Edward: You write that if the gays that dominate the fashion industry were motivated merely by personal attraction, then they would be working with actual adolescent males. Do you think gay fashion designers could get away with parading boys in their early adolescence? Besides, if they are going to market clothing to women, it is in their best interest to have such clothing modeled by women instead of boys. There is no need for them to take into account the preferences of heterosexuals since the desirability of designer clothing is such that even if unattractive models are used to model them, people would not want designer clothing any less. Hence, gay fashion designers select models with the looks that they find appealing. It is hardly reasonable to expect them to be honest about why they select skinny and masculine young women, which is that they like the looks of adolescent boys. I am aware of the TV show that you talk about, but it is hardly relevant here since it has nothing to do with women.
You talk about a perceived medium face and body that are used to compare masculine and feminine features and then say that I have omitted this fact when speaking of attractive features. The latter is not true. If you go though the feminine vs. masculine page, you will encounter an average skull and its transformation resulting from masculinization and feminization. On the other hand, you have not referenced any such average, and have assumed that what you perceive as the average is shared by others, too.
Your referencing fine/crude focus in your first comment is not only unclear to me, but it would not be clear to others, too. Now that you have elaborated on what it means, you confirm my suspicion that it is philosophical. Some people will see the vulgar, the wrong and the offensive in the physical form of high-fashion models, whereas others will perceive the same in the form of the partially nude glamour models that I have shown. However, the perception of the physique does not change the form of the physique, as you do acknowledge, and I am focused on the form of the physique. You appear to curiously assume that what induces a fine or crude focus in you does the same for others.
You mention that you have not mentioned angularity in general, but the geometrical forms that you have talked about best lend themselves to describing angular forms, not curves. It would certainly help if you referenced some diagrams that show what [usually rectangular] geometrical forms, mathematical proportions and parallel lines define a beautiful face, but you have not done so. On the other hand, I have cited variation in skull shape resulting from masculinization vs. feminization using more sophisticated methodology that is well-suited to describing complex 3-dimensional forms, namely geometric morphometrics, which assesses the form in 3-D space, transforms it to a 2-dimensional grid, and explains shape variation in terms of deformation of the 2-D grid. Crude facial measures in terms of rectangular forms and parallel lines cannot describe a complex curvaceous 3-D form as well as geometric morphometrics can. If you wish to dispute this, let me see you back up your statement by citing diagrams of ideal facial proportions based on rectangular forms, angles and straight lines, and also provide examples of actual people that satisfy the proportions. You can do this at your home page and paste the link here. I have not argued that beauty and vulgarity are completely culturally subjective, but one has to be naïve to believe that all cultures share the same concept of facial beauty.
I have not portrayed your argument as simplicity being a trait of beauty, but the crude measures with which you would define beauty do not lend themselves to well-describing complex 3-D structures, and it is apparent that you prefer a simiplistic description rather than a more complex description as achieved by geometric morphometrics. You say that crude/formless outward facial convexity is being promoted at this site. This is just absurd. An example of something that lacks form in its whole-body appearance is water; it takes the form of the container, but there is obviously some form to the faces of the women that I have shown. Additionally, the mid-facial region of high-fashion models featured here is, on average, more prominent than in the glamour models shown. So who has a more convex facial profile? Once again, you need to come up with diagrams to illustrate what you mean and show what objective criteria can be used to validate the facial proportions as ideal or very beautiful.
"the gays that dominate the fashion business select the typical looks of high-fashion models because
they find these looks appealing, not because they want the negative outcomes that are documented within this site."
-If the homosexual males that dominate the fashion industry were motivated merely by personal
attraction, then they would be working with actual adolescent males. The real thing is far better
[in the eyes of homosexual males] than these female pseudo-males. Even if they worked with females
[which they do], the results would not be nearly so systematic. They would also have the courtesy to
have regard for heterosexuals, regardless of their personal attraction. Have you ever heard of the
television show 'queer eye for the straight guy'? At the very least, the homosexuals that are allegedly
responsible for the status quo of fashion models have an absence of honesty and conscience.
"You mention that attractive feminine features of the face include the absence of masculinization, enlarged eyes,
enlarged upper cheek flesh, projecting lips, and nose concavity. The problem here is not specifying the reference frame.
Beyond a certain level of lip projection or nose concavity, for instance, you will end up with abnormal and less attractive
looks. "
-There is obviously a perceived 'medium face and body' to which comparisons are made for both
masculinity and femininity, and extreme deviance from that perceived medium form prevents comparison,
and thus attraction, and that is assumed in my list of feminine facial traits. You and most other people also
typically omit the same obvious facts when speaking of attractive features.
"[beauty vs. vulgarity] has little to do with this site since the [attractiveness] addressed
here is that of [femininity]..."
-As I said:
"After looking through Erik's selected high-fashion models and the contrasting 'feminine women', it is
clear that, in the facial features, there is a higher incidence in the fashion models of the traits of true beauty,
and there is a higher incidence in the selected feminine women of the traits of vulgarity"
"It is not at all clear what you mean by a mindset of fine/crude focus."
-False; it is not at all clear to YOU. Still, I will elaborate. They are emotions and fundamental manners of
perceiving. I can use some synonyms and associations. Fineness is related to desire to do right, beauty,
clarity, and constructiveness; crudeness is related to desire to do wrong, vulgarity, blindness (obviously
not referring to physical optic blindness), and disruptiveness. To go into more detail, fineness is divisible
into the 2 multiplicative factors of subtlety and definition, which are the corresponding opposites of the 2
multiplicative factors of crudeness, which are forcefulness and seepingness. Forcefulness divided by
seepingness equals sharpness, which is the inverse (reciprocal) of softness. I hold the aforementioned
description to be more than sufficient for a person to know the fundamental manners of perception that I
am talking about when I say 'fine focus' and 'crude focus'.
"This is less related to the actual nature of beauty than it is to an attempt to describe beauty
with precision, i.e., mathematical rigor."
-I have stated in my previous post that beauty is characterized by the abstract property of fineness
(causing fine focus), which is obviously the defining property of the general traits of human physical beauty
that I listed.
"There are also individual differences with respect to what people consider
beautiful and vulgar, and these differences need to be accounted for in a philosophical discussion such as yours. "
"There have been numerous attempts to achieve such rigor, but the results have been
population-specific, largely applicable to Europeans and at most closely related populations, which should
not be surprising given that the analysts have been of European ancestry."
"Now, European faces are distinguished from non-European faces in terms of greater angularity, and it also
happens to be the case that masculinization results in greater angularity."
-I clearly have never mentioned angularity in general, but only geometrical forms and particularly rectangular
forms, which are facilitated by the specific corresponding straight lines and angles. If certain beautiful traits
or vulgar traits are more common in one race than another, or more common in one gender than another, it
is of no relevance. The general physical traits of beauty and vulgarity themselves, which I listed, obviously
possess form properties that are independent of their perception, and those form properties are directly
translated into their corresponding abstract mindset in the brain, as opposed to being translated first into
different form properties by the brain. I even mentioned that the same abstract visual properties exist in
non-human forms, and that such occurrence in non-human forms likewise facilitates the corresponding
mindsets. Saying that such perception of beauty (fineness) and vulgarity (crudeness) is culturally subjective
is thus no more logically consistent than saying that people of one culture will perceive a soccer ball as
spherical and another will perceive it as cubical.
"...simplistic description
in terms of ... geometric forms."
"...more angular features lend themselves to simplistic description."
"...your preference for [geometrical] facial features..."
-Clear statement of the opposite of the truth, that geometrical forms, particularly rectangular forms, are
not less simple, but MORE simple than the simple formless outward facial convexity promoted on this
website (of course, the female body below the neck does not contain rectangular forms as the face does,
though it can contain mathematical proportions). It is also clear false portrayal that I had stated that
simplicity is a trait of beauty. It also ignores the many other traits of beauty that I listed. There is also the
repetitive false portrayal that I have stated that angularity in general is beautiful, as opposed to geometrical
forms specificly. There is also the discrediting of objective analysis as personal preference. Such false
portrayal behavior indicates that Erik's opposition to the beautiful geometrical facial forms and his
promotion of crude outward convexity on this website is intentional.
