Eric: Arnold Schwarzenegger is not Northern European and he doesn’t look like one. His head is flattened on the back, his mouth is protruding, etc.
Eric, could you explain this? I've always assumed Arnold to be the epitome of the North European male (or at least as presented). Could you elaborate on your reasons why you assume him to not be so?
Ok so 15in shoulders are not to broad for my height and frame?Domenica from Domai
has a body very much like mine to.But i would have thought my measurements would have mattered.
I am glad to hear they have finally come to this conclusion, I was getting tired to see perfect bodies on every ad. Of course a more normal looking body sells better, the one buying the products is able to picture himself wearing those clothes. A good advertising campaign combined with a unique promotional items can make wonders!
Trish: You are posting in a place where apparently anything goes; the comments threads have been trashed in some other places… so what do I say to whether this is an appropriate place to leave your questions? You find a place where it seems appropriate.
I read the article you linked, but it does not cite evidence of many female fashion models not being biological females. The author uses their looks, which in the given context means secondary sexual characteristics, but biological sex is not inferred from secondary sexual characteristics. A biological female has female genitalia and lacks a Y chromosome, i.e., a female is defined in terms of concordance between these two variables; it does not matter whether her looks apart from the genitals are not those of a typical biological female.
The author mentions a rumor about Gisele Bundchen not being a woman and that Leonardo DiCaprio broke up with her after he learned that this is the reason why she could not have children. This rumor is understandable because she hardly looks like a woman, but Gisele has recently given birth to a child; the article is from 2008. I do not believe that this childbirth was faked as you can find paparazzi pictures of her swollen belly, in various stages of pregnancy. But consistent with Gisele not being feminine, you will note that even in the later stages of pregnancy, when she added pounds of fat, her breasts remained small, which some people in the media specifically noted.
The author ignores that Leonardo DiCaprio does not strike one as an individual who would break up with a woman after learning that “she” is a man or has no sex. Here you can see pictures of his girlfriend for quite some time, Bar Refaeli, shot by paparazzi (hence devoid of posing):
Given DiCaprio’s tastes, if it is not public knowledge that the person he is dating is not a she then it is unlikely that he would break up with “her” if he learns that this individual is not a biological female.
Tom Brady, with whom Gisele ended up after Dicaprio, appears to be in a similar boat. Here is a picture of Bridget Moynahan, with whom Brady had a child (shown) before his child with Gisele; a picture with Gisele is on the right:
In Bridget Moynahan you have another individual who hardly looks like a biological female if you go by secondary sexual characteristics, but this individual is apparently one.
You can see this more generally in an Australian study that attempted to measure androgen levels in a representative sample [from Victoria, Australia] of disease-free Australian women. The authors had 1,423 women complete the study, and among these women 595 could be designated as a reference group: http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/full/90/7/3847 . The authors noted that several of the women in the reference group had high testosterone/androgen levels consistent with some disease, but these women had no diseases, no history of acne/hirsutism/polycystic-ovarian-syndrome, and all denied taking anabolic androgenic steroids. If you were to randomly draw 1,500 people, most of the time you will not find a single individual without a sex among them, and in this study, any such individual would have been eliminated. This study did not comment on the looks of the women, but just as the hormone levels suggest, there are undoubtedly plenty of biological females out there—to satisfy the interests of fashion designers—who barely or do not look like biological females if we are limited to guessing sex without looking at their genitals. Hence, if you see someone like Gisele in female clothing, or more generally a high-fashion model modeling women’s clothes, the default assumption should be that the person is a biological female.
I have a body and face a lot like this girls.I have shoulders that are 15in wide an over bust of 32in,and bust size of 34 1/2in with a 34b cup,underbust of 30in and a waist size of 26in with 37 1/2 in hips.I am 5ft 8in tall as well do you think that i am normal to feminine or nirmal to masculine?I have more round eyebrows and a smaller chin and my shoe size is an 8.Please let me know as soon as you can.
Please excuse me if I am not replying to the correct thread; I am a bit confused by the reply process on the site.
Below is a link to some interesting commentary on hermaphroditism in the fashion world. Sadly, I suspect that the presence of hermaphroditic fashion models may be more prevalent than one might suspect. In the case of Gisele Bundchen, the uninformed observer might easily mistake her for a transsexual, if not merely an androgynous female. Many of the 'beauties' on the high fashion runways appear even more masculinized than she does. We can only guess at the likelihood of androgyny in these individuals. I agree with your statement that some women with masculine characteristics have a certain attractiveness; however, many androgynous models are generally ghastly to behold, and I shudder to think that they are forming any kind of gold standard of attractiveness for our young women.
