uruguay? This is just nonsense. You may attempt to use your idiosyncratic definition of high-fashion modeling to include only the regions where the top-ranked designers mostly reside, i.e. New York, Paris, Milan, etc., but it is clear that you are beating a dead horse. The fashion industry cannot be absolved of blame because the show that was part of Fashion Week in Uruguay was supposedly not about high-fashion. What in the world was it about?
Regarding Luisel’s age, it is true that a 22-year-old woman who is attempting to start her career as a high-fashion model will most likely be rejected. However, fashion models who are well-established in their teens can easily be found doing high-fashion modeling in their early twenties. Luisel started fashion modeling (on the runway) when she was 18, which would be older than many others, but not too old. Luisel’s sister, Eliana, was 18 when she died...well-within the teenage range most high-fashion models are found in, and Eliana was better established than Luisel; Eliana had been modeling regularly in Argentina.
I have already pointed out that fashion designers generally have a preference for girls in their mid-teens for fashion modeling purposes. You must make an effort to properly read and understand the arguments here prior to commenting and not assume that I know nothing about the fashion world.
Ana Carolina Reston alone shows your criticism to be lacking and flawed. How she lost weight is not relevant to the discussion; what made her lose weight is relevant, and the factor responsible is industry pressure. Ms. Reston was never overweight (big) in a medical sense by a long shot. She started out young, and her slimness made it possible, but the abnormal aesthetic preferences of gay fashion designers meant that she had to be skinnier still in order to end up highly ranked among high-fashion models.
Pages