Edward: Thank you for your thoughtful analysis, but I will point out its shortcomings. If you have gotten the impression that the power-holders in the fashion business have an ideological agendum of some kind, then this is certainly not my argument. As far as I am concerned, the gays that dominate the fashion business select the typical looks of high-fashion models because they find these looks appealing, not because they want the negative outcomes that are documented within this site.
You talk about beauty in terms of visual or equivalent stimuli that facilitate a mindset of fine focus, and its opposite, i.e., vulgarity, in terms of visual or equivalent stimuli that facilitate a mindset of crude focus. It is not at all clear what you mean by a mindset of fine/crude focus. If this is philosophical then it has little to do with this site since the beauty addressed here is that of the female physical form and [the neurological aspects of] its perception involving comparison with reference templates and stimulation of the reward centers of the brain. There are also individual differences with respect to what people consider beautiful and vulgar, and these differences need to be accounted for in a philosophical discussion such as yours.
You mention that attractive feminine features of the face include the absence of masculinization, enlarged eyes, enlarged upper cheek flesh, projecting lips, and nose concavity. The problem here is not specifying the reference frame. Beyond a certain level of lip projection or nose concavity, for instance, you will end up with abnormal and less attractive looks.
You identify the components of beauty as parallel lines, [usually rectangular] geometrical forms, mathematical proportions, convolutions on some counts, etc. This is less related to the actual nature of beauty than it is to an attempt to describe beauty with precision, i.e., mathematical rigor. There have been numerous attempts to achieve such rigor, but the results have been population-specific, largely applicable to Europeans and at most closely related populations, which should not be surprising given that the analysts have been of European ancestry. Besides, the ideal proportions arrived at do not necessarily have a biological significance.
It is well-known that the great majority of people within a given population find a narrow range of physical variation highly aesthetically appealing, and because of the narrowness of the range, if one looks hard enough to find some patterns and proportions, it should not be difficult to find them, but the problem is that the greater the number of such attempts, the greater the chance that one will find some proportions of possible significance, which would make it difficult to be confident that the proportions arrived at have some deep meaning.
The softness and curvaciousness that characterize femininity do not lend themselves to simplistic description in terms of straight line segments and angular geometric forms. This surely does not mean that they are therefore less attractive than more angular and defined forms. Now, European faces are distinguished from non-European faces in terms of greater angularity, and it also happens to be the case that masculinization results in greater angularity. Therefore, a preference for angularity related to Europeanization can be confounded with a preference for angularity related to masculinization. However, regardless of whether your preference for angular facial features is related to Europeanization or masculinization or both, this preference is because of the way your brain has been shaped, not because more angular features lend themselves to simplistic description.
I have not yet addressed aspects of aesthetics other than those related to masculinity-femininity, but I will eventually address them for European populations to clarify some of the points above.
I have noticed the plainness of some fashion models before, but this website demonstrates that the problem
is much more systematic than I realized. This website also made me aware of the popularity of the
male-to-female transvestite look. The power-holders in the fashion industry clearly have an ideological
agenda of some kind.
note: For the record, I am a life-long exclusive heterosexual male, albeit with little sex drive in general. I
prefer breasts and hip regions of substantial size as most males do.
I have done a great deal of study on general [non-human] beauty, general [non-human] vulgarity, visual
human beauty and vulgarity, and visual human sex-specific attractiveness. If anyone [literally anyone, at least
in the english-speaking world] knows about human beauty and it's relation to masculinity and femininity, it's
me.
First, sex-specific attractiveness is not true beauty. True beauty is equally aesthetic to both genders. True
beauty consists of visual or other sensory aspects that facilitate a mindset of fine focus. Beauty is the
opposite of vulgarity, which facilitates a mindset of crude focus. Vulgarity is attractive just as beauty is,
but for ideologically opposite reasons. Although beauty and vulgarity are equally aesthetic to both genders,
there are some manifestations of beauty and vulgarity that can only occur in one gender or the other (for
example, beautiful mathematical proportions that involve the position of the breasts). That means that a
heterosexual member of one gender can, in applicable cases, enjoy the appearance of a member of the
same gender, but in an entirely non-sexual way, just as a person can enjoy looking at vehicles, architecture,
or nature.
There is no question that the fashion models, as contrasted with the selected feminine women, lack
femininity below the neck.
Attractive facial femininity is characterized by [in addition to the absence of masculine features] enlarged
eyes, enlarged upper cheek flesh, projecting lips, and nose concavity. Attractive facial masculinity is
characterized by [in addition to the absence of feminine features] thick eyebrows, a convex and bony nose,
wide zygomaticus [cheek] bones, a wide and deep jaw bone, and possibly facial hair. Based upon those
listed traits, it is apparent that there is substantial facial masculinization in the fashion models, but not as
much as Erik Holland claims.
After looking through Erik's selected high-fashion models and the contrasting 'feminine women', it is
clear that, in the facial features, there is a higher incidence in the fashion models of the traits of true beauty,
and there is a higher incidence in the selected feminine women of the traits of vulgarity (neither the fashion
models nor the selected feminine women possess substantial true beauty below the neck, at least not on the
whole). The traits of true beauty in humans are: parallel lines, geometrical forms (usually rectangular), and
mathematical proportions, in certain areas (3 traits that also exist in classical and neoclassical architecture);
smallness / narrowness in perceived terminal areas, such as the lower front of the face; and convolution in
certain respects (a trait that also exists in roses). The traits of vulgarity in humans are: random form and
proportion, sloppiness, outward convexity, and largeness / wideness in perceived terminal areas. My
preference is that female models have increased femininity AND increased beauty.
Yasir: Not only have you confirmed that English is not your native language, you have also provided another example showing that this is indeed a problem regarding your understanding the contents of this site. Native English speakers would not get the impression that I have made fun of your English in my previous comment; all that I did was to suggest a possible reason why you seem to have problems with some of my arguments.
Anyway, the expectation that fashion designers will tend to tolerate breast implants if the model is famous is completely reasonable and hardly requires citing peer-reviewed journal articles. Also, where would you get the funding for testing such a lame issue, and even if you do get the funding, which high-profile journal would publish it? I saw Sharon Stone strut on the catwalk once. With the exception of her chest, she has never had the looks of a fashion model, and obviously ended up on stage because of her fame. I also recall seeing an-in-the-neighborhood-of-age-30 Eva Herzigova model clothes in a fashion show. Fashion designers prefer teenage girls, and a "geriatric" model by fashion modeling standards will not be seen on stage unless she is famous enough to attract plenty of attention. Therefore, is it unreasonable to expect that gay fashion designers will tend to tolerate breast implants in famous fashion models?
Yes English is not my native language but that is not the problem. The problem is you keep making stuff up to support your arguments. For example, do you have studies backing your "designers may tolerate implants if the person is famous" point. I don't think so. It is BS.
Since you are starting to make fun of my language, I am not going to be coming back to see your response.
Yasir: This site is not "white only." Whereas the goals of this site are of little to no relevance for non-European populations, some people of all ethnic groups will find some of the contents of this site useful. Just because one section of this site features white women only does not make this site "white only." It never occurred to me to name this site "white feminine beauty," but since you mention it, this name reeks of white supremacism, and I would much rather not attract comments from the deviates who subscribe to this ideology.
