You are here

Do regular male viewers of x-rated movies prefer fake breasts to naturally well-endowed breasts?

Female pornstars tend to be masculinized women, and my contention is that this is because feminine women are less likely to do porn and among those who are willing, they are less likely to engage in the more disinhibited sexual acts.  This explains why a number of masculinized female pornstars are popular among heterosexual male customers of porn.  However, commentator “Whipped honey” insists that the explanation is that the customers are interested in the masculinization of the women.  My response is that breasts implants are common among pornstars and reflect the fact that the customers want to see feminine women but the pornographers are not very successful in obtaining them and hence resort to fake femininity.  Whipped honey’s rebuttal is:

Pornographers turn down "feminine" women in porn and choose women with breast implants because many, if not most, male regular porn customers prefer fake breasts to real breasts. Fake breasts are usually firmer, perkier, and more upright than real breasts of the same size. Those male regular porn customers who do not prefer fake breasts tend to prefer very small breasts for underage-looking waif appeal. There is a subgenre of porn that focuses on large real breasts, but it does not sell nearly as well as porn featuring large fake breasts or small real breasts.

The reply to this contention is best posted in a new article, and this is it.  I do not have survey results to answer the question that has prompted this article, but pictures speak for themselves.

I looked up porn stars that had received top Adult Video News (AVN) awards, considered to be the Oscars of Porn, during 1995-2007, in the categories of best new starlet, female performer of the year, best actress and best supporting actress.  There were a total of 54 women. 

  Pornstar (AVN awardee) Breast implants?
1995 kylie Ireland Y
Asia Carrera Y
Ashlynn Gere Y
Tyfanny Million Y
Kaitlyn Ashley Y
1996 Jenna Jameson Y
Jeanna Fine Y
Ariana (Desert moon) Y
1997 Missy
Melissa Hill
Shanna McCullough ?
Juli Ashton suspected
1998 Johnni Black Y
Stephanie Swift
Dyanna Lauren Y
1999 Alisha Klass
Katie Gold
2000 Bridgette Kerkove Y
Inari Vachs
Serenity Y
Janine Lindemulder Y
2001 Tera Patrick Y
Jewel De'Nyle Y
Taylor Hayes Y
Raylene Y
Midori Y
2002 Violet Blue
Nikita Denise
Ginger Lynn
Sydnee steele Y
Julie Meadows
Ava Vincent
2003 Jenna Haze
Aurora snow
Taylor St. Clair
Devine Lane
2004 Stormy Daniels Y
Ashley Blue
Savanna Samson Y
Julia Ann Y
Dru Berrymore
Brooke Ballentyne
2005 Cytherea
Lauren Phoenix
Jessica Drake Y
Lezley Zen Y
2006 McKenzie Lee Y
Audrey Hollander Y
2007 Naomi
Hilary Scott Y
Kirsten Price

I ignored all cases where breast implants were not clearly seen and counted 27 (50%) with breast implants.  Take a look at the pictures of the pornstars with breast implants.  Then look at the following video clip of Zuzana Drabinova, taken from Twistys.  I have posted her pictures previously, but now it is necessary to look at her breasts in motion.

If you are reading this then you either have javascript turned off or do not have the flash plugin installed. Get Flash.

Download video clip (wmv, 25 MB).

Does anyone seriously believe that pornographers would disproportionately decline the likes of Ms. Drabinova in favor of women with breast implants, as in the pornstars with fake breasts considered above?  Keep in mind that pornographic actresses are generally young adult women and hence if they have well-endowed breasts (generous deposition of fat plus well-developed supportive connective tissue structure), then the breasts will look good in motion.

So why is Zuzana Drabinova not seen in pornographic [male-female sex] videos?  Because she refuses to have sex on camera, not because the pornographers are declining her offer.  Few women with her looks would be willing to have sex on camera, let alone be engaging in disinhibited sex acts on screen.

The reader should also observe the general looks of these top pornstars and wonder whether their “good looks” have made them top stars.  Do not forget to compare their looks with those of the women in the attractive women section.

