First of all, don't compare the treatment of women from non-Western countries with Western countries: night and day.
Secondly, the study in Australia: post it. What is the definition of 'sexual violence' and how do they know it occurred? Similarly with physical violence.
As for the 'subservience of the women' in the ad...the point was that the individuals who designed it and defended it were homosexuals...which has zero to do with the imaginary 'heteropatriarchy'.
As for your claim about women earning 48% less pay than their male co-workers doing exactly the same job: bullsh*t. Post the study. Here are some facts:
Lets get this strait. There is no such thing as gender equality, and the issue at hand here is sexist advertisement against women. The thing that always seems to amaze me is that people assume whenever a woman says 'thats sexist' and reacts against it people seem to feel the urge to justify the action with a counter attack of unrelated facts.
I for one never mentioned white rich men, how much you earn has nothing to do with the sexist nature of the advertisement and again I repeat this is about the sexist nature of advertsiment. Let me put this together for you, just because we have an education crisis that is no doubt global and women are horribly oppressed in many countries around the world does not justify or make ok the production of SEXIST OR OFFENSIVE ADVERTISMENT, that is the long and the short of it. Your sexual orientation is not of any consequence nor is the 'attractiveness' of the models pictured, which by the way is your personal oppinion not that of fact its about the message and intent of the image; it depicts women in submissive poistions and creates sexist unrelistic, offensive messages that go out to men AND women and have huge affects on the masses of impresionable teens that are bombarded with them. This creates disortions in body image and behaviour. It is distressing and it is completely unnecessary but if youd like to talk facts- its was researched and found in Australia that one in five women have experienced sexual violence and one in THREE have experinced physical violence against them. 82% of sexual assult victims in Australia are women and are of an average age between 10 and 19 and 78% of them knew their attackers. This study was carried out by the Australian Government. In an environment where studies have shown the sexualisation of children and young women in the media and an idea that 'womens subservience is sexy' where men are shown in a position of sexual and physical power; there is no doubt these images have an affect. And not just on women- men read these just as women do- destorting their self image and expectations, not only of themselves but of the people around them. This state of consern is not imagined- regardless of the other issues the Converstation at hand is the production of sexist advertisment and this without a doubt creats wide scale problems.
On your comment on feminism, you obviously have no concept of what they are contesting because unfortunately a wide majority of women in our everyday community are given the unfavourable term 'feminist' for wanting things like equal pay to their male co-workers. In Britian it was found that Women recieve 48% less pay than that of their male coworkers doing excatly the same job under the same title, this is below par of such muslim countries as Egypt- and feminists are there because people like you dont understand that equality is more than the right to vote.
And might I add that if people are so biologically wired to find feminine women so beautiful, you should'nt even have to put a lot of effort into marketing anything. IT should be a piece of cake.
I'd also like to add that you ignore the fact that masculine women when put together are more uniform. Masculine features are more uniform in general. If you try to make clothes for feminine women on a runway show, it woudl be a disaster. Even if they all had standard hourglass figures, they would be so different it would take years to fit them all for the show. An hourglass body type is simply an inefficient body shape for the fashion industry. Ruler straight is the most efficient, and notice most models are ruler straight.
"There are also other issues such as the negative health behaviors resulting from many girls and women trying to acquire the thinness of high-fashion models. Belief in such impacts does not contradict my belief in homosexuals being born that way."
Your quote above and your idea in general is extremely flawed. By stating this you are simply a hypocrite.
Let's begin with a few points. First of all let's ignore the homosexual argument and stick to facts:
1) The fashion industry selects women that appear a certain way
2) It appears that they particularly want masculinized, tall, uncurvy, and very very thin women for whatever underlying reason
3) However, some women are naturally thin due to genetics, just as these same women are naturally masculine
4) Just because some women who are not genetically skinny starve themselves to fit that standard, it doesn't mean that the standard is necessarily wrong. It is just a standard, and some women will naturally fit this standard.
See, essentially you are doing the exact same thing the fashion industry is doing. You have an ideal and belief, and you would like that ideal and belief to dominate a certain industry and society in general. You believe that feminine beauty needs an outlet, and clearly you would like that outlet to be the fashion industry.
You too have standards just as "unhealthy" as the fashion industry standards. You too want to push YOUR ideals on other people.
1) You select women that appear to be a certain way
2) It appears you want particularly feminine women, that are of feminine height, curvy, and a "feminine" weight (you claim that weight gain actually masculinizes a woman)
3) Some women are naturally feminine due to genetics, some are not
4) Just because some women who are not genetically feminine do negative things to their health like taking estrogen pills and what not, it doesn't mean your standard is necessarily wrong, just that it is a standard
HOWEVER, and this is where you become a hypocrite, you try to claim that your standard is healthier and more beneficial overall to society. In reality it is not. Just as the fashion industry promotes an unhealthy standard that few women fit into, you too promote an unhealthy standard that few women fit into.