Nowhere have I made a big deal about models wanting masculinization; I have said that gay fashion designers prefer masculinized female models. Regarding the fashion models with breast implants, a couple of observations are in order. The central tendency among high-fashion models is to be flat-chested or close. The ones with breast implants are disproportionately involved in modeling swimwear and lingerie, neither of which represent high fashion. If you think about it, somewhat prominent breasts are required for modeling swimwear and lingerie, and the top-ranked sexy models doing such modeling are often so masculine that breast implants hardly make them look feminine and thereby objectionable to the involved homosexual designers. Also, some of the fashion models with breast implants get the implants after they acquire some fame. Since a famous person attracts attention, homosexual fashion designers are expected to tolerate a pseudo-feminine trait in such models in exchange for attracting more attention toward their designs on stage. Additionally, if a model is exactly what a homosexual fashion designer is looking for except for breast implants, he may tolerate the breast implants.
It is also the case that not all fashion designers are homosexual men, and that occasional variety does help attract attention. Breast implants and a more feminine appearance in some fashion models do not undermine the fact that the central tendency among fashion models is to be young, skinny and masculine, thereby approximating the looks of adolescent boys.
There are several key points within this site, not just one main point. All my major arguments are well-supported with citations and pictorial evidence. I will be making my arguments more robust with time. I have cited peer-reviewed journals where necessary. The problem appears to lie with your comprehension given the curious case of your inferring that I have argued about models desiring masculinization. It seems that English may not be your native language.
1. Regarding the exclusion of non-white females and your comment about it being OK to asses the "aesthetic preferences in a given population", yeah it is fine to do if you want. But your site name is not "whitefeminiebeauty", and the this "white only" issue is never mentioned in the purpose of this site. This is WWW.
2. You make a big deal about models and designers wanting "masculinazation". How do you rationalize some models (Ana and Tyra) getting "fake" and "big" breasts? Clearly, if they wanted to be masculine, they would not want "big" breasts. Big breasts are no way masculine. Why would they go through the trouble of plastic surgery to give up their "boyish" looks?
3. I think it you should admit that your main point is really just a conjecture. And you should stop floating it as something more than that. You don't offer any meaningful evidence. May be I missed it but you don't point to any reliable studies that would support your conecture.
Samantha: The information that you have provided is insufficient. All that I can say is that it is unlikely that you lie close to the extremes of the masculinity-femininity scale. I could describe in detail how masculine/feminine you are if you email me clear pictures of yourself.
I have spent the past hour or so looking over your site. I can't remember at this time how I ended up here, but I'm left feeling somewhat personally insulted. I am a girl of 5'10", 140 lbs, a BMI of 20, 38-27-38 measurements, a waist to hip ratio of .71, a bust to waist ratio of .71, and a bust to hip ratio of 1.0, I have natural 38 C/D sized breasts and I wear a size 8 and have an "hourglass" figure. I suppose you would call this masculine, am I right?
Yasir: Fashion supermodels tend to be better looking than many women out there, especially the masculinized ones, and it should not be surprising if a number of men find them attractive, but there are far better and feminine-looking women out there that few people know about, and once the public is better informed, you will see the popularity of fashion supermodels take a nosedive among heterosexual men at-large.
I have best explained the exclusion of non-white women on the FAQ page, which is all that I can do at present, but I will further clarify some issues later on.
You are right that the definition of beauty varies around the world and also within populations, but then populations look different, too. None of this implies that the central tendency of aesthetic preferences in a given population cannot be assessed or have no significance. The great majority of people of European ancestry will find the women shown within the attractive women section of this site much more attractive than the fashion models shown here. Outlier preferences do not undermine the central tendency.
You have mentioned that you find all pictures of Gemma Ward except the first one that I posted attractive. Well, make-up, posing and lighting can make people look better than they are. This is why I posted several pictures of her to show the high level of masculinization in her. The nipple shot is there to show how small her breasts are. Most heterosexual men will prefer bigger breasts.
Eril: Well, all I know is that men (including myself) download a lot of pictures of supermodels because we find them attractive and not because we want to make some gay designers happy. It doesn't matter if *you* label them masculine.
I know you have tried to explain why you don't include non-white women. But I am sorry it just doesn't make sense. Perhaps, you need to explain it better.
I think fundamentally your arguments are narrow minded. There is more than one definition of beauty. People have differnet tastes. Labeling is pointless. For example, I find all but the first picture of Gemma you posted attractive--and you don't. And, it would be pointless for me to say that if you don't find Gemma's exposed nipple attractive (see above), you must not be a "life-time exclusive hetrosexual man".
Yasir: I not only left out Adriana Lima, but also all other non-white women. I have already explained that it is necessary to control for ancestry when comparing masculinity-femininity and attractiveness, and since I have not addressed masculinized and feminized non-white women within this site, it does not make much sense to address the non-white women in the top-25 sexy list. Even among the 15 white women that I addressed, one -- Josie Moran -- turns out to be feminine, and she doesn’t undermine the conclusion that notably masculinized women are heavily overrepresented in the list, and that the other 14 women would not end up anywhere close to a top-25 sexy list based strictly on looks and the preferences of lifetime-exclusive heterosexual men who are well-informed about what kind of feminine and attractive women exist out there. A high prevalence of notable masculinization is also characteristic of the non-white women in the list.
What do you mean by “recommended list”? If you are referring to the attractive women section of this site, only a small number of the women there are blondes; look carefully and you will see the effect of hair dyes and bleach. In any case, hair color is not relevant to this site. The major focus of this site is on skeletal structure, fat distribution and muscle structure (not yet addressed).
Not all high-fashion models are boyish looking, but the central tendency in their looks is very clear. I have certainly not praised the looks of Pamela Anderson; I would never put her in the attractive women section of this site, and in case you haven’t, better read what I have said about the looks of Pamela Anderson.
How “angelic” the face of Gemma Ward is can be seen in the photos below.
Gemma Ward has unusual facial features, as if the genetics of Asians and Europeans were combined in her, making some parts of her face appear feminine. Nevertheless, note clear signs of masculinization in the form of the extent of nasoglabellar curvature, forehead projection, general robusticity of facial skeleton and high cheekbones. The feminine parts of her face are partly pseudo-feminine features related to the strangeness of her face. The photos below clearly show why male homosexual fashion designers find Gemma Ward’s physique appealing.
I am a hetrosexual male. I think there is a lot of good stuff on the site. I will like to make some observations:
1. From your analysis of 25 top sexies women, you left out people like Adriana Lima. Why? She is beautiful even with your own standard and didn't support your point of view. So what if she isn't europeon. The 25 list is probably representative of all men--not just european.
2. All women on your "recommended" list seem to be blondes. Isn't that a wrong message given your charter to "faminism". There are more hair colors than blondes.
3. Your explanation of "boyish" looking supermodels is absurd. Gemma Ward has a face of an angel. I would pick her over Pamella Anderson any time.
Amber: This is a multi-purpose site. The main purpose is to promote feminine beauty, as in increasing the prevalence of feminine and attractive women among top-ranked models and beauty pageant contestants. I would like to promote high aesthetic standards among female models in general. To this extent, I have hardly gotten around to addressing aspects of aesthetics other than those related to masculinity-femininity, but I am just getting started and will address aesthetics more thoroughly eventually. Some of the information within this site should also help protect some young women from believing that they need to be skinny in order to look attractive. There is also some information within this site -- and more to come -- that will help women make themselves more attractive.
You are mistaken about my critiquing every female body form other than the “hour glass ideal.” The range of the highly aesthetically appealing is very narrow compared to the range of physique variation among humans, and pointing out what constitutes the highly aesthetically pleasing does not translate to a criticism of other forms. I am very dependent on pictures of actual people in order to address feminine looks and aesthetics, and toward this purpose, extensive depiction of partial nudity within this site is inevitable.
I'm a bit confused by the purpose of this site. If it's to once again comment on how the popular perception of tall willowy super models gives a false ideal to women, then ok. However you critique every form of the female body, seeming only to approve of the hour glass ideal that suits your tastes. So, what is the point of the site other than to announce to the internet that you prefer nudie mag girls and that the fashion industry is run by homosexuals?