I am confident that those that have gone through enough of this site and even many newcomers will find most of the pornstars unimpressive/unattractive and also note the high frequency of masculinization in them (search for more of their pictures).  So do the looks of the top pornstars reflect the optimal preferences of male customers or is it that these women are the best that the pornographers can come up with but are nowhere even close to real feminine beauties that heterosexual men are most strongly interested in?

There is indeed a subset/genre of porn that focuses on women with large breasts, but the reason it doesn’t do as well as other porn is that these women are often overweight or obese in addition to being disproportionately masculine.  Some men are into pornstars with small/very small breasts, but this is not necessarily because they have a preference for underage physiques because many such pornstars clearly have adult physiques.  The latter preference can be due to other factors such as the small-breasted women being popular because of their disinhibited screen presence or the male customers lean toward nonheterosexuality/are not exclusively heterosexual.

Forget about porn, top feminine beauties will generally not even pose nude, yet the contrast between the women in the attractive women section and top-ranked pornstars is clear.  Imagine if there were a major mainstream outlet for feminine beauty.  What kind of women will the masses see?




"Does anyone seriously believe that pornographers would disproportionately decline the likes of Ms. Drabinova in favor of women with breast implants"

Yes, pornographers WOULD decline the likes of Zuzana Drabinova in favor of women with breast implants because Zuzana Drabinova's natural breasts are not as firm and upright as implants of the same size would be. Drabinova individually may refuse to have sex on camera, but that hardly proves that all of the nude models Erik has found who have not done porn have turned porn down rather than being turned down by pornographers.

Many male regular porn fans do not give a damn what is or looks "natural". Fake breasts, fake bleached hair, fake eyelashes, fake noses, fake cheek implants, fake collagen lips, fake chin implants, fake acrylic fingernails, and fake who knows what else are fine with them.

If you think most men prefer natural looks, I have two words for you: Pamela Anderson. By FAR the biggest female sex symbol of her generation, and everything on her is fake. Pamela Anderson's success cannot be attributed to willingness to perform "atypical/disinhibited sex acts" because Anderson rose to fame as a nude model, not a porn star, and was already the biggest sex symbol in the world before the marketing against her will of her private sex tape. The Zuzana Drabinovas of the world will never have as many male fans as the Pamela Andersons.

"The reader should also observe the looks of these top pornstars and wonder whether their “good looks” have made them top stars."

Who said top porn stars are successful because of their "good looks"? Jenna Jameson is the highest-earning porn star of all time, with a personal fortune estimated at $30 million, and I doubt even her biggest fans really believe she's the most beautiful woman in porn. A porn star's success is based less on "good looks" than on sexual skills, ability to cause erections in male co-stars who have to work on schedule, ability to enable male co-stars to maintain erections while delaying orgasm, deep throat oral sex skills, and whatever else comprises any particular porn star's repertoire. In terms of porn stars' faces, most regular male porn fans prefer women who with extremely overtly suggestive, vulgar-looking faces such as Jenna Jameson. Zuzana Drabinova doesn't have what it takes to be a huge porn star even if she were willing.

"male customers lean toward nonheterosexuality/are not exclusively heterosexual."

Erik, accusing men who disagree with your taste in women of being gay or bisexual is a ridiculous, unprovable cop out.

Zuzana doesnt seem to be particularly beautifull despite her lovely body,femininity may be a correlate of beauty but it is not the overall judge of beauty.

Are you sure Miss Drabinova doesn't have implants? I look for concavity above the nipple and changing shape with body position. On some of the side views, her upper breast is almost flat, but not concave. Her torso is almost verical throughout, which is inconclusive. There is a little bit of jiggle when she takes off her blowse, but that could be the natural tissue over the implants.

If they are fake, her doctor did a nice job. If they're real, they're spectacular.

Marisa Miller, on the other hand, has clearly natural boobs. The following images show changing breast shape and concavity.

Ms Miller had an early gig with Perfect 10 magazine, which specializes in unenhanced beauties. She may have had surgery after that, but I can't imagine why.

Natural breats are way more attractive than those fake plastic things, no matter how small

Does Pason aka Red Heaven have fake boobs

A follow-up on the article, addressing inferring men’s preferences regarding the physical appearance of women, based on top-ranked porn stars, is posted here. This would also be a good time to respond to the comments left a long time ago.