Casual, light, alcohol-only or weekend smoker or not, one is still addicted to nicotine no matter the number of cigarettes they consume each day. Perhaps smokers who find another look upon them as ‘kindred spirits’ in this increasingly anti-smoking world, hence, smokers also find other smokers more attractive.
Flora: If the tallness, broad shoulders and higher cheekbones are not caused by masculinization, then the woman will not look masculine. A woman’s height does not offer useful clues about how feminine she is and tends to be ignored or deemphasized by men: http://www.femininebeauty.info/height-and-appeal-of-women
Similarly, it takes more than broad shoulders to make a woman look masculine. Keeley Hazell is a good example. She has broad shoulders and a backside that is not so prominent, yet is admired by a large number of straight men. You can contrast her with a broad-shouldered woman who is admired by a lot of gay fashion designers to note why broad shoulders and one or two additional features that by themselves looks less feminine than average are not sufficient to make a woman look masculine: http://www.femininebeauty.info/victorias-secret-ana-beatriz-barros
Femininity is not synonymous with attractiveness in women though, in the absence of physical defects, it is the most important correlate of beauty in women. This is one reason why some less feminine women, including those that could hardly be described as feminine compared to women in general, can exceed the attractiveness of more feminine women. However, most of the time more feminine women will be more attractive.
Aside from this, sometimes I have posted pictures of women whose looks I like but their pictures hardly serve any purpose as far as this site goes, which I usually identify as such, and if these women are not so feminine, then just take it as editorial discretion that may or may not have any bearing on what other men prefer.
Sexual dimorphism vs. ethnicity
How does one control for ethnicity when assessing whether a feature is more or less feminine? This is achieved by accounting for the correlation structures underlying ethnic background and masculinity-femininity. As an example, women tend to have thinner noses than men on average. But within any sex, nose thickness varies greatly. Hence if I were to give you a value of nose thickness and ask you to guess the sex of the person, you will be wrong often. On the other hand, when one observes faces, most of the time it is easy to tell the sex, which is because women have thinner noses, shorter chins, less prominent brows, etc.… there is a correlation structure of shapes associated with a sex [or ethnic group].
Using statistical tools, it is possible to describe complex shapes (i.e., account for correlation structures) with precision and separate shape variation resulting from ethnic variation from that resulting from masculinization-feminization. See here for a discussion of the statistical methodology: http://www.femininebeauty.info/marquardt-phi-mask-shape-comparison
See here for a discussion of how this methodology allows one to clearly show that some changes in shape variables that are associated with greater attractiveness and involve facial features that are known to be influenced by sex hormones are nevertheless not caused by masculinization or feminization: http://www.femininebeauty.info/jaw-shape-preference
On the other hand, in practice, going to this length may not be necessary; if you know a few things about shape variation related to sexual dimorphism and ethnic variation, then you can separate some shape variables in your head. For instance, East Asian noses tend to be less prominent than European noses in side view, which is consistent with greater feminization or lesser masculinization. East Asian noses tend to be wider in the fleshy part, which is consistent with greater masculinization or lesser feminization. Since sex hormones have global effects, how can they cause greater masculinization of one part and greater feminization of another? The answer could be one of several possibilities. One is that sex hormone receptors (sex hormones need to bind to certain receptors in order to effect change) in different regions have different sensitivities. Another possibility is that the population difference in the correlation structure (nose prominence vs. nose thickness of the fleshy part) does not result from masculinization-feminization.
How do we decide between the two possibilities? Look at additional features: the lowering of the region where the nose meets the forehead in East Asians, wider-spaced eyes in East Asians but narrower noses in the region where the nose meets the forehead, etc. The odds that many of these population differences are accounted for by differing sensitivity to sex hormones and either greater masculinization/lesser feminization or greater feminization/lesser masculinization in one population are lower than the differences resulting from genetic differences not involving masculinization-feminization. In addition, some differences could not possibly result from a change in masculinization or feminization (e.g., many shorter East Asian women have larger jaws than some taller European men and there is no way this is caused by these European men being less feminine than the East Asian women). So you can safely figure that a number of population differences you are looking at result from factors other than masculinization-feminization, which can be confirmed in other ways (hormonal profiles, etc.).