Crystal: I have already addressed your objections, which you seem to have overlooked. It is intuitive that fashion designers would prefer to have their models fit their designs rather than design clothing to fit their models, i.e., one expects a narrow range of physique variation among high-fashion models, but this narrow range could easily be in the feminine and normal weight range. Why is it found in the skinny and masculine range?
Your explanations are inadequate. For instance, if facial masculinization among high-fashion models is supposed to reflect light adequately, then why is it that one often observes pale-skinned high-fashion models on stage? One would almost never see pale skin in a competition -- on stage -- involving fitness models because it is necessary for the skin to be dark/tanned in order to bring out the features. There is also the fact that a number of Northern European high-fashion models clearly have masculine faces in so far as overall face shape is concerned, but have gracile and non-rugged features that could be regarded as pseudo-feminine traits; some examples of such models can be seen here. Gracile and masculinized Northern European models are often used by fashion designers, and why is this the case if more ruggedness would allegedly help bring out facial features on stage? Besides, if one were to use models with gracile but masculine-shaped faces, why not select models with gracile and somewhat more feminine face shapes since this would hardly create a problem with bringing out facial features on stage?
You are right that the models have to be photogenic and appealing to the fashion designers, and they indeed choose women with the looks they find most appealing, i.e., looks approximating those of adolescent boys.
You have correctly pointed out that the camera adds a few pounds. However, if high-fashion models looked somewhat skinny in real life and normal in pictures, it could be believed that the reason they are somewhat skinny in person is so as to appear normal on camera, but high-fashion models typically look very skinny on camera. The explanation of their skinniness is fairly simple: the typical woman that closely approximates the looks of adolescent boys is a young, skinny and masculine woman, and such looks characterize the typical high-fashion model because gay fashion designers disproportionately find the physique of adolescent boys highly aesthetically appealing.
This isn't a hate comment, this is my opition and what I know from doing modeling myself. I read your sections on why High-Fashion Modles look the way they do. Yes I agree with you that they look unhealthy, but there is a reason why desingers have models look like that for the fashion shows. It's not because that some of the desingers are gay, or not. When I was training to be model in Seattle and the people told me. To be an sucessful fashion model they must be around the height of 5'6 and up. And they must be thin enough to fit into a size 3 pants, and have small asses and very little breast. They pick girls like that, because that is the standard size that the top desingers make their clothes. Instead of making many to fit models of different sizes and diffent shape, all girls need to be a certain hieght, certain bulit. High Fashion Models are only there to show off the desinge of the desinger so whomever wants to make their clothes will make them in different sizes, Also most people in the world are tall and around 5'6 and up ( in desinger's eyes ) And same thing goes with the face. They pick models with high features because, it how the lights hits the face. When the light hits the face. The face must still look pleasing, also the face as to work with the make-up and it also has to be photogentic, and appearling when they take the pictures. (The girls are also showing the desingers artict side selling the clothing.) Also why a lot of the modles are skinny is because the camera addes 10 lbs to the body and they still need to look as thin in the camera as they do on the runaway. Before I forget they must obtain that size 3, if they do not, they might not have a job the next day.
I know, how could people put women on stage that look like nothing. Because in the desingers' eyes they see it as logic for their clothing, in their eyes. "It is better to make one dress. them to make many for other people, who are the same size and shape." They aren't seeing it as unheathy. They see it as what they need to show off their clothes. That's why high fashion modles look the way they do from Fitness modles, and other modles that require a body.
But I will admit, most of the models in catalogs like Victoria Secert don't have much of a body either. They have no legs, their bodies are straight. I would much perfer seeing a woman who is healthy and as muscles and tone body and HAS LEGS! It just makes it more appealing in my mind.
David: I have not written that all models have undergone plastic surgery. Anyway, do the breasts of Adriana Lima in the picture below look natural to you?
Next, consider the masculine skeletal build of Ana Beatriz Barros in the two pictures below.
When you come across a woman with the skeletal build of Ana Beatriz Barros and see prominent breasts, it is time to examine the breasts more carefully to see if they are natural, and you can answer yourself how natural the breasts of Ana Beatriz Barros are in the picture below.
I have not addressed Tyra Banks, but since you have raised the issue of her breasts, I might as well address it.
Are Tyra Banks' breasts real or fake? I think that they are fake. Why? When she lays on her back, they don't fall to the side. They go up to her collar bone. She also appears to have had a growth spurt in the chest area in the past few years, most notably on her Sports Illustrated swimsuit cover. I think she's had a very nice breast augmentation.
The quote above was accompanied by the following pictures:
Clearly, her breasts look fake. Breasts as large as in Tyra’s top-right picture above are uncommon in women with her build, the masculinity-femininity of which is completely inconsistent with the size of her breasts. In her book, Tyra Banks even mentions a mustache (tends to correlate with above average androgen levels):
Quote:
Tyra recently discussed her childhood trauma's and current beauty problems in her book Tyra's Beauty Inside & Out, where she talks about her stretch marks, cellulite, mustache, and warts (errr... hardly a book we'd be interested in buying given the sounds of it!). (source)
Tyra Banks has presumably proven on her TV show that she has natural breasts, but she was not independently evaluated by multiple physicians who were not known to each other and randomly selected by a neutral party, i.e., it could very well have been staged.
Read the following statement by Tyra Banks, in reference to the physician examining her breasts on TV:
Quote:
By no means am I against plastic surgery, by no means am I saying that breast implants are a bad thing, but it’s just not a choice that I made ... it’s something that a lot of people think I have and that is so frustrating to me."
But, Tyra Banks apparently also said the following in The Sun:
Quote:
I am totally against plastic surgery. A lot of people think I have breast implants because I have the biggest boobs in the business. But I was a 34C when I was 17...They stay up when I wear a push-up bra. But if people could see me when I come home and take off my bra, how could they think these are fake? (source 1, source 2)
Now, consider the nose of Tyra Banks in reference to her being “totally against plastic surgery”:
Finally, ask yourself how trustworthy is Tyra Banks with respect to acknowledging whether she has had breast implants?
I don´t know if Adriana Lima have Breast Implants but i can guarantee that Ana Beatriz Barros don´t have Breast Implants. Not all Models have. For Example: Tyra Banks: All the people think that she have breast implants but she say in an interview that she hasn´t and you can see that ANa BB and Tyra hasn´t, when you see teir pictures when they were younger. So don´t write that all models make plastic surgery!
David: The article that you mention is not about the masculine women in the list; it is about the masculinity-femininity of the white women in the list compared to the feminine women shown elsewhere within this site. Both Ana Beatriz Barros and Adriana Lima have discernable non-European admixture, and since there is an overlap between trait variation resulting from masculinization-feminization and trait variation due to ethnicity, I have not addressed the looks of the non-white women/women with discernible non-European admixture in the list. On the other hand, neither of these women are particularly feminine; for instance, both use breast implants, which they also happen to need in order to appear more feminine than they are.
In these Article "Who find Fashion-Models sexy" you can read which models are masculinized. My fav. models are Ana Beatriz Barros and Adriana Lima, but they are not in these article, but their you can read their name in the ranking (which place).Have they not masculinized faces like gisele bündchen and heidi klum?
Anon: You have not shown how my arguments are pseudo-scientific. The feminine women that I have shown also have youthful bodies; whether one finds their bodies elegant depends on whether one likes feminine-looking women. It is not the case that the epitome of feminine beauty -- according to me -- is a nude model. As I have explained in my previous comment and elsewhere within this site, I do not have much of a choice when it comes to depicting what feminine looks are about.
are you serious? hilarious. entirely unconvincing pseudo-scientific arguement based primarily on your own personal aestheic preference. judging from the amateur pornstars you chose to illustrate your point, that preference you share with probably many imature teenage boys is utterly common, mediocre and banal.
(thank god the fashion industry is run by gay men!)