There are women in the world that will fit the fashion industry's standard and your standard without having any health defects. But the majority won't.
Women starve themselves to look like models, resulting in anorexia and other eating disorders and issues.
Women that want to live up to your standard Erik, take estrogen pills, perhaps will get breast implants. Some may get their legs lengthened, because you have a whole page about porportions and how certain leg porportions are more attractive etc. How are these things not as risky and unhealthy as what women do to look like supermodels?
So please, cut this bullshit. You are not promoting anything healthier than the fashion industry. The majority of women do not fit your standards and if your ideal of an outlet for feminine beauty happend, then women would see those pictures and imitate those women by resorting to extremely unhealthy ways to do so.
Breast cancer and other health defects would be on the rise because of the consumption of estrogen products or products that imitate the effects of estrogen. Plastic surgery for feminine breasts buttocks etc. would be even more on the rise, even though they ultimatley won't attain the desired resutls
Not to mention that the type of woman you find ideal is prone to breast cancer, being overweight or obese in later life, asymmetry (especially in the face) due to the effects of estrogen in the womb, lack of bone structure (because although femininity makes the face "pretty" many times the face looks too weak and "retarded" which seems to appeal to Erik for some reason)
So you are a hypocrite.
You are just angry that homosexuals dominate a certain industry. However, writing about this won't make any difference. To truly promote "feminine" beauty you have to market feminine beauty to people and you are not doing that. So until you do that, don't be surprised that people dont give a shit
I need to clarify, I wrote I AM a professor...lol. Whoops. I'm married to a professor, I work at the school in his department. But still. Just get my pictures off your site, it's insulting. And he's pissed. He thinks your argument is ridiculous and stupid, although you do have a few good points, but only a few. Either way, this site has been seen by almost everyone in the science department here, and although a few people do agree that you have a few points, everyone unanimously agrees that your idea of feminine is weak, since you seem to interchange it with the word beauty, and your view on what is beautiful is so ridiculously limited, it basically cuts out around 85% of the world's females as unnattractive or unfeminine. If 85% of the worlds females are unfeminine, does that mean that you t6hink the majority of females aren't well..very female? Silly.
Emily, seriously darling, I have blue-green eyes. And when I have my hair blonde, I look freaky, people don't see me as more attractive, there is no contrast, everything is a similar color, even when my skin is very pale and I have a lovely pink blush on my cheeks. I know loads of people who have fallen in love with dark haired women, my husband being one for example. And he doesn't see my hair as vulgar nor does it make him think of sex, he's extremely romantic and protective towards me, so I see no reason why you should think that men only see blonde women as romantic and vulnerable. That's silly, and it's rascist, give me Monica Bellucci or Kim Kardashian or Angelina Jolie, anyday! Hot hot hot.
Vincent!!! Je t'aime! Erik decided to use one of the worst photos ever taken of me, put it on this site without my permission, and tell everyone that he thought I was an unnatractive masculinized female with poor facial development. Jeez, that hurt. To say the least. I'm glad you have a much more open view of beauty, like the rest of the world
EVERY male and female I have shown this site to (and trust me, it's a lot, it's been in a viral email) have emailed me back LAUGHING. This site is so ridiculous my female friends have stopped being offended and put off by it. The heterosexual men, and both the lesbian and heterosexual females have ALL found your ''masculinized females'' prrettier than the VAST majority of the ones in your ''attractive female'' pages, myself included. No offense to them but most of the women in your ''attractive females'' pages are very plain, and some aren't pretty at all. As I am a professior of human physiology, I showed your scientific facts to a number of my colleagues and they have had a good laugh as well. Nice try mate, but you have no idea of what beauty is at all. You've offended a lot of women in the process, paticularly the ones you use as examples of 'masculine or unnattractive' women, and all you've really accomplished is giving jealous bitches a place to rant on and poke fun of those gorgeous women they hate.
Look at all the beauties in history, many are fit your ''masculinized'' description to the T. Not to mention, your idea of feminine beauty seems only to fit the American 1940's and 50's standard of the beautiful caucasian woman, not taking into account that that is only one country in the world and many of those women were not thought of as beautiful outside their own country or race group.
Nefertiti, the most beautiful woman in all of Egypt, beloved one of the pharoah
Giovanna Baccelli famous ballerina and mistress of George Sackville, 3rd Duke of Dorset, famed for her beauty
Giselle Bunchen, who you trashed, has REPEATEDLY won the title of most beautiful woman in the world, same with Karolina Kurkova and Marissa Miller.
Melisande who you also trashed, has THOUSANDS of fans who post repeated compliments about her beauty on forums, and has never been turned down for a modeling job, and has also been sought out by not only glamour and erotic photographers but by beauty and fashion companies as well because she is considered to be of extreme beauty.
Kate Moss won the title of most beautiful woman in the world, has always had a waif like figure (same as Twiggy who was believed gorgeous and glamorous in the 60's) and aside from when she was caught on camera doing coke years back, has never lost a modeling contract and continues to this day to have an extremely successful career as the main model for many major brands.