Women and masculinization with aging
Why do women tend to look more masculine with aging? Past maturity (around age 25), facial growth does not stop and some bony facial growth and thickening of the nose contributes to a more robust look, which tends to make the woman look more masculine.
Post menopause, estrogen levels decline significantly, but testosterone levels do not decline to the same extent, which contributes to reduced feminization.
Then there is childbirth, after which women tend not to return to waists that were as thin as before.
Hermaphrodites among fashion models?
Humans without a sex are less than 0.02% of the population and hermaphrodites a minority among them. I doubt modeling agencies could find a sufficient number of hermaphrodites that also happen to look like fashion models. Nearly all female fashion models should be biological females. In rare cases a man (e.g., Andrej Pejic) or a male-to-female transsexual may be used to models women’s clothes.
I highly suggest whoever made this revisit it, 13 is the best for both sexes in my opinion, short stubby legs is not an admirable trait in men. This even makes sense evolutionarily.
I find your site very interesting and informative, as well as unusually well-written and thoughtful. I don't agree with everything you write, but that's the nature of public discourse. I did have a question: Although hormones may influence the appearance of masculinity/femininity both before and after birth, what role does that leave for hereditary bone structure? If one inherits traits of being tall, broad-shouldered, high-cheekboned, etc, even if the hormonal balance is perfectly ordinary for a woman, the woman will still appear more "masculine" at all ages according to your standards. I do understand, of course, that hormonal balance can be inherited as well as bone structure, but let's just say this hypothetical woman has the hormonal balance for excellent fertility and normal superficial features (developed breasts and hips, level of body fat, etc). Would this woman truly be less desirable from an evolutionary standpoint? Nordic people, for example, tend to follow this taller "supermodel" body type, but they seem to have been reproducing just fine for quite a long time.
I found this harsh but I see where you are coming from. I do think she's attractive (I'm a straight female) however I don't understand why she lies about her measurements: she claims to be 35-23-35.5. That would make her hip to waist ratio .66 which would mean a more defined (meaning small) in comparison to her hips than many hourglass and pear shaped women. Nothing wrong with having a thick waist IMO but don't LIE about it when we can all see you in your undies!
Thanks for your work. I enjoy the site. A few questions:
By definition, are not feminine women more attractive than not-so-feminine women? Why do we see less feminine women occasionally described as attractive on your website, then?
How do you control for ethnicity/race when assessing specific physical characteristics associated with more or less feminine appearance?
You mention that women develop more masculine characteristics as they age. Can you elaborate?
Can we argue that some of the masculinized women who are successful fashion models (selected by homosexual men) are in fact not women at all, but hermaphrodites with a masculinized appearance to which no feminine women could or would want to aspire?
fashion you mean THAT strange inaccessible thing you are claiming to be occupied by the homosexuals! Man, if there is one thing I can tell is that fashion is an art and it is a fact that the art is THE homosexual thing since like ALWAYS!!!! listen, from Da Vinci to Warhol they are all gays, the fact that you do not APPRECIATE or not able to APPRECIATE art as an expression of a human soul does not make them idiotic! How many people think they can paint like Picasso (counting my mom must be like a billion). The model are not chosen for their beauty but for impact of their features on the people. Everybody knows Kate Moss is not beautiful, but she is...SMASHING... yeah she smashes those little cute monkeys that I see in you attractive list. Fashion is like art i.e. it is not for everybody. Hahahahahaaha.
Sophie Howard is quite possibly the prettiest glamour model currently in the business. The suggestion that she is in any way masculine looking, or ugly, is ludicrous.
I have been researching human proportions for the purposes of drawing and can not seem to find any scientific classification system on body types and names for those types. I am interested in finding factual documentation with reference material and classifications of body types in humans for reference.
I am hoping it will be a classification with proper names subdivided by gender ethnic and or ancestral genetic differences wich are traits in certain peoples.
If anyone knows a good resource material, please reply to this post. thanks.
Anyone who has anything negative to say about homosexuals (no matter how much evidence is supplied - from peer reviewed journals) is hiding his homosexuality behind 'homophobia' (an invented word).
Similarly, anyone who dares to question the supposed beauty of fashion models (and offers genuinely more feminine - and more attractive - alternatives) is a misogynist.
You effectively make the point that since in utero the differences between male and female is (apparently) small.