(most)of those fashion models are beautiful. while bone structure is certainly emphasised, facial features are quite refined and their bodies are elegant and youthful rather than necessarily mascculine. i find it much more disturbing that your epitome of feminine beauty is 'unavoidably'the kind of graceless cheerleader-girls-gone-wild-type. yuck.
frankly, i'm glad you did not introduce racial factors for fear of reading even more embarassingly muddled and distorted views. ok.well sorry to be harsh but i guess i got annoyed by your website.
Edward: You write that if the gays that dominate the fashion industry were motivated merely by personal attraction, then they would be working with actual adolescent males. Do you think gay fashion designers could get away with parading boys in their early adolescence? Besides, if they are going to market clothing to women, it is in their best interest to have such clothing modeled by women instead of boys. There is no need for them to take into account the preferences of heterosexuals since the desirability of designer clothing is such that even if unattractive models are used to model them, people would not want designer clothing any less. Hence, gay fashion designers select models with the looks that they find appealing. It is hardly reasonable to expect them to be honest about why they select skinny and masculine young women, which is that they like the looks of adolescent boys. I am aware of the TV show that you talk about, but it is hardly relevant here since it has nothing to do with women.
You talk about a perceived medium face and body that are used to compare masculine and feminine features and then say that I have omitted this fact when speaking of attractive features. The latter is not true. If you go though the feminine vs. masculine page, you will encounter an average skull and its transformation resulting from masculinization and feminization. On the other hand, you have not referenced any such average, and have assumed that what you perceive as the average is shared by others, too.
Your referencing fine/crude focus in your first comment is not only unclear to me, but it would not be clear to others, too. Now that you have elaborated on what it means, you confirm my suspicion that it is philosophical. Some people will see the vulgar, the wrong and the offensive in the physical form of high-fashion models, whereas others will perceive the same in the form of the partially nude glamour models that I have shown. However, the perception of the physique does not change the form of the physique, as you do acknowledge, and I am focused on the form of the physique. You appear to curiously assume that what induces a fine or crude focus in you does the same for others.
You mention that you have not mentioned angularity in general, but the geometrical forms that you have talked about best lend themselves to describing angular forms, not curves. It would certainly help if you referenced some diagrams that show what [usually rectangular] geometrical forms, mathematical proportions and parallel lines define a beautiful face, but you have not done so. On the other hand, I have cited variation in skull shape resulting from masculinization vs. feminization using more sophisticated methodology that is well-suited to describing complex 3-dimensional forms, namely geometric morphometrics, which assesses the form in 3-D space, transforms it to a 2-dimensional grid, and explains shape variation in terms of deformation of the 2-D grid. Crude facial measures in terms of rectangular forms and parallel lines cannot describe a complex curvaceous 3-D form as well as geometric morphometrics can. If you wish to dispute this, let me see you back up your statement by citing diagrams of ideal facial proportions based on rectangular forms, angles and straight lines, and also provide examples of actual people that satisfy the proportions. You can do this at your home page and paste the link here. I have not argued that beauty and vulgarity are completely culturally subjective, but one has to be naïve to believe that all cultures share the same concept of facial beauty.
I have not portrayed your argument as simplicity being a trait of beauty, but the crude measures with which you would define beauty do not lend themselves to well-describing complex 3-D structures, and it is apparent that you prefer a simiplistic description rather than a more complex description as achieved by geometric morphometrics. You say that crude/formless outward facial convexity is being promoted at this site. This is just absurd. An example of something that lacks form in its whole-body appearance is water; it takes the form of the container, but there is obviously some form to the faces of the women that I have shown. Additionally, the mid-facial region of high-fashion models featured here is, on average, more prominent than in the glamour models shown. So who has a more convex facial profile? Once again, you need to come up with diagrams to illustrate what you mean and show what objective criteria can be used to validate the facial proportions as ideal or very beautiful.
"the gays that dominate the fashion business select the typical looks of high-fashion models because
they find these looks appealing, not because they want the negative outcomes that are documented within this site."
-If the homosexual males that dominate the fashion industry were motivated merely by personal
attraction, then they would be working with actual adolescent males. The real thing is far better
[in the eyes of homosexual males] than these female pseudo-males. Even if they worked with females
[which they do], the results would not be nearly so systematic. They would also have the courtesy to
have regard for heterosexuals, regardless of their personal attraction. Have you ever heard of the
television show 'queer eye for the straight guy'? At the very least, the homosexuals that are allegedly
responsible for the status quo of fashion models have an absence of honesty and conscience.
"You mention that attractive feminine features of the face include the absence of masculinization, enlarged eyes,
enlarged upper cheek flesh, projecting lips, and nose concavity. The problem here is not specifying the reference frame.
Beyond a certain level of lip projection or nose concavity, for instance, you will end up with abnormal and less attractive
looks. "
-There is obviously a perceived 'medium face and body' to which comparisons are made for both
masculinity and femininity, and extreme deviance from that perceived medium form prevents comparison,
and thus attraction, and that is assumed in my list of feminine facial traits. You and most other people also
typically omit the same obvious facts when speaking of attractive features.
"[beauty vs. vulgarity] has little to do with this site since the [attractiveness] addressed
here is that of [femininity]..."
-As I said:
"After looking through Erik's selected high-fashion models and the contrasting 'feminine women', it is
clear that, in the facial features, there is a higher incidence in the fashion models of the traits of true beauty,
and there is a higher incidence in the selected feminine women of the traits of vulgarity"
"It is not at all clear what you mean by a mindset of fine/crude focus."
-False; it is not at all clear to YOU. Still, I will elaborate. They are emotions and fundamental manners of
perceiving. I can use some synonyms and associations. Fineness is related to desire to do right, beauty,
clarity, and constructiveness; crudeness is related to desire to do wrong, vulgarity, blindness (obviously
not referring to physical optic blindness), and disruptiveness. To go into more detail, fineness is divisible
into the 2 multiplicative factors of subtlety and definition, which are the corresponding opposites of the 2
multiplicative factors of crudeness, which are forcefulness and seepingness. Forcefulness divided by
seepingness equals sharpness, which is the inverse (reciprocal) of softness. I hold the aforementioned
description to be more than sufficient for a person to know the fundamental manners of perception that I
am talking about when I say 'fine focus' and 'crude focus'.
"This is less related to the actual nature of beauty than it is to an attempt to describe beauty
with precision, i.e., mathematical rigor."
-I have stated in my previous post that beauty is characterized by the abstract property of fineness
(causing fine focus), which is obviously the defining property of the general traits of human physical beauty
that I listed.
"There are also individual differences with respect to what people consider
beautiful and vulgar, and these differences need to be accounted for in a philosophical discussion such as yours. "
"There have been numerous attempts to achieve such rigor, but the results have been
population-specific, largely applicable to Europeans and at most closely related populations, which should
not be surprising given that the analysts have been of European ancestry."
"Now, European faces are distinguished from non-European faces in terms of greater angularity, and it also
happens to be the case that masculinization results in greater angularity."
-I clearly have never mentioned angularity in general, but only geometrical forms and particularly rectangular
forms, which are facilitated by the specific corresponding straight lines and angles. If certain beautiful traits
or vulgar traits are more common in one race than another, or more common in one gender than another, it
is of no relevance. The general physical traits of beauty and vulgarity themselves, which I listed, obviously
possess form properties that are independent of their perception, and those form properties are directly
translated into their corresponding abstract mindset in the brain, as opposed to being translated first into
different form properties by the brain. I even mentioned that the same abstract visual properties exist in
non-human forms, and that such occurrence in non-human forms likewise facilitates the corresponding
mindsets. Saying that such perception of beauty (fineness) and vulgarity (crudeness) is culturally subjective
is thus no more logically consistent than saying that people of one culture will perceive a soccer ball as
spherical and another will perceive it as cubical.
"...simplistic description
in terms of ... geometric forms."
"...more angular features lend themselves to simplistic description."
"...your preference for [geometrical] facial features..."