In short, probably very few women in the entire world actually fit your idea of the perfect feminine woman. I also highly doubt that the ones that do fit are thought of as beautiful as much as many of the women you've labeled as 'masculine or unnatractive.' Posting pictures and diagrams of skulls and muscles with number and ratios is not to make your reasearch any less ridiculous.
Katie definitely needs to lose weight. Don´t forget we´re talkin about fashion industry, not any hillbilly peagant.
Her inner thighs are flabby and just gross.
I think it´s just ridiculous that she actually said losing the weight would make her look like a bag of bones. Honestly, a dress size 8/10 is nowhere near bony! You begin to look bony when you´re down to dress size 2 or 0. Still then, girls at her height look beutiful and elegant.
I hate how people get used to the standards of our fat society
i disagree, u waste time with all your extra typing, capitalizing, etc... and besides with carpal due to so much typing and work i found short cuts - text messaging has also been a process of efficiency discovering in our language, which is highly inefficient and just plain faulty on so many levels --- a cursory comparison with spanish speaks volumes...
i got a 3.31 at UF, erik was almost a full .5 higher than me... and yes, i have seen his transcript with water marks and all the security i had with mine from UF showing it to be a valid document of his record... he can give you the standard deviation expanse between him and the average UF student, as explained to him by a UF professor actually...
when i went, i came across 2.87 GPA as being the average at the time, which includes second semester freshman to last semester seniors...
i type fast and this hack style is what i've developed... of course i know the CORRECT ways... but don't you like to see something different? - too challenging for you? bothersome? can't open your mind a bit and embrace the ellipsis? or the excessive use of the slash-dash or whatever i throw in there?
you don't know what you are talking about... and he VERY obviously can't do the science aspect of it and have a popular site like this one has been... just read his THE NATURE OF HOMOSEXUALITY and you will see the depths of the empirical mastery and synthesis, hardly weird as you say... WEIRD is often used by those neophytes, those uninitiated or overly challenged enough to just want to insult... they see they have reached an intellectual peak and limit, so they can at least call the stuff thats over their head weird, right?
i know erik, you do not - stick to his data and ideas, save your ad hominem speculation... and tough crap if you don't like my writing style - i won't "CLEAN IT UP" for you
roberto: thank you darling!!! You are a sweetheart! find me on lounge.vivthomas.com I post there, assholes are kicked off very quickly so I don't have to waste my with with people who hate me for whatever silly reason
Byrne: very glad to know that not everyone gets caught up in the petty slamming of people they've never met :-) I'm rarely on this site anymore, maybe checking it just out of curiosity. I don't see the point of reading horrible and mostly untrue things about myself. No one I have ever met in person has ever said anything even close to as cruel as some of the weirdos on here..oh well
Guy: to your question of how Erik found normal photos of me, I sent some of my snapshots from my non modeling life
Erik: thank you for kindof defending me, but seriously, SHUT UP about women and ''femenine curves''. I know a lot of gorgeous women who lack these ''femenine curves'' that apparently all ''femenine'' women are supposed to have and they are admired by and desired more by the men around them than the women who have these ''femenine curves''. Femeninity involves a lot more than just curves.
omg Georgio!!!! HI!! LOL I still have that pic of you!!! I'm rarely on this site, go to lounge.vivthomas.com, the people on there are nice and smart :-D
No offense but just by analyzing your writing you don't seem extremely educated yourself. I mean I know I'm not extremely educated, but if you are going to come on here and stand up for how educated and intelligent Erik is than I would at least expect for you to use proper sentences, grammar, and spelling. You can get better than a 3.8 gpa honey, and just because Erik "tries" hard, which it is very clear that he tries oh so hard, it doesn't make him some kind of genius. And yes, Erik is weird. I actually imagine him quite feminine because in all honesty he acts like a woman. Just look at the way he replies to people's comments. It's like he has a pole stuck up his ass half the time. He's almost catty and a little condescending, like a stuck up bitch. You are right Erik. Those Victoria's Secret models are practically men. Heidi Klum is more of a man than you. And the bitch talks and acts more like a man than you, because she doesn't get catty about subjects she is touchy about.
And if Erik is so "smart", maybe he should actually have credentials. And maybe he should actually present his work in a scientific manner.
he is hardly weird, very level headed and got a 3.8 GPA in college, has two degrees and some post grad work... one of the very smartest people i've known... maybe the smartest... you don't get much higher than 3.8 GPA...
tell me what he is claiming to be that he is not... i'm working with his case - he was my roommate for a few years... and why do you care personally about him? isn't his research and data enough to stand on its own? you can do the ad hominem thing all you want and then there is the empirical data that stands on its own no matter the background of the individual...