This is entirely irrelevant to the whole point of the site.
The issue is not about 'over analyz(ing)' women. It is specifically aimed at demonstrating that high fashion models are not true reflections of 'feminine beauty' - due primarily to the tastes of the homosexuals that dominate high end fashion.
As to your statement re: "women and their endless and myriad forms of beauty", this is a strange thing to say given the near uniformity of masculinized women ("androgynous; boyish; manly") featured in the fashion industry.
Perhaps one can psychoanalyze you based upon your statement. Given your claim that "[men and women] are all pretty much alike" perhaps you are closeted?
Whoever created this website is a perv and an ignorant sick racist. The section on beauty pageants with all these africans that u were comparing to modern white women really disgusted me!
If anyone knows anything about human embryology, anatomy and physiology and linguistic psychology, three facts rise to the surface.
1) Before cell specialization In utero, there is virtually no difference between males and females. After cell specialization, there is a 2% difference in form, but not in function-which brings us to...
2) We are all pretty much the alike, with varying degrees of sameness. Men have glans, women have clitorises, men have a penile shaft, women have a vaginal canal, men have testicles, women have ovaries, men have nipples, women have nipples etc. etc. etc.
3) The language used by the author Erik in this article, points to the fact that he is most likely closeted and misogynistic. It's all there in word choice, placement and repetition - an example-
Erik states to commenter Tany,
"Look at it this way. If homosexuals want to have magazines, fashion shows and beauty pageants featuring masculinized women, including women who look like male transvestites, male-to-female transsexuals and eunuchs, they can very well have these things, but there should be at least one prominent mainstream outlet where feminine beauty is appreciated for those who are enamored by feminine beauty. There is no such thing at present, and this is the reason why this educational site is needed.
These are the definitive words of a person who has over analysed women and their endless and myriad forms of beauty, looking for a reason, an explanation for his own inability to attract or be attracted to women.
Eric, could you explain this? I've always assumed Arnold to be the epitome of the North European male (or at least as presented). Could you elaborate on your reasons why you assume him to not be so?
She does not have a manly face!!
Do you have any better pics of her backside?
Ok so 15in shoulders are not to broad for my height and frame?Domenica from Domai
has a body very much like mine to.But i would have thought my measurements would have mattered.
I am glad to hear they have finally come to this conclusion, I was getting tired to see perfect bodies on every ad. Of course a more normal looking body sells better, the one buying the products is able to picture himself wearing those clothes. A good advertising campaign combined with a unique promotional items can make wonders!
If you look like the woman above, your measurements do not matter… you look attractive and feminine.
Trish: You are posting in a place where apparently anything goes; the comments threads have been trashed in some other places… so what do I say to whether this is an appropriate place to leave your questions? You find a place where it seems appropriate.
I read the article you linked, but it does not cite evidence of many female fashion models not being biological females. The author uses their looks, which in the given context means secondary sexual characteristics, but biological sex is not inferred from secondary sexual characteristics. A biological female has female genitalia and lacks a Y chromosome, i.e., a female is defined in terms of concordance between these two variables; it does not matter whether her looks apart from the genitals are not those of a typical biological female.
The author mentions a rumor about Gisele Bundchen not being a woman and that Leonardo DiCaprio broke up with her after he learned that this is the reason why she could not have children. This rumor is understandable because she hardly looks like a woman, but Gisele has recently given birth to a child; the article is from 2008. I do not believe that this childbirth was faked as you can find paparazzi pictures of her swollen belly, in various stages of pregnancy. But consistent with Gisele not being feminine, you will note that even in the later stages of pregnancy, when she added pounds of fat, her breasts remained small, which some people in the media specifically noted.
The author ignores that Leonardo DiCaprio does not strike one as an individual who would break up with a woman after learning that “she” is a man or has no sex. Here you can see pictures of his girlfriend for quite some time, Bar Refaeli, shot by paparazzi (hence devoid of posing):
Given DiCaprio’s tastes, if it is not public knowledge that the person he is dating is not a she then it is unlikely that he would break up with “her” if he learns that this individual is not a biological female.
Tom Brady, with whom Gisele ended up after Dicaprio, appears to be in a similar boat. Here is a picture of Bridget Moynahan, with whom Brady had a child (shown) before his child with Gisele; a picture with Gisele is on the right:
In Bridget Moynahan you have another individual who hardly looks like a biological female if you go by secondary sexual characteristics, but this individual is apparently one.