Steve: Zuzana has natural breasts. I have seen other pictures of her, from many different angles, and there does not seem to be any indication that she has breast implants.

Marissa Miller has obvious breast implants. Whereas Perfect 10 specializes in models without breast implants, it apparently has featured a handful of models with breast implants; Veronika Zemanova comes to mind.

Ryan: A search for Pason aka Red Heaven reveals a woman with breast implants.

Whipped honey: You have to be kidding yourself that fake large breasts, comparable in size to Zuzana’s, would be preferred by pornographers to natural ones.

Issues such as fake hair and fake eyelashes are irrelevant because they are minor enhancements. Similarly, a nose job will usually be appreciated because it would make the nose look better. Breast implants are a different matter. You can’t tell me that for any given size of breasts (except gigantic ones) fake ones will be preferred to natural ones in young adult women. In young adulthood, breast tissue is usually firm enough for supporting a reasonable shape except for uncommon cases of gigantic breasts.

You have digressed the debate to a different issue, the extent to which men prefer natural looks, but the article is specifically in response to your argument about the extent to which masculinization in women, more specifically pornstars, is preferred by men.

You mentioned 1990s international sex symbol Pamela Anderson as an example that men are not particular about natural looks, but the flawed assumption is that Pamela Anderson’s stardom reflects strong male preference for her looks. The explanation of her stardom is simple. She was lucky to be spotted in a football game or something like this and caught the attention of Hugh Hefner, a bisexual, who likes masculinized bleached brunettes with breast implants. Pamela Anderson had her big break in Playboy magazine and later starred in Baywatch. What other alternatives were men in general during this period exposed to? Masculinized fashion models and often similar beauty pageants contestants.

You left a note about non-looks factors that influence the success of porn stars, but the very fact that I asked the reader to question whether the looks of the top-ranked pornstars made them so successful means that I am well-aware of the non-looks factors. I mentioned “disinhibited screen presence” as an example.

You also said about me, “accusing men who disagree with your taste in women of being gay or bisexual is a ridiculous, unprovable cop out.” But this is not what I said at all. I provided you with some reasons why some men may be into small/very small breasts, one of them being that the men lean toward nonheterosexuality or are not exclusively heterosexual (more likely to be true if the men prefer slightly masculine shapes elsewhere also).

The woman in the video clearly takes breast enhancement pills.

Ahhh so in other words feminine beauty is "pointless". What is the use of such beauty/femininity if/when it is unaccessible to heterosexual men???
A beautiful picture that we can only appreciate from a distance and rarely in the form of porn or glamour modeling...?
In the interests of heterosexual men, if it is more likely to attain, have sex, experiment with masculinized women why go for "boring" beautiful feminine women? Is that why many married men cheat on their wives with other women because these women are more open to fulfilling their sexual fantasies than housewives? assuming these other women being prostitues (more promiscous) and hence more masculine.

I mean Mr. Erik are we still living in this fairytale land where a HETEROSEXUAL man "chases"/"courts" a HETEROSEXUAL feminine woman? So if a women is somewhat masculinized and more confident in approaching a guy for sex or whatever than her feminine counterpart....who is the winner?
Do guys mind more masculinized women approaching them? Why do some feminine women still think that a man should approach them and break the ice?

Who are we to judge? Yes ERIK i am aware how you view "unconventional" sex but really come on now....some people like you still believe that a penis's insertion into a vagina is only for reproduction and not pleasure. Sorry to break it to you...
Most crossdressors are "straight" men.
Most child molestors paedophiles are "straight" and although are sexually interested in children or women. Most have no interest in adult "masculine" men. You have no right to say some of the things you have said (false things).
Anal sex is more prevalent than you think even since historic times (women's virginity being important etc).
God did make the mouth for eating...his creations hehe (I am joking). But Oral sex cannot be justified against religious grounds.

Anyways now sticking to the topic...So in other words your saying more masculine women in porn = more uninhibited sexual behaviour? What about cultural differences? Do you think women in veils in Middle East are all feminine because they are non promiscous? LOL I can bet with your high/strict standards they won't even come close!
So a Middle Eastern person reading this should assume that Western women are the most masculinized? even the ones (feminine ones) who do glamor modeling or leave the house dressed (yet exposing)?