She's a very beautiful girl. Besides, she has a soul, it is evident from her eyes. I thinks she is wise as well. As I understood, she is a Slavonic girl (from Russia, Ukraine of Belorussia), and the women in these countries are all beauties!
erik is indisposed, thats a nice indirect anonymous way of saying he will not be doing much with this site for awhile, as i have been watching over it for months, with a few weeks lapse, as many of you have noticed... and lucky i've bailed it out more than a few times...
he might be back at it by the end of february, a little earlier if lucky, later if even more "INDISPOSED"... lets just say he might be going ... for a very long time...
...things didn't seem to work for him, looks like he might not be able to come back ... at this point... soon to be back in ... a few more things he can try... until this whole post grad visa violation situation is resolved he won't be able to save us from piss poor lack of feminine understanding and won't be up to the promotion of feminine ideals for better health of humanity through aesthetic links to better evolution and biological pathways most befitting survival and progress...
(I can't be beautiful because I can't be feminime, because I am small breasted therefor I am like "the ugliest", eh?)
If I didn't as much self confident as I do I would probably have taken this in a very bad way. I can just imagine all young girls out there hating themselves just because someone like you have stated similiar things, or even because they read your shit.
I note that the attack is against 'rich White Men'...yet the vast majority of us are anthing but rich. I also note that nowhere does Danielle acknowledge that white men (not simply rich...but middle class, lower class, 'trailer trash' - a term that is applied exclusively to whites) can be victimized by non-whites, women and homosexuals.
Obvious examples include women who refuse fathers access to their children (the fact fathers are not automatically granted equal access to their children in the first place is an obvious example of sexism and discrimination towards men). Quotas for everything from government jobs to universities to the private sector are a clear example of discrimination. I have yet to hear any woman complain about the obvious bias against boys in school...they are expelled, disciplined and fail at far greater rates than girls...and the vast majority of teachers are women. In one panel discussion (in Toronto) regarding the plight of boys in school, it was mentioned that many boys had no role models in school (esp. at the primary level where over 90% of teachers are women). Not one woman thought that hiring more males was important. The issue was hiring 'qualified teachers' regardless of gender. I wonder how many of these same women would have had the same opinion about 'qualified' people in Senior Management, Politics or in Universities?
In terms of the nonsense about the 'hetero patriarchy' and the oppression of women...how does one compare women in the West vs. genuine patriarchies such as the Islamic world (to criticize how women are oppressed there would be racist. Many feminists claim women are more valued there since they are not on display - nevermind they can't vote - in some cases - can't walk alone, etc). 'Rich white men' own many of the labels...but so do rich white homosexuals. the case for the oppression of women by the 'Heteropatriarchy' clearly loses meaning here when the types of women featured are generally unattractive to men. Wouldn't 'rich white men' want to feature feminine women?
In terms of feminism being a very broad term that encompasses a wide range of diverse views...what is this diversity? Does this include REAL women? Obviously not. This is a standard position held when feminist views are held up to scrutiny. No one is contesting women's right to vote, to run for public office, to start a business, to apply to university, etc. What is being contested is the theorizing and politics.
Christina Hoff Sommers was vilified for daring to question the legitimacy of many of the feminist claims. She too, is a feminist...but has been blacklisted by the so-called 'broad based feminists of diverse opinions' for daring to go against the prevailing gynocracy prevalent in Universities.
I haven't been on this site in a while and it appears it is not being updated anymore. Not to mention a lot of spam. I don't know what happened to Erik.
Elle claims she is Caucasian but she is almost certainly Asian. "Conservatives - another word for racists", "Hillbilly Caucasians" are not terms that would be typically used by White people.
As you point out, there are good-looking and ugly people in all ethnicities but it seems that it is only racist if non-Caucasians (or even non-Nordic) are declared less attractive. Apparently it is acceptable to mention 'ugly Caucasians' and specifically, ugly Nordics.
Obvious double standard.
Interestingly enough, Elle agrees with the view that there are, on average, more attractive Caucasians than non-Caucasians, but claims it is based upon wealth and 'good grooming'.
An average well groomed woman will not be considered more attractive than a good-looking but poorly groomed woman. Certainly not by any heterosexual man (I suspect woman would note which is the more attractive woman but nevertheless make nasty comments about the better looking woman's poor grooming).
I don't think the intent of this site is to state that non-Caucasians are not attractive nor even to state that Nordics are the best, but rather, to focus on feminine beauty, primarily from a Caucasian (European) perspective since the majority of models are Caucasian.
In case you were wondering, testosterone is a by-product of estradiol. Estradiol is essentially estrogen. Many people don't know, but it is present in males. It is actually the presence of estradiol in fetuses that determines that the child develops as a male.
I call bullsh*t.
First of all, don't compare the treatment of women from non-Western countries with Western countries: night and day.
Secondly, the study in Australia: post it. What is the definition of 'sexual violence' and how do they know it occurred? Similarly with physical violence.
As for the 'subservience of the women' in the ad...the point was that the individuals who designed it and defended it were homosexuals...which has zero to do with the imaginary 'heteropatriarchy'.