You can see this more generally in an Australian study that attempted to measure androgen levels in a representative sample [from Victoria, Australia] of disease-free Australian women. The authors had 1,423 women complete the study, and among these women 595 could be designated as a reference group: http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/full/90/7/3847 . The authors noted that several of the women in the reference group had high testosterone/androgen levels consistent with some disease, but these women had no diseases, no history of acne/hirsutism/polycystic-ovarian-syndrome, and all denied taking anabolic androgenic steroids. If you were to randomly draw 1,500 people, most of the time you will not find a single individual without a sex among them, and in this study, any such individual would have been eliminated. This study did not comment on the looks of the women, but just as the hormone levels suggest, there are undoubtedly plenty of biological females out there—to satisfy the interests of fashion designers—who barely or do not look like biological females if we are limited to guessing sex without looking at their genitals. Hence, if you see someone like Gisele in female clothing, or more generally a high-fashion model modeling women’s clothes, the default assumption should be that the person is a biological female.
I have a body and face a lot like this girls.I have shoulders that are 15in wide an over bust of 32in,and bust size of 34 1/2in with a 34b cup,underbust of 30in and a waist size of 26in with 37 1/2 in hips.I am 5ft 8in tall as well do you think that i am normal to feminine or nirmal to masculine?I have more round eyebrows and a smaller chin and my shoe size is an 8.Please let me know as soon as you can.
Hi Erik,
Please excuse me if I am not replying to the correct thread; I am a bit confused by the reply process on the site.
Below is a link to some interesting commentary on hermaphroditism in the fashion world. Sadly, I suspect that the presence of hermaphroditic fashion models may be more prevalent than one might suspect. In the case of Gisele Bundchen, the uninformed observer might easily mistake her for a transsexual, if not merely an androgynous female. Many of the 'beauties' on the high fashion runways appear even more masculinized than she does. We can only guess at the likelihood of androgyny in these individuals. I agree with your statement that some women with masculine characteristics have a certain attractiveness; however, many androgynous models are generally ghastly to behold, and I shudder to think that they are forming any kind of gold standard of attractiveness for our young women.
http://english.pravda.ru/science/mysteries/27-11-2008/106754-androgyny-0/#
Trish
Casual, light, alcohol-only or weekend smoker or not, one is still addicted to nicotine no matter the number of cigarettes they consume each day. Perhaps smokers who find another look upon them as ‘kindred spirits’ in this increasingly anti-smoking world, hence, smokers also find other smokers more attractive.
Flora: If the tallness, broad shoulders and higher cheekbones are not caused by masculinization, then the woman will not look masculine. A woman’s height does not offer useful clues about how feminine she is and tends to be ignored or deemphasized by men: http://www.femininebeauty.info/height-and-appeal-of-women
Similarly, it takes more than broad shoulders to make a woman look masculine. Keeley Hazell is a good example. She has broad shoulders and a backside that is not so prominent, yet is admired by a large number of straight men. You can contrast her with a broad-shouldered woman who is admired by a lot of gay fashion designers to note why broad shoulders and one or two additional features that by themselves looks less feminine than average are not sufficient to make a woman look masculine: http://www.femininebeauty.info/victorias-secret-ana-beatriz-barros
Trish: Here are the answers.
Femininity and attractiveness
Femininity is not synonymous with attractiveness in women though, in the absence of physical defects, it is the most important correlate of beauty in women. This is one reason why some less feminine women, including those that could hardly be described as feminine compared to women in general, can exceed the attractiveness of more feminine women. However, most of the time more feminine women will be more attractive.
Aside from this, sometimes I have posted pictures of women whose looks I like but their pictures hardly serve any purpose as far as this site goes, which I usually identify as such, and if these women are not so feminine, then just take it as editorial discretion that may or may not have any bearing on what other men prefer.
Sexual dimorphism vs. ethnicity
How does one control for ethnicity when assessing whether a feature is more or less feminine? This is achieved by accounting for the correlation structures underlying ethnic background and masculinity-femininity. As an example, women tend to have thinner noses than men on average. But within any sex, nose thickness varies greatly. Hence if I were to give you a value of nose thickness and ask you to guess the sex of the person, you will be wrong often. On the other hand, when one observes faces, most of the time it is easy to tell the sex, which is because women have thinner noses, shorter chins, less prominent brows, etc.… there is a correlation structure of shapes associated with a sex [or ethnic group].