Please Erik, your furstating me a little....I mean what is this natural vs fake nonsense? Yes Zuzana is very attractive. But there other ways of enhancing breasts except breast implants. If breast size is irrelevant to femininity then why do you keep bringing it up so much? I mean if you really want "natural" women why do you post pictures of women with make up, fake eyelashes, penciled in eyebrows, shaved body hair, tans etc etc? So why does this double standard apply to only breast implants?

Regarding porn why do you think that men watch these masculinized women? I can really go into details here but there are many men out there (maybe unlike you) who get off on the fact that thier woman will do anything to please them and at the least someone who just doesn't lie there (unexperienced) and waits for the man to insert them and thats it.
SURE femininity is beautiful i will definitely agree BUT sexy??? In the end what do many think with their brains or???
Anyways i like you Erik.

...[T]his is not what I said at all. I provided you with some reasons why some men may be into small/very small breasts, one of them being that the men lean toward nonheterosexuality or are not exclusively heterosexual (more likely to be true if the men prefer slightly masculine shapes elsewhere also).

Erik, this for me is where your whole argument sadly falls apart. I agree with a lot of what you say on this site, but I cannot agree with your terminology for men who disagree with you.

By saying that men who disagree with you are not "real" heterosexuals you're implying that they are not as masculine as you or people who agree with you are. There are billions of men on this earth, and while many men follow similar patterns in what they prefer in a woman, there is no way they are ever all going to agree. I don't think this has anything to do with their sexuality, and more about just a difference in opinion. I think you could say that most men throughout history and in different cultures tend to agree with what you like in a woman without saying that men who do not like the same things in women are "nonheterosexual".

Also, I dislike how you often use the phrase "the feminine norm" when referring to these women in the attractive section of your site. If you want to see the feminine norm, go outside! Just as there are billions of men in the world, there are billions of women. The truth is that the women you've posted are actually not what most everyday women look like. So, I believe it is incorrect terminology to say things like "This women has a butt that is flatter than the feminine norm or "This woman's rib cage is wider than the feminine norm" because there is not really a such thing as a "feminine norm" because females vary so widely. It would be more to correct to say "This woman's backside is flatter than most men, as proven by the various articles and studies on this site, would prefer". There is a difference between saying "This is what is normal among women" and "This is what is normal among what men prefer in women".

...[T]his is not what I said at all. I provided you with some reasons why some men may be into small/very small breasts, one of them being that the men lean toward nonheterosexuality or are not exclusively heterosexual (more likely to be true if the men prefer slightly masculine shapes elsewhere also). ~ ERIK

THANKS so much Erik! You have made me soooooo Happy. Not only have you made me realize that i am feminine and beautiful. You have also made me realize that there is this untouched world of men out there for me! 20% of men, narrowly escaped heterosexuality, not exclusively heterosexual! My word Erik you have made me a happy bottom ;)

So now whenever i see a man with a masculine woman it will be safe to assume the position...uhm i mean safe to hit on them :D
What would work best? sticking my ass out or tongue or getting on my knees?

Erik you have called several masculine women it is safe for me to bet that you will find my combination of femininity in terms of looks and masculinity in terms of sex drive....Irresistable??? LOL

Petite: Why do you have such poor understanding? Where have I called men who disagree with me nonheterosexual? The simple point is that beyond some level of masculinization in women, men attracted to these women will start leaning toward nonheterosexuality. This should be intuitive. And I am not calling nonheterosexual men less masculine, as I have already explained to you. The masculinity situation as a function of heterosexuality-nonheterosexuality is not straightforward, and there is no point to describing it here.

Regarding “feminine norm,” this reference is to the masculinity-femininity distribution among women. As a rough notion, people should be able to discern about a third of women who look more feminine than most women, a third who look more masculine than most women and the remaining third who are in the neighborhood of average. So only a minority of women are feminine in this sense, and the feminine norm refers to these women. I know that the women whose pictures I have posted are not what the majority of everyday women look like, but what would be the point of focusing on everyday women?

Erik, no need to get up in arms.