As for your claim about women earning 48% less pay than their male co-workers doing exactly the same job: bullsh*t. Post the study. Here are some facts:
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/paygap1109.pdf
Stop spewing the same unsubstantiated claims. Facts speak otherwise.
Lets get this strait. There is no such thing as gender equality, and the issue at hand here is sexist advertisement against women. The thing that always seems to amaze me is that people assume whenever a woman says 'thats sexist' and reacts against it people seem to feel the urge to justify the action with a counter attack of unrelated facts.
I for one never mentioned white rich men, how much you earn has nothing to do with the sexist nature of the advertisement and again I repeat this is about the sexist nature of advertsiment. Let me put this together for you, just because we have an education crisis that is no doubt global and women are horribly oppressed in many countries around the world does not justify or make ok the production of SEXIST OR OFFENSIVE ADVERTISMENT, that is the long and the short of it. Your sexual orientation is not of any consequence nor is the 'attractiveness' of the models pictured, which by the way is your personal oppinion not that of fact its about the message and intent of the image; it depicts women in submissive poistions and creates sexist unrelistic, offensive messages that go out to men AND women and have huge affects on the masses of impresionable teens that are bombarded with them. This creates disortions in body image and behaviour. It is distressing and it is completely unnecessary but if youd like to talk facts- its was researched and found in Australia that one in five women have experienced sexual violence and one in THREE have experinced physical violence against them. 82% of sexual assult victims in Australia are women and are of an average age between 10 and 19 and 78% of them knew their attackers. This study was carried out by the Australian Government. In an environment where studies have shown the sexualisation of children and young women in the media and an idea that 'womens subservience is sexy' where men are shown in a position of sexual and physical power; there is no doubt these images have an affect. And not just on women- men read these just as women do- destorting their self image and expectations, not only of themselves but of the people around them. This state of consern is not imagined- regardless of the other issues the Converstation at hand is the production of sexist advertisment and this without a doubt creats wide scale problems.
On your comment on feminism, you obviously have no concept of what they are contesting because unfortunately a wide majority of women in our everyday community are given the unfavourable term 'feminist' for wanting things like equal pay to their male co-workers. In Britian it was found that Women recieve 48% less pay than that of their male coworkers doing excatly the same job under the same title, this is below par of such muslim countries as Egypt- and feminists are there because people like you dont understand that equality is more than the right to vote.
And might I add that if people are so biologically wired to find feminine women so beautiful, you should'nt even have to put a lot of effort into marketing anything. IT should be a piece of cake.
I'd also like to add that you ignore the fact that masculine women when put together are more uniform. Masculine features are more uniform in general. If you try to make clothes for feminine women on a runway show, it woudl be a disaster. Even if they all had standard hourglass figures, they would be so different it would take years to fit them all for the show. An hourglass body type is simply an inefficient body shape for the fashion industry. Ruler straight is the most efficient, and notice most models are ruler straight.
Erik,
"There are also other issues such as the negative health behaviors resulting from many girls and women trying to acquire the thinness of high-fashion models. Belief in such impacts does not contradict my belief in homosexuals being born that way."
Your quote above and your idea in general is extremely flawed. By stating this you are simply a hypocrite.
Let's begin with a few points. First of all let's ignore the homosexual argument and stick to facts:
1) The fashion industry selects women that appear a certain way
2) It appears that they particularly want masculinized, tall, uncurvy, and very very thin women for whatever underlying reason
3) However, some women are naturally thin due to genetics, just as these same women are naturally masculine
4) Just because some women who are not genetically skinny starve themselves to fit that standard, it doesn't mean that the standard is necessarily wrong. It is just a standard, and some women will naturally fit this standard.
See, essentially you are doing the exact same thing the fashion industry is doing. You have an ideal and belief, and you would like that ideal and belief to dominate a certain industry and society in general. You believe that feminine beauty needs an outlet, and clearly you would like that outlet to be the fashion industry.
You too have standards just as "unhealthy" as the fashion industry standards. You too want to push YOUR ideals on other people.
1) You select women that appear to be a certain way
2) It appears you want particularly feminine women, that are of feminine height, curvy, and a "feminine" weight (you claim that weight gain actually masculinizes a woman)
3) Some women are naturally feminine due to genetics, some are not
4) Just because some women who are not genetically feminine do negative things to their health like taking estrogen pills and what not, it doesn't mean your standard is necessarily wrong, just that it is a standard
HOWEVER, and this is where you become a hypocrite, you try to claim that your standard is healthier and more beneficial overall to society. In reality it is not. Just as the fashion industry promotes an unhealthy standard that few women fit into, you too promote an unhealthy standard that few women fit into.
There are women in the world that will fit the fashion industry's standard and your standard without having any health defects. But the majority won't.
Women starve themselves to look like models, resulting in anorexia and other eating disorders and issues.