-Clear statement of the opposite of the truth, that geometrical forms, particularly rectangular forms, are
not less simple, but MORE simple than the simple formless outward facial convexity promoted on this
website (of course, the female body below the neck does not contain rectangular forms as the face does,
though it can contain mathematical proportions). It is also clear false portrayal that I had stated that
simplicity is a trait of beauty. It also ignores the many other traits of beauty that I listed. There is also the
repetitive false portrayal that I have stated that angularity in general is beautiful, as opposed to geometrical
forms specificly. There is also the discrediting of objective analysis as personal preference. Such false
portrayal behavior indicates that Erik's opposition to the beautiful geometrical facial forms and his
promotion of crude outward convexity on this website is intentional.
Edward: Thank you for your thoughtful analysis, but I will point out its shortcomings. If you have gotten the impression that the power-holders in the fashion business have an ideological agendum of some kind, then this is certainly not my argument. As far as I am concerned, the gays that dominate the fashion business select the typical looks of high-fashion models because they find these looks appealing, not because they want the negative outcomes that are documented within this site.
You talk about beauty in terms of visual or equivalent stimuli that facilitate a mindset of fine focus, and its opposite, i.e., vulgarity, in terms of visual or equivalent stimuli that facilitate a mindset of crude focus. It is not at all clear what you mean by a mindset of fine/crude focus. If this is philosophical then it has little to do with this site since the beauty addressed here is that of the female physical form and [the neurological aspects of] its perception involving comparison with reference templates and stimulation of the reward centers of the brain. There are also individual differences with respect to what people consider beautiful and vulgar, and these differences need to be accounted for in a philosophical discussion such as yours.
You mention that attractive feminine features of the face include the absence of masculinization, enlarged eyes, enlarged upper cheek flesh, projecting lips, and nose concavity. The problem here is not specifying the reference frame. Beyond a certain level of lip projection or nose concavity, for instance, you will end up with abnormal and less attractive looks.
You identify the components of beauty as parallel lines, [usually rectangular] geometrical forms, mathematical proportions, convolutions on some counts, etc. This is less related to the actual nature of beauty than it is to an attempt to describe beauty with precision, i.e., mathematical rigor. There have been numerous attempts to achieve such rigor, but the results have been population-specific, largely applicable to Europeans and at most closely related populations, which should not be surprising given that the analysts have been of European ancestry. Besides, the ideal proportions arrived at do not necessarily have a biological significance.
It is well-known that the great majority of people within a given population find a narrow range of physical variation highly aesthetically appealing, and because of the narrowness of the range, if one looks hard enough to find some patterns and proportions, it should not be difficult to find them, but the problem is that the greater the number of such attempts, the greater the chance that one will find some proportions of possible significance, which would make it difficult to be confident that the proportions arrived at have some deep meaning.
The softness and curvaciousness that characterize femininity do not lend themselves to simplistic description in terms of straight line segments and angular geometric forms. This surely does not mean that they are therefore less attractive than more angular and defined forms. Now, European faces are distinguished from non-European faces in terms of greater angularity, and it also happens to be the case that masculinization results in greater angularity. Therefore, a preference for angularity related to Europeanization can be confounded with a preference for angularity related to masculinization. However, regardless of whether your preference for angular facial features is related to Europeanization or masculinization or both, this preference is because of the way your brain has been shaped, not because more angular features lend themselves to simplistic description.
I have not yet addressed aspects of aesthetics other than those related to masculinity-femininity, but I will eventually address them for European populations to clarify some of the points above.
I have noticed the plainness of some fashion models before, but this website demonstrates that the problem
is much more systematic than I realized. This website also made me aware of the popularity of the
male-to-female transvestite look. The power-holders in the fashion industry clearly have an ideological
agenda of some kind.
note: For the record, I am a life-long exclusive heterosexual male, albeit with little sex drive in general. I
prefer breasts and hip regions of substantial size as most males do.
I have done a great deal of study on general [non-human] beauty, general [non-human] vulgarity, visual
human beauty and vulgarity, and visual human sex-specific attractiveness. If anyone [literally anyone, at least
in the english-speaking world] knows about human beauty and it's relation to masculinity and femininity, it's
me.
First, sex-specific attractiveness is not true beauty. True beauty is equally aesthetic to both genders. True
beauty consists of visual or other sensory aspects that facilitate a mindset of fine focus. Beauty is the
opposite of vulgarity, which facilitates a mindset of crude focus. Vulgarity is attractive just as beauty is,
but for ideologically opposite reasons. Although beauty and vulgarity are equally aesthetic to both genders,
there are some manifestations of beauty and vulgarity that can only occur in one gender or the other (for
example, beautiful mathematical proportions that involve the position of the breasts). That means that a
heterosexual member of one gender can, in applicable cases, enjoy the appearance of a member of the
same gender, but in an entirely non-sexual way, just as a person can enjoy looking at vehicles, architecture,
or nature.
There is no question that the fashion models, as contrasted with the selected feminine women, lack
femininity below the neck.
Attractive facial femininity is characterized by [in addition to the absence of masculine features] enlarged
eyes, enlarged upper cheek flesh, projecting lips, and nose concavity. Attractive facial masculinity is
characterized by [in addition to the absence of feminine features] thick eyebrows, a convex and bony nose,
wide zygomaticus [cheek] bones, a wide and deep jaw bone, and possibly facial hair. Based upon those
listed traits, it is apparent that there is substantial facial masculinization in the fashion models, but not as
much as Erik Holland claims.
After looking through Erik's selected high-fashion models and the contrasting 'feminine women', it is
clear that, in the facial features, there is a higher incidence in the fashion models of the traits of true beauty,
and there is a higher incidence in the selected feminine women of the traits of vulgarity (neither the fashion
models nor the selected feminine women possess substantial true beauty below the neck, at least not on the
whole). The traits of true beauty in humans are: parallel lines, geometrical forms (usually rectangular), and
mathematical proportions, in certain areas (3 traits that also exist in classical and neoclassical architecture);
smallness / narrowness in perceived terminal areas, such as the lower front of the face; and convolution in
certain respects (a trait that also exists in roses). The traits of vulgarity in humans are: random form and
proportion, sloppiness, outward convexity, and largeness / wideness in perceived terminal areas. My
preference is that female models have increased femininity AND increased beauty.
Yasir: Not only have you confirmed that English is not your native language, you have also provided another example showing that this is indeed a problem regarding your understanding the contents of this site. Native English speakers would not get the impression that I have made fun of your English in my previous comment; all that I did was to suggest a possible reason why you seem to have problems with some of my arguments.
Anyway, the expectation that fashion designers will tend to tolerate breast implants if the model is famous is completely reasonable and hardly requires citing peer-reviewed journal articles. Also, where would you get the funding for testing such a lame issue, and even if you do get the funding, which high-profile journal would publish it? I saw Sharon Stone strut on the catwalk once. With the exception of her chest, she has never had the looks of a fashion model, and obviously ended up on stage because of her fame. I also recall seeing an-in-the-neighborhood-of-age-30 Eva Herzigova model clothes in a fashion show. Fashion designers prefer teenage girls, and a "geriatric" model by fashion modeling standards will not be seen on stage unless she is famous enough to attract plenty of attention. Therefore, is it unreasonable to expect that gay fashion designers will tend to tolerate breast implants in famous fashion models?
Yes English is not my native language but that is not the problem. The problem is you keep making stuff up to support your arguments. For example, do you have studies backing your "designers may tolerate implants if the person is famous" point. I don't think so. It is BS.
Since you are starting to make fun of my language, I am not going to be coming back to see your response.
See ya.
Yasir: This site is not "white only." Whereas the goals of this site are of little to no relevance for non-European populations, some people of all ethnic groups will find some of the contents of this site useful. Just because one section of this site features white women only does not make this site "white only." It never occurred to me to name this site "white feminine beauty," but since you mention it, this name reeks of white supremacism, and I would much rather not attract comments from the deviates who subscribe to this ideology.