Just before you "explained" men that like small breasts by saying they are not "lifetime exclusive heterosexuals". That is implying that men who do not agree with your model of what men are supposed to like are somehow less heterosexual than men who do. What about in the case of a woman who is overall very feminine but has small breasts or narrow hips? Is any man who find her physically appealing not a lifetime heterosexual man? What about if a man has varied tastes in women; one moment he finds a thin, shapeless girl attractive and the next he is after a voluptuous feminine one? Is that men also not a lifetime exclusive heterosexual man? Personally, I find it absurd that you think you can decide how heterosexual a man is by which women he prefers. Until you show some sort of reliable article or study that demonstrates a link between men who find small breasts attractive and their degree of homosexual tendencies, I'm going to think it's complete bollocks. Homosexuality is defined by a man who finds other men sexually attractive and performs sexual acts with men, not by how "masculine" the women they prefer are.

I am not saying you should focus on everyday women. I get that you are trying to show examples of women men prefer, as in, women who are at the peak of "feminine beauty". I understand more clearly now what you mean by your use of the term "The feminine norm" to describe a women who is higher on the feminine scale than the masculine one.

Erik i know you did not respond to my previous questions but seriously do you think there were no other females in the mainstream other than Pamela Anderson? She was the only choice!? I mean the other ladies of Baywatch maybe were more feminine looking then Pamela.
What about Sarah Michelle Gellar? Jennifer love Hewit? Spice Girls (some of them)?
All these were "big" in the ninties. So men not having options doesn't resonate with me. I was a teenager when Pamela became big. I overheard my classmates talking about her and i asked who she was, to which they replied "Your a guy and you don't know who Pamela Anderson is?"

Petite: You should not be commenting at websites that you are not capable of understanding. Again, you have stated, ‘Just before you "explained" men that like small breasts by saying they are not "lifetime exclusive heterosexuals".’ But I never did.

I said that one of the reasons for attraction toward small breasts is leaning toward nonheterosexuality or being a nonheterosexual. No evidence needs to be cited. Nonheterosexual males are bound to be more attracted to secondary sexual characteristics leaning toward the male. But this is not the same as saying that those attracted toward small breasts are bound to lean toward nonheterosexuality.

You have asked what about women who are overall very feminine but have small breasts or narrow hips? This has been clearly explained within this site. I am not here to spoon feed you. If you cannot make the effort to read around , or do so but don’t understand, you should not assign beliefs or motives to me and refrain from commenting.

It should be very clear to those who have gone through this site and are capable of understanding that femininity can only be judged by looking at overall features. A clearly overall feminine woman with either small breasts or hips on the narrower side still looks clearly feminine and will much more strongly – and more so than most women – attract exclusively heterosexual men than nonheterosexual men, on average. If a man finds a thin, shapeless girl attractive and then later a voluptuous feminine one attractive or switches back and forth, I would refrain from judging sexual orientation without more data. In case you didn’t know, some people don’t have stable erotic interests though these interests tend to stabilize with aging. Also, individual attraction could be due to non-looks factors.

And nonheterosexual doesn’t just include homosexuals; it includes all kinds of bisexuals. For technical reasons, it also includes people that may currently identify as heterosexual but have been nonheterosexual in the past.

Erik, Why do you feel the need to belittle me? I am easily just as intellectual as you are. It does not help your argument if you're just going to label anyone who disagrees with you as incapable of understanding you. If your points are so perfectly outlined and backed up, you should be able to convince me no problem. I'm not as stubborn as you are.

I definitely agree that men are more likely to like a feminine woman with an hourglass shape and other such features. I would say that this is true 9 out of 10 times. There is a standard in what most men prefer in women. It has been proven throughout history and even among different completely separate cultures. You have very clearly and undoubtedly proven this on this website. I simply disagree that liking a feminine woman automatically makes you a "lifetime exclusive heterosexual".

I also still think it's improper to declare some men as "leaning towards nonheterosexuality" no matter what kind of women they like. Being homosexual is defined by being attracted to members of the same sex. These men are still attracted to women, not men. Like I said, if you can show me a study that shows a consistency between men who like masculine women and how many men they are also attracted to, then I would start to feel differently, but most of these men never show bisexual tendencies, just the tenancy to like more masculine females. Just because a man likes a more masculine woman does not mean he's not actually heterosexual. He could just like women who looks strong and can dominate him? I don't know, but I wouldn't automatically assume they're bisexual.