Women that want to live up to your standard Erik, take estrogen pills, perhaps will get breast implants. Some may get their legs lengthened, because you have a whole page about porportions and how certain leg porportions are more attractive etc. How are these things not as risky and unhealthy as what women do to look like supermodels?
So please, cut this bullshit. You are not promoting anything healthier than the fashion industry. The majority of women do not fit your standards and if your ideal of an outlet for feminine beauty happend, then women would see those pictures and imitate those women by resorting to extremely unhealthy ways to do so.
Breast cancer and other health defects would be on the rise because of the consumption of estrogen products or products that imitate the effects of estrogen. Plastic surgery for feminine breasts buttocks etc. would be even more on the rise, even though they ultimatley won't attain the desired resutls
Not to mention that the type of woman you find ideal is prone to breast cancer, being overweight or obese in later life, asymmetry (especially in the face) due to the effects of estrogen in the womb, lack of bone structure (because although femininity makes the face "pretty" many times the face looks too weak and "retarded" which seems to appeal to Erik for some reason)
So you are a hypocrite.
You are just angry that homosexuals dominate a certain industry. However, writing about this won't make any difference. To truly promote "feminine" beauty you have to market feminine beauty to people and you are not doing that. So until you do that, don't be surprised that people dont give a shit
I need to clarify, I wrote I AM a professor...lol. Whoops. I'm married to a professor, I work at the school in his department. But still. Just get my pictures off your site, it's insulting. And he's pissed. He thinks your argument is ridiculous and stupid, although you do have a few good points, but only a few. Either way, this site has been seen by almost everyone in the science department here, and although a few people do agree that you have a few points, everyone unanimously agrees that your idea of feminine is weak, since you seem to interchange it with the word beauty, and your view on what is beautiful is so ridiculously limited, it basically cuts out around 85% of the world's females as unnattractive or unfeminine. If 85% of the worlds females are unfeminine, does that mean that you t6hink the majority of females aren't well..very female? Silly.
Emily, seriously darling, I have blue-green eyes. And when I have my hair blonde, I look freaky, people don't see me as more attractive, there is no contrast, everything is a similar color, even when my skin is very pale and I have a lovely pink blush on my cheeks. I know loads of people who have fallen in love with dark haired women, my husband being one for example. And he doesn't see my hair as vulgar nor does it make him think of sex, he's extremely romantic and protective towards me, so I see no reason why you should think that men only see blonde women as romantic and vulnerable. That's silly, and it's rascist, give me Monica Bellucci or Kim Kardashian or Angelina Jolie, anyday! Hot hot hot.
Vincent!!! Je t'aime! Erik decided to use one of the worst photos ever taken of me, put it on this site without my permission, and tell everyone that he thought I was an unnatractive masculinized female with poor facial development. Jeez, that hurt. To say the least. I'm glad you have a much more open view of beauty, like the rest of the world
EVERY male and female I have shown this site to (and trust me, it's a lot, it's been in a viral email) have emailed me back LAUGHING. This site is so ridiculous my female friends have stopped being offended and put off by it. The heterosexual men, and both the lesbian and heterosexual females have ALL found your ''masculinized females'' prrettier than the VAST majority of the ones in your ''attractive female'' pages, myself included. No offense to them but most of the women in your ''attractive females'' pages are very plain, and some aren't pretty at all. As I am a professior of human physiology, I showed your scientific facts to a number of my colleagues and they have had a good laugh as well. Nice try mate, but you have no idea of what beauty is at all. You've offended a lot of women in the process, paticularly the ones you use as examples of 'masculine or unnattractive' women, and all you've really accomplished is giving jealous bitches a place to rant on and poke fun of those gorgeous women they hate.
Look at all the beauties in history, many are fit your ''masculinized'' description to the T. Not to mention, your idea of feminine beauty seems only to fit the American 1940's and 50's standard of the beautiful caucasian woman, not taking into account that that is only one country in the world and many of those women were not thought of as beautiful outside their own country or race group.
Nefertiti, the most beautiful woman in all of Egypt, beloved one of the pharoah
Giovanna Baccelli famous ballerina and mistress of George Sackville, 3rd Duke of Dorset, famed for her beauty
Giselle Bunchen, who you trashed, has REPEATEDLY won the title of most beautiful woman in the world, same with Karolina Kurkova and Marissa Miller.
Melisande who you also trashed, has THOUSANDS of fans who post repeated compliments about her beauty on forums, and has never been turned down for a modeling job, and has also been sought out by not only glamour and erotic photographers but by beauty and fashion companies as well because she is considered to be of extreme beauty.
Kate Moss won the title of most beautiful woman in the world, has always had a waif like figure (same as Twiggy who was believed gorgeous and glamorous in the 60's) and aside from when she was caught on camera doing coke years back, has never lost a modeling contract and continues to this day to have an extremely successful career as the main model for many major brands.
In short, probably very few women in the entire world actually fit your idea of the perfect feminine woman. I also highly doubt that the ones that do fit are thought of as beautiful as much as many of the women you've labeled as 'masculine or unnatractive.' Posting pictures and diagrams of skulls and muscles with number and ratios is not to make your reasearch any less ridiculous.