Using statistical tools, it is possible to describe complex shapes (i.e., account for correlation structures) with precision and separate shape variation resulting from ethnic variation from that resulting from masculinization-feminization. See here for a discussion of the statistical methodology: http://www.femininebeauty.info/marquardt-phi-mask-shape-comparison
See here for a discussion of how this methodology allows one to clearly show that some changes in shape variables that are associated with greater attractiveness and involve facial features that are known to be influenced by sex hormones are nevertheless not caused by masculinization or feminization: http://www.femininebeauty.info/jaw-shape-preference
On the other hand, in practice, going to this length may not be necessary; if you know a few things about shape variation related to sexual dimorphism and ethnic variation, then you can separate some shape variables in your head. For instance, East Asian noses tend to be less prominent than European noses in side view, which is consistent with greater feminization or lesser masculinization. East Asian noses tend to be wider in the fleshy part, which is consistent with greater masculinization or lesser feminization. Since sex hormones have global effects, how can they cause greater masculinization of one part and greater feminization of another? The answer could be one of several possibilities. One is that sex hormone receptors (sex hormones need to bind to certain receptors in order to effect change) in different regions have different sensitivities. Another possibility is that the population difference in the correlation structure (nose prominence vs. nose thickness of the fleshy part) does not result from masculinization-feminization.
How do we decide between the two possibilities? Look at additional features: the lowering of the region where the nose meets the forehead in East Asians, wider-spaced eyes in East Asians but narrower noses in the region where the nose meets the forehead, etc. The odds that many of these population differences are accounted for by differing sensitivity to sex hormones and either greater masculinization/lesser feminization or greater feminization/lesser masculinization in one population are lower than the differences resulting from genetic differences not involving masculinization-feminization. In addition, some differences could not possibly result from a change in masculinization or feminization (e.g., many shorter East Asian women have larger jaws than some taller European men and there is no way this is caused by these European men being less feminine than the East Asian women). So you can safely figure that a number of population differences you are looking at result from factors other than masculinization-feminization, which can be confirmed in other ways (hormonal profiles, etc.).
Women and masculinization with aging
Why do women tend to look more masculine with aging? Past maturity (around age 25), facial growth does not stop and some bony facial growth and thickening of the nose contributes to a more robust look, which tends to make the woman look more masculine.
Post menopause, estrogen levels decline significantly, but testosterone levels do not decline to the same extent, which contributes to reduced feminization.
Then there is childbirth, after which women tend not to return to waists that were as thin as before.
Hermaphrodites among fashion models?
Humans without a sex are less than 0.02% of the population and hermaphrodites a minority among them. I doubt modeling agencies could find a sufficient number of hermaphrodites that also happen to look like fashion models. Nearly all female fashion models should be biological females. In rare cases a man (e.g., Andrej Pejic) or a male-to-female transsexual may be used to models women’s clothes.
Obviously terrible study..
I highly suggest whoever made this revisit it, 13 is the best for both sexes in my opinion, short stubby legs is not an admirable trait in men. This even makes sense evolutionarily.
Not buying it.
Goddamnit gays ruining the concept of female beauty and making females feel ugly in the process.
Half of these women look like they just got out of auschwitz, all undernourished and shit
I find your site very interesting and informative, as well as unusually well-written and thoughtful. I don't agree with everything you write, but that's the nature of public discourse. I did have a question: Although hormones may influence the appearance of masculinity/femininity both before and after birth, what role does that leave for hereditary bone structure? If one inherits traits of being tall, broad-shouldered, high-cheekboned, etc, even if the hormonal balance is perfectly ordinary for a woman, the woman will still appear more "masculine" at all ages according to your standards. I do understand, of course, that hormonal balance can be inherited as well as bone structure, but let's just say this hypothetical woman has the hormonal balance for excellent fertility and normal superficial features (developed breasts and hips, level of body fat, etc). Would this woman truly be less desirable from an evolutionary standpoint? Nordic people, for example, tend to follow this taller "supermodel" body type, but they seem to have been reproducing just fine for quite a long time.
I found this harsh but I see where you are coming from. I do think she's attractive (I'm a straight female) however I don't understand why she lies about her measurements: she claims to be 35-23-35.5. That would make her hip to waist ratio .66 which would mean a more defined (meaning small) in comparison to her hips than many hourglass and pear shaped women. Nothing wrong with having a thick waist IMO but don't LIE about it when we can all see you in your undies!