I'd also like to note something: Did you ever notice that many gay men are actually attracted to effeminate men? As in, men that are overly feminine? If gay men are attracted to masculine qualities exclusively, why would they find such girly men so attractive? Why would the try to emulate females to the extent you can sometimes not be able to tell they're men at all? Could it not be possible that men, gay or straight, have various opinions on what makes an attractive partner?

Peter: Your comment about feminine beauty being pointless or being inaccessible to heterosexual men is useless and does not follow from anything I have written.

You apparently have no understanding of statistical distributions. If two populations, A and B, differ in height and A is shorter on average, there would be no difficulty in finding members of A that are taller than most members of B or members of B that are shorter than most members of A. It is in this sense that an inclination toward a stronger libidio or greater promiscuity tends to go with greater masculinization. One could find some masculine women with hardly any interest in sex, just as one could find very promiscuous feminine women. So your comment about


…why go for "boring" beautiful feminine women? Is that why many married men cheat on their wives with other women because these women are more open to fulfilling their sexual fantasies than housewives?...

and anything related to it is a useless one.

You must stop assigning beliefs to me unless there is clear evidence for it. You said that I believe that the insertion of a penis into the vagina is only for reproduction, not pleasure. How do you know this? This is not my belief.

Again, you bring in off-topic issues. The comments at this site are full of off-topic issues. I usually don’t mind, but when someone repeatedly does this, then it is time for me to ask this person to stop, and I am asking you to stop. Often I ignore off-topic issues because of lack of time, but if the off-topic issues involve misrepresenting my stances and assigning beliefs to me that I don’t harbor and dislike, then I have no choice but to waste my time responding.

The article you are commenting on has nothing to do with cross-dressers or pedophiles or anal sex or religious stances against oral sex. And even so, your arguments are very poor. Yes, most cross-dressers are straight men, but most men are straight. Per capita, nonheterosexuals are much more overrepresented among cross-dressers. Similarly, homosexuals and bisexuals are much more likely than heterosexuals to be child molesters. The key is to look at the per capita statistic.

You asked, “So in other words your saying more masculine women in porn = more uninhibited sexual behaviour?” There is a tendency for more disinhibited sexual behavior to go with greater masculinization, and keep in mind the note about statistical distributions.

Cultural differences are an off-topic issue that I don’t have the time to address here, and in any case it does not follow by any stretch of the imagination that what I have written implies that “women in veils in Middle East are all feminine because they are non promiscous?” or that “a Middle Eastern person reading this should assume that Western women are the most masculinized?” Women in the Middle East are not as free to indulge their desires as Women in the West. So looking at behavior is of little relevance, and getting reliable statistics about sexual behaviors or inclinations in the Middle East would be a difficult job also.

You asked, “If breast size is irrelevant to femininity then why do you keep bringing it up so much?” This website is not about femininity. It is about feminine beauty. Breast size by itself is of little relevance to femininity but it is relevant to beauty. To the extent that female breasts are a secondary sexual feature, they need to be discussed.

Regarding breast implants vs. make-up, shaved body hair and tanning, tanning is a typically natural response to sun exposure, make-up is typically reversible minor enhancement, and shaving hair on the body except the pubes is a reversible minor enhancement of secondary sexual characteristics. Breast implants are a more drastic approach and not reversed without surgical intervention. In addition, well done make-up, shaving of non-pubic body hair and well-done tanning look natural, whereas breast implants rarely look natural when the woman is seen bare-breasted. So I am not applying double standards to breast implants.

Why do men watch masculinized women in porn? This should be obvious from the previous discussion. Some are into masculinized women and others don’t have much luck finding feminine women doing the things they wish to see.

I didn’t say that 20% of men have narrowly escaped heterosexuality and are not exclusively heterosexual. What I specifically said was that up to 20% of men have either experienced same-sex attraction or indulged in homosexual behavior at some point of their life, i.e., this population is not lifetime-exclusive heterosexual. This does not make a lot more men available to you. Most of this 20% comprises of men who are self-identified heterosexuals and no longer experience same-sex attraction or have any intentions of indulging in homosexual behavior.