Katie definitely needs to lose weight. Don´t forget we´re talkin about fashion industry, not any hillbilly peagant.
Her inner thighs are flabby and just gross.
I think it´s just ridiculous that she actually said losing the weight would make her look like a bag of bones. Honestly, a dress size 8/10 is nowhere near bony! You begin to look bony when you´re down to dress size 2 or 0. Still then, girls at her height look beutiful and elegant.
I hate how people get used to the standards of our fat society
i disagree, u waste time with all your extra typing, capitalizing, etc... and besides with carpal due to so much typing and work i found short cuts - text messaging has also been a process of efficiency discovering in our language, which is highly inefficient and just plain faulty on so many levels --- a cursory comparison with spanish speaks volumes...
i got a 3.31 at UF, erik was almost a full .5 higher than me... and yes, i have seen his transcript with water marks and all the security i had with mine from UF showing it to be a valid document of his record... he can give you the standard deviation expanse between him and the average UF student, as explained to him by a UF professor actually...
when i went, i came across 2.87 GPA as being the average at the time, which includes second semester freshman to last semester seniors...
i type fast and this hack style is what i've developed... of course i know the CORRECT ways... but don't you like to see something different? - too challenging for you? bothersome? can't open your mind a bit and embrace the ellipsis? or the excessive use of the slash-dash or whatever i throw in there?
you don't know what you are talking about... and he VERY obviously can't do the science aspect of it and have a popular site like this one has been... just read his THE NATURE OF HOMOSEXUALITY and you will see the depths of the empirical mastery and synthesis, hardly weird as you say... WEIRD is often used by those neophytes, those uninitiated or overly challenged enough to just want to insult... they see they have reached an intellectual peak and limit, so they can at least call the stuff thats over their head weird, right?
i know erik, you do not - stick to his data and ideas, save your ad hominem speculation... and tough crap if you don't like my writing style - i won't "CLEAN IT UP" for you
roberto: thank you darling!!! You are a sweetheart! find me on lounge.vivthomas.com I post there, assholes are kicked off very quickly so I don't have to waste my with with people who hate me for whatever silly reason
Byrne: very glad to know that not everyone gets caught up in the petty slamming of people they've never met :-) I'm rarely on this site anymore, maybe checking it just out of curiosity. I don't see the point of reading horrible and mostly untrue things about myself. No one I have ever met in person has ever said anything even close to as cruel as some of the weirdos on here..oh well
Guy: to your question of how Erik found normal photos of me, I sent some of my snapshots from my non modeling life
Erik: thank you for kindof defending me, but seriously, SHUT UP about women and ''femenine curves''. I know a lot of gorgeous women who lack these ''femenine curves'' that apparently all ''femenine'' women are supposed to have and they are admired by and desired more by the men around them than the women who have these ''femenine curves''. Femeninity involves a lot more than just curves.
omg Georgio!!!! HI!! LOL I still have that pic of you!!! I'm rarely on this site, go to lounge.vivthomas.com, the people on there are nice and smart :-D
Visitor,
No offense but just by analyzing your writing you don't seem extremely educated yourself. I mean I know I'm not extremely educated, but if you are going to come on here and stand up for how educated and intelligent Erik is than I would at least expect for you to use proper sentences, grammar, and spelling. You can get better than a 3.8 gpa honey, and just because Erik "tries" hard, which it is very clear that he tries oh so hard, it doesn't make him some kind of genius. And yes, Erik is weird. I actually imagine him quite feminine because in all honesty he acts like a woman. Just look at the way he replies to people's comments. It's like he has a pole stuck up his ass half the time. He's almost catty and a little condescending, like a stuck up bitch. You are right Erik. Those Victoria's Secret models are practically men. Heidi Klum is more of a man than you. And the bitch talks and acts more like a man than you, because she doesn't get catty about subjects she is touchy about.
And if Erik is so "smart", maybe he should actually have credentials. And maybe he should actually present his work in a scientific manner.
he is hardly weird, very level headed and got a 3.8 GPA in college, has two degrees and some post grad work... one of the very smartest people i've known... maybe the smartest... you don't get much higher than 3.8 GPA...
tell me what he is claiming to be that he is not... i'm working with his case - he was my roommate for a few years... and why do you care personally about him? isn't his research and data enough to stand on its own? you can do the ad hominem thing all you want and then there is the empirical data that stands on its own no matter the background of the individual...
She's a very beautiful girl. Besides, she has a soul, it is evident from her eyes. I thinks she is wise as well. As I understood, she is a Slavonic girl (from Russia, Ukraine of Belorussia), and the women in these countries are all beauties!
mick,
how do you know erik is having visa problems? Is her really not who he claims he is? Seriously, can this guy get any weirder?
They come from a common ancestor that is why. they are like cousins.