Dear Erik:
Thanks for your work. I enjoy the site. A few questions:
By definition, are not feminine women more attractive than not-so-feminine women? Why do we see less feminine women occasionally described as attractive on your website, then?
How do you control for ethnicity/race when assessing specific physical characteristics associated with more or less feminine appearance?
You mention that women develop more masculine characteristics as they age. Can you elaborate?
Can we argue that some of the masculinized women who are successful fashion models (selected by homosexual men) are in fact not women at all, but hermaphrodites with a masculinized appearance to which no feminine women could or would want to aspire?
Trish
fashion you mean THAT strange inaccessible thing you are claiming to be occupied by the homosexuals! Man, if there is one thing I can tell is that fashion is an art and it is a fact that the art is THE homosexual thing since like ALWAYS!!!! listen, from Da Vinci to Warhol they are all gays, the fact that you do not APPRECIATE or not able to APPRECIATE art as an expression of a human soul does not make them idiotic! How many people think they can paint like Picasso (counting my mom must be like a billion). The model are not chosen for their beauty but for impact of their features on the people. Everybody knows Kate Moss is not beautiful, but she is...SMASHING... yeah she smashes those little cute monkeys that I see in you attractive list. Fashion is like art i.e. it is not for everybody. Hahahahahaaha.
My hip:waist percentage is 6.8%, but my hip:bust percentage is about 9%.
what figure does this qualify me as?
Sophie Howard is quite possibly the prettiest glamour model currently in the business. The suggestion that she is in any way masculine looking, or ugly, is ludicrous.
what a huge difference makes make up. I cant believe
I have been researching human proportions for the purposes of drawing and can not seem to find any scientific classification system on body types and names for those types. I am interested in finding factual documentation with reference material and classifications of body types in humans for reference.
I am hoping it will be a classification with proper names subdivided by gender ethnic and or ancestral genetic differences wich are traits in certain peoples.
If anyone knows a good resource material, please reply to this post. thanks.
That's a standard PC psychoanalysis.
Anyone who has anything negative to say about homosexuals (no matter how much evidence is supplied - from peer reviewed journals) is hiding his homosexuality behind 'homophobia' (an invented word).
Similarly, anyone who dares to question the supposed beauty of fashion models (and offers genuinely more feminine - and more attractive - alternatives) is a misogynist.
You effectively make the point that since in utero the differences between male and female is (apparently) small.
This is entirely irrelevant to the whole point of the site.
The issue is not about 'over analyz(ing)' women. It is specifically aimed at demonstrating that high fashion models are not true reflections of 'feminine beauty' - due primarily to the tastes of the homosexuals that dominate high end fashion.
As to your statement re: "women and their endless and myriad forms of beauty", this is a strange thing to say given the near uniformity of masculinized women ("androgynous; boyish; manly") featured in the fashion industry.
Perhaps one can psychoanalyze you based upon your statement. Given your claim that "[men and women] are all pretty much alike" perhaps you are closeted?
Whoever created this website is a perv and an ignorant sick racist. The section on beauty pageants with all these africans that u were comparing to modern white women really disgusted me!
If anyone knows anything about human embryology, anatomy and physiology and linguistic psychology, three facts rise to the surface.
1) Before cell specialization In utero, there is virtually no difference between males and females. After cell specialization, there is a 2% difference in form, but not in function-which brings us to...
2) We are all pretty much the alike, with varying degrees of sameness. Men have glans, women have clitorises, men have a penile shaft, women have a vaginal canal, men have testicles, women have ovaries, men have nipples, women have nipples etc. etc. etc.
3) The language used by the author Erik in this article, points to the fact that he is most likely closeted and misogynistic. It's all there in word choice, placement and repetition - an example-
Erik states to commenter Tany,
"Look at it this way. If homosexuals want to have magazines, fashion shows and beauty pageants featuring masculinized women, including women who look like male transvestites, male-to-female transsexuals and eunuchs, they can very well have these things, but there should be at least one prominent mainstream outlet where feminine beauty is appreciated for those who are enamored by feminine beauty. There is no such thing at present, and this is the reason why this educational site is needed.
These are the definitive words of a person who has over analysed women and their endless and myriad forms of beauty, looking for a reason, an explanation for his own inability to attract or be attracted to women.
Pages