Nowhere have I made a big deal about models wanting masculinization; I have said that gay fashion designers prefer masculinized female models. Regarding the fashion models with breast implants, a couple of observations are in order. The central tendency among high-fashion models is to be flat-chested or close. The ones with breast implants are disproportionately involved in modeling swimwear and lingerie, neither of which represent high fashion. If you think about it, somewhat prominent breasts are required for modeling swimwear and lingerie, and the top-ranked sexy models doing such modeling are often so masculine that breast implants hardly make them look feminine and thereby objectionable to the involved homosexual designers. Also, some of the fashion models with breast implants get the implants after they acquire some fame. Since a famous person attracts attention, homosexual fashion designers are expected to tolerate a pseudo-feminine trait in such models in exchange for attracting more attention toward their designs on stage. Additionally, if a model is exactly what a homosexual fashion designer is looking for except for breast implants, he may tolerate the breast implants.
It is also the case that not all fashion designers are homosexual men, and that occasional variety does help attract attention. Breast implants and a more feminine appearance in some fashion models do not undermine the fact that the central tendency among fashion models is to be young, skinny and masculine, thereby approximating the looks of adolescent boys.
There are several key points within this site, not just one main point. All my major arguments are well-supported with citations and pictorial evidence. I will be making my arguments more robust with time. I have cited peer-reviewed journals where necessary. The problem appears to lie with your comprehension given the curious case of your inferring that I have argued about models desiring masculinization. It seems that English may not be your native language.
Erik: I want to make a few more points here.
1. Regarding the exclusion of non-white females and your comment about it being OK to asses the "aesthetic preferences in a given population", yeah it is fine to do if you want. But your site name is not "whitefeminiebeauty", and the this "white only" issue is never mentioned in the purpose of this site. This is WWW.
2. You make a big deal about models and designers wanting "masculinazation". How do you rationalize some models (Ana and Tyra) getting "fake" and "big" breasts? Clearly, if they wanted to be masculine, they would not want "big" breasts. Big breasts are no way masculine. Why would they go through the trouble of plastic surgery to give up their "boyish" looks?
3. I think it you should admit that your main point is really just a conjecture. And you should stop floating it as something more than that. You don't offer any meaningful evidence. May be I missed it but you don't point to any reliable studies that would support your conecture.
Samantha: The information that you have provided is insufficient. All that I can say is that it is unlikely that you lie close to the extremes of the masculinity-femininity scale. I could describe in detail how masculine/feminine you are if you email me clear pictures of yourself.
I have spent the past hour or so looking over your site. I can't remember at this time how I ended up here, but I'm left feeling somewhat personally insulted. I am a girl of 5'10", 140 lbs, a BMI of 20, 38-27-38 measurements, a waist to hip ratio of .71, a bust to waist ratio of .71, and a bust to hip ratio of 1.0, I have natural 38 C/D sized breasts and I wear a size 8 and have an "hourglass" figure. I suppose you would call this masculine, am I right?
Yasir: Fashion supermodels tend to be better looking than many women out there, especially the masculinized ones, and it should not be surprising if a number of men find them attractive, but there are far better and feminine-looking women out there that few people know about, and once the public is better informed, you will see the popularity of fashion supermodels take a nosedive among heterosexual men at-large.
I have best explained the exclusion of non-white women on the FAQ page, which is all that I can do at present, but I will further clarify some issues later on.
You are right that the definition of beauty varies around the world and also within populations, but then populations look different, too. None of this implies that the central tendency of aesthetic preferences in a given population cannot be assessed or have no significance. The great majority of people of European ancestry will find the women shown within the attractive women section of this site much more attractive than the fashion models shown here. Outlier preferences do not undermine the central tendency.
You have mentioned that you find all pictures of Gemma Ward except the first one that I posted attractive. Well, make-up, posing and lighting can make people look better than they are. This is why I posted several pictures of her to show the high level of masculinization in her. The nipple shot is there to show how small her breasts are. Most heterosexual men will prefer bigger breasts.
Eril: Well, all I know is that men (including myself) download a lot of pictures of supermodels because we find them attractive and not because we want to make some gay designers happy. It doesn't matter if *you* label them masculine.
I know you have tried to explain why you don't include non-white women. But I am sorry it just doesn't make sense. Perhaps, you need to explain it better.
I think fundamentally your arguments are narrow minded. There is more than one definition of beauty. People have differnet tastes. Labeling is pointless. For example, I find all but the first picture of Gemma you posted attractive--and you don't. And, it would be pointless for me to say that if you don't find Gemma's exposed nipple attractive (see above), you must not be a "life-time exclusive hetrosexual man".
Yasir: I not only left out Adriana Lima, but also all other non-white women. I have already explained that it is necessary to control for ancestry when comparing masculinity-femininity and attractiveness, and since I have not addressed masculinized and feminized non-white women within this site, it does not make much sense to address the non-white women in the top-25 sexy list. Even among the 15 white women that I addressed, one -- Josie Moran -- turns out to be feminine, and she doesn’t undermine the conclusion that notably masculinized women are heavily overrepresented in the list, and that the other 14 women would not end up anywhere close to a top-25 sexy list based strictly on looks and the preferences of lifetime-exclusive heterosexual men who are well-informed about what kind of feminine and attractive women exist out there. A high prevalence of notable masculinization is also characteristic of the non-white women in the list.
What do you mean by “recommended list”? If you are referring to the attractive women section of this site, only a small number of the women there are blondes; look carefully and you will see the effect of hair dyes and bleach. In any case, hair color is not relevant to this site. The major focus of this site is on skeletal structure, fat distribution and muscle structure (not yet addressed).
Not all high-fashion models are boyish looking, but the central tendency in their looks is very clear. I have certainly not praised the looks of Pamela Anderson; I would never put her in the attractive women section of this site, and in case you haven’t, better read what I have said about the looks of Pamela Anderson.
How “angelic” the face of Gemma Ward is can be seen in the photos below.
Gemma Ward has unusual facial features, as if the genetics of Asians and Europeans were combined in her, making some parts of her face appear feminine. Nevertheless, note clear signs of masculinization in the form of the extent of nasoglabellar curvature, forehead projection, general robusticity of facial skeleton and high cheekbones. The feminine parts of her face are partly pseudo-feminine features related to the strangeness of her face. The photos below clearly show why male homosexual fashion designers find Gemma Ward’s physique appealing.
I am a hetrosexual male. I think there is a lot of good stuff on the site. I will like to make some observations:
1. From your analysis of 25 top sexies women, you left out people like Adriana Lima. Why? She is beautiful even with your own standard and didn't support your point of view. So what if she isn't europeon. The 25 list is probably representative of all men--not just european.
2. All women on your "recommended" list seem to be blondes. Isn't that a wrong message given your charter to "faminism". There are more hair colors than blondes.
3. Your explanation of "boyish" looking supermodels is absurd. Gemma Ward has a face of an angel. I would pick her over Pamella Anderson any time.
Amber: This is a multi-purpose site. The main purpose is to promote feminine beauty, as in increasing the prevalence of feminine and attractive women among top-ranked models and beauty pageant contestants. I would like to promote high aesthetic standards among female models in general. To this extent, I have hardly gotten around to addressing aspects of aesthetics other than those related to masculinity-femininity, but I am just getting started and will address aesthetics more thoroughly eventually. Some of the information within this site should also help protect some young women from believing that they need to be skinny in order to look attractive. There is also some information within this site -- and more to come -- that will help women make themselves more attractive.
You are mistaken about my critiquing every female body form other than the “hour glass ideal.” The range of the highly aesthetically appealing is very narrow compared to the range of physique variation among humans, and pointing out what constitutes the highly aesthetically pleasing does not translate to a criticism of other forms. I am very dependent on pictures of actual people in order to address feminine looks and aesthetics, and toward this purpose, extensive depiction of partial nudity within this site is inevitable.