That's called being fit and athletic you dimwit.
erik is indisposed, thats a nice indirect anonymous way of saying he will not be doing much with this site for awhile, as i have been watching over it for months, with a few weeks lapse, as many of you have noticed... and lucky i've bailed it out more than a few times...
he might be back at it by the end of february, a little earlier if lucky, later if even more "INDISPOSED"... lets just say he might be going ... for a very long time...
...things didn't seem to work for him, looks like he might not be able to come back ... at this point... soon to be back in ... a few more things he can try... until this whole post grad visa violation situation is resolved he won't be able to save us from piss poor lack of feminine understanding and won't be up to the promotion of feminine ideals for better health of humanity through aesthetic links to better evolution and biological pathways most befitting survival and progress...
You write a lot of shit.
(I can't be beautiful because I can't be feminime, because I am small breasted therefor I am like "the ugliest", eh?)
If I didn't as much self confident as I do I would probably have taken this in a very bad way. I can just imagine all young girls out there hating themselves just because someone like you have stated similiar things, or even because they read your shit.
Danielle is simply a misandrist.
I note that the attack is against 'rich White Men'...yet the vast majority of us are anthing but rich. I also note that nowhere does Danielle acknowledge that white men (not simply rich...but middle class, lower class, 'trailer trash' - a term that is applied exclusively to whites) can be victimized by non-whites, women and homosexuals.
Obvious examples include women who refuse fathers access to their children (the fact fathers are not automatically granted equal access to their children in the first place is an obvious example of sexism and discrimination towards men). Quotas for everything from government jobs to universities to the private sector are a clear example of discrimination. I have yet to hear any woman complain about the obvious bias against boys in school...they are expelled, disciplined and fail at far greater rates than girls...and the vast majority of teachers are women. In one panel discussion (in Toronto) regarding the plight of boys in school, it was mentioned that many boys had no role models in school (esp. at the primary level where over 90% of teachers are women). Not one woman thought that hiring more males was important. The issue was hiring 'qualified teachers' regardless of gender. I wonder how many of these same women would have had the same opinion about 'qualified' people in Senior Management, Politics or in Universities?
In terms of the nonsense about the 'hetero patriarchy' and the oppression of women...how does one compare women in the West vs. genuine patriarchies such as the Islamic world (to criticize how women are oppressed there would be racist. Many feminists claim women are more valued there since they are not on display - nevermind they can't vote - in some cases - can't walk alone, etc). 'Rich white men' own many of the labels...but so do rich white homosexuals. the case for the oppression of women by the 'Heteropatriarchy' clearly loses meaning here when the types of women featured are generally unattractive to men. Wouldn't 'rich white men' want to feature feminine women?
In terms of feminism being a very broad term that encompasses a wide range of diverse views...what is this diversity? Does this include REAL women? Obviously not. This is a standard position held when feminist views are held up to scrutiny. No one is contesting women's right to vote, to run for public office, to start a business, to apply to university, etc. What is being contested is the theorizing and politics.
Christina Hoff Sommers was vilified for daring to question the legitimacy of many of the feminist claims. She too, is a feminist...but has been blacklisted by the so-called 'broad based feminists of diverse opinions' for daring to go against the prevailing gynocracy prevalent in Universities.
The site was actually down for a while.
It appears that the site is no longer being updated and the spam is incredibly irritating. No idea what happened to Erik.
I sent him an email but have not received a response.
Thanks Amy.
I haven't been on this site in a while and it appears it is not being updated anymore. Not to mention a lot of spam. I don't know what happened to Erik.
Elle claims she is Caucasian but she is almost certainly Asian. "Conservatives - another word for racists", "Hillbilly Caucasians" are not terms that would be typically used by White people.
As you point out, there are good-looking and ugly people in all ethnicities but it seems that it is only racist if non-Caucasians (or even non-Nordic) are declared less attractive. Apparently it is acceptable to mention 'ugly Caucasians' and specifically, ugly Nordics.
Obvious double standard.
Interestingly enough, Elle agrees with the view that there are, on average, more attractive Caucasians than non-Caucasians, but claims it is based upon wealth and 'good grooming'.
An average well groomed woman will not be considered more attractive than a good-looking but poorly groomed woman. Certainly not by any heterosexual man (I suspect woman would note which is the more attractive woman but nevertheless make nasty comments about the better looking woman's poor grooming).
I don't think the intent of this site is to state that non-Caucasians are not attractive nor even to state that Nordics are the best, but rather, to focus on feminine beauty, primarily from a Caucasian (European) perspective since the majority of models are Caucasian.
- Apollyon
Very succinctly and beautifully stated rebuttal to this informative but largely sexist and bogus website!
In case you were wondering, testosterone is a by-product of estradiol. Estradiol is essentially estrogen. Many people don't know, but it is present in males. It is actually the presence of estradiol in fetuses that determines that the child develops as a male.
Has Erik abandoned his site?Its full of spam and i havnt seen a post or updates of contents from Erik for many months.
Pages