I'm a bit confused by the purpose of this site. If it's to once again comment on how the popular perception of tall willowy super models gives a false ideal to women, then ok. However you critique every form of the female body, seeming only to approve of the hour glass ideal that suits your tastes. So, what is the point of the site other than to announce to the internet that you prefer nudie mag girls and that the fashion industry is run by homosexuals?
Mmmm, Cindy is luscious!
Crystal: I have already addressed your objections, which you seem to have overlooked. It is intuitive that fashion designers would prefer to have their models fit their designs rather than design clothing to fit their models, i.e., one expects a narrow range of physique variation among high-fashion models, but this narrow range could easily be in the feminine and normal weight range. Why is it found in the skinny and masculine range?
Your explanations are inadequate. For instance, if facial masculinization among high-fashion models is supposed to reflect light adequately, then why is it that one often observes pale-skinned high-fashion models on stage? One would almost never see pale skin in a competition -- on stage -- involving fitness models because it is necessary for the skin to be dark/tanned in order to bring out the features. There is also the fact that a number of Northern European high-fashion models clearly have masculine faces in so far as overall face shape is concerned, but have gracile and non-rugged features that could be regarded as pseudo-feminine traits; some examples of such models can be seen here. Gracile and masculinized Northern European models are often used by fashion designers, and why is this the case if more ruggedness would allegedly help bring out facial features on stage? Besides, if one were to use models with gracile but masculine-shaped faces, why not select models with gracile and somewhat more feminine face shapes since this would hardly create a problem with bringing out facial features on stage?
You are right that the models have to be photogenic and appealing to the fashion designers, and they indeed choose women with the looks they find most appealing, i.e., looks approximating those of adolescent boys.
You have correctly pointed out that the camera adds a few pounds. However, if high-fashion models looked somewhat skinny in real life and normal in pictures, it could be believed that the reason they are somewhat skinny in person is so as to appear normal on camera, but high-fashion models typically look very skinny on camera. The explanation of their skinniness is fairly simple: the typical woman that closely approximates the looks of adolescent boys is a young, skinny and masculine woman, and such looks characterize the typical high-fashion model because gay fashion designers disproportionately find the physique of adolescent boys highly aesthetically appealing.
This isn't a hate comment, this is my opition and what I know from doing modeling myself. I read your sections on why High-Fashion Modles look the way they do. Yes I agree with you that they look unhealthy, but there is a reason why desingers have models look like that for the fashion shows. It's not because that some of the desingers are gay, or not. When I was training to be model in Seattle and the people told me. To be an sucessful fashion model they must be around the height of 5'6 and up. And they must be thin enough to fit into a size 3 pants, and have small asses and very little breast. They pick girls like that, because that is the standard size that the top desingers make their clothes. Instead of making many to fit models of different sizes and diffent shape, all girls need to be a certain hieght, certain bulit. High Fashion Models are only there to show off the desinge of the desinger so whomever wants to make their clothes will make them in different sizes, Also most people in the world are tall and around 5'6 and up ( in desinger's eyes ) And same thing goes with the face. They pick models with high features because, it how the lights hits the face. When the light hits the face. The face must still look pleasing, also the face as to work with the make-up and it also has to be photogentic, and appearling when they take the pictures. (The girls are also showing the desingers artict side selling the clothing.) Also why a lot of the modles are skinny is because the camera addes 10 lbs to the body and they still need to look as thin in the camera as they do on the runaway. Before I forget they must obtain that size 3, if they do not, they might not have a job the next day.
I know, how could people put women on stage that look like nothing. Because in the desingers' eyes they see it as logic for their clothing, in their eyes. "It is better to make one dress. them to make many for other people, who are the same size and shape." They aren't seeing it as unheathy. They see it as what they need to show off their clothes. That's why high fashion modles look the way they do from Fitness modles, and other modles that require a body.
But I will admit, most of the models in catalogs like Victoria Secert don't have much of a body either. They have no legs, their bodies are straight. I would much perfer seeing a woman who is healthy and as muscles and tone body and HAS LEGS! It just makes it more appealing in my mind.
David: I have not written that all models have undergone plastic surgery. Anyway, do the breasts of Adriana Lima in the picture below look natural to you?
Next, consider the masculine skeletal build of Ana Beatriz Barros in the two pictures below.
When you come across a woman with the skeletal build of Ana Beatriz Barros and see prominent breasts, it is time to examine the breasts more carefully to see if they are natural, and you can answer yourself how natural the breasts of Ana Beatriz Barros are in the picture below.
I have not addressed Tyra Banks, but since you have raised the issue of her breasts, I might as well address it.
Here is a quote taken from goodplasticsurgery.com:
Quote:
The quote above was accompanied by the following pictures:
Clearly, her breasts look fake. Breasts as large as in Tyra’s top-right picture above are uncommon in women with her build, the masculinity-femininity of which is completely inconsistent with the size of her breasts. In her book, Tyra Banks even mentions a mustache (tends to correlate with above average androgen levels):
Quote:
Tyra Banks has presumably proven on her TV show that she has natural breasts, but she was not independently evaluated by multiple physicians who were not known to each other and randomly selected by a neutral party, i.e., it could very well have been staged.
Read the following statement by Tyra Banks, in reference to the physician examining her breasts on TV:
Quote:
But, Tyra Banks apparently also said the following in The Sun:
Quote:
Now, consider the nose of Tyra Banks in reference to her being “totally against plastic surgery”:
Finally, ask yourself how trustworthy is Tyra Banks with respect to acknowledging whether she has had breast implants?
I don´t know if Adriana Lima have Breast Implants but i can guarantee that Ana Beatriz Barros don´t have Breast Implants. Not all Models have. For Example: Tyra Banks: All the people think that she have breast implants but she say in an interview that she hasn´t and you can see that ANa BB and Tyra hasn´t, when you see teir pictures when they were younger. So don´t write that all models make plastic surgery!
David: The article that you mention is not about the masculine women in the list; it is about the masculinity-femininity of the white women in the list compared to the feminine women shown elsewhere within this site. Both Ana Beatriz Barros and Adriana Lima have discernable non-European admixture, and since there is an overlap between trait variation resulting from masculinization-feminization and trait variation due to ethnicity, I have not addressed the looks of the non-white women/women with discernible non-European admixture in the list. On the other hand, neither of these women are particularly feminine; for instance, both use breast implants, which they also happen to need in order to appear more feminine than they are.
In these Article "Who find Fashion-Models sexy" you can read which models are masculinized. My fav. models are Ana Beatriz Barros and Adriana Lima, but they are not in these article, but their you can read their name in the ranking (which place).Have they not masculinized faces like gisele bündchen and heidi klum?
Anon: You have not shown how my arguments are pseudo-scientific. The feminine women that I have shown also have youthful bodies; whether one finds their bodies elegant depends on whether one likes feminine-looking women. It is not the case that the epitome of feminine beauty -- according to me -- is a nude model. As I have explained in my previous comment and elsewhere within this site, I do not have much of a choice when it comes to depicting what feminine looks are about.
are you serious? hilarious. entirely unconvincing pseudo-scientific arguement based primarily on your own personal aestheic preference. judging from the amateur pornstars you chose to illustrate your point, that preference you share with probably many imature teenage boys is utterly common, mediocre and banal.
(thank god the fashion industry is run by gay men!)
(most)of those fashion models are beautiful. while bone structure is certainly emphasised, facial features are quite refined and their bodies are elegant and youthful rather than necessarily mascculine. i find it much more disturbing that your epitome of feminine beauty is 'unavoidably'the kind of graceless cheerleader-girls-gone-wild-type. yuck.
frankly, i'm glad you did not introduce racial factors for fear of reading even more embarassingly muddled and distorted views. ok.well sorry to be harsh but i guess i got annoyed by your website.
Pages