When you see a man with a masculine woman, nothing about his sexual inclinations can be assumed upfront. Most men are heterosexual whereas a minority of women are feminine. So some heterosexual men are bound to end up with masculinized women. It is only when a rich/famous man or a man with plenty of choice has a history of dating masculinized women or ends up with one is it reasonable to question whether this man leans toward nonheterosexuality or is a nonheterosexual.

I will not find your feminine looks attractive. Most people find masculine looks in men attractive.

I did not say that there were no other females in the mainstream than Pamela Anderson. The other female competitors would be those shown in glamorous roles or as sex symbols. Sarah Michelle Gellar or Jennifer Love Hewitt didn’t go around posing nude in men’s magazines as far as I know, and you can bet many men preferred their looks to those Pamela Anderson. Another factor is willingness to sleep around. People like Hugh Hefner have made centerfolds out of women who have slept with him and women who would refuse to do this or sleep around with the producers of soap operas or movies wouldn’t get a role.

Anyway, I have asked you to comply with some requirements. I am going to ask you to comply with other requirements based on comments you have posted elsewhere. Please heed or I will ask you to leave. I also want you to not waste my time with comments that reflect a poor understanding of my arguments. If you don’t understand the issue or have not read enough of my arguments, don’t leave a comment.

Ahhh so its come to this :(
Ok i understand, this is your website and you have asked i will try my best to stick to the topic BUT in my defense what other means did i have of bringing up some of the off topic issues? I e-mailed you twice but did not hear from you, plus you don't have a similar site on homosexuality where i can "challenge" some of your ideas. I notice that you usually respond to messages that "attack" you or your reasoning.

That was a little interesting you mentioning that you wouldn't find my "feminine" looks attractive. Can i say Ouch?..You have not even seen me? So how can you even answer this? "Most people find masculinity in men attractive"...and that is your reasoning for not finding my looks attractive?....because they deviate from the norm? Why do you always have to bring up/stick to the norm? Do you not have anything that stands out? (your intelligence comes to mind...)
That affected me ... a little. But then this is where we differ, I don't need statistics or media to "decide" what is or should be more attractive to me :)
Besides i was going to e-mail you pictures of me but didn't want to just send them without establishing contact.

Erik you did not understand my comments on promiscuous mascline and "boring" feminine (off course these terms are not representative). Many times on this site you have mentioned how it is hard to find "revealing" pictures of feminine women. Also you have mentioned that the women who you have used are not the "best" out there. Leading one to believe that somewhere out there, there is a heavenly feminine beauty who due to being "feminine" will not expose herself. You have also mentioned many times that masculinized women are more likely to engage in promiscous/more "open" sexual behaviours. And so lets say for arguments sake this is changed...More feminine women are accepted into porn but they are less likely to engage in more "sexy" behaviours. Do you think most heterosexual men would like that?
I am sure your aware of the term "good girl to take home to Mom" vs "girl id like to screw". Which would Jennifer Love Hewitt/ Sarah Michelle Geller fall in? Pamela Anderson? If the former posed nude would that change anything? (I am sure the two mentioned actresses must have done some nudity in movies but can't remember). I know many guys who like wholesome, feminine girls (much like some of the girls on this site) and any hint of promiscouity from them means interest lost. Yes we do categorize women just like you do :)
Hmmm i am reminded of a comment you made in a page about a glamour model you discovered did porn and how you were "not pleased" to find this out. Don't worry, there are many guys like you out there, who think the same way. So maybe some guys loose "interest" after knowing a particular woman/actress acted in a sex scene/equivalent. Back to the Pamela Anderson situation, during that era many men did find the "good girls" Jennifer and Sarah more attractive but if they did what Pamela did of "feminine" looks in them would not be as interested. Do you understand what i am trying to say? i can't quite put my finger on it....

Regarding the 20% "homosexual/bisexual/pansexual" statistic. Where are the statistics that men who have participated in homosexual activities in the past (most likely adolescent/teen years) are not going to repeat if the oppertunity presented itself? I know plenty of married men with children who sleep with guys and will never admit to it openly for obvious reasons.

Regarding the paedophilia and homosexuality, I have noticed you using these in the same sentence many times and will do more research into it. But I find it very hard to believe. Men deviate most from childlike characteristics compared to women. I find it very hard to believe that someone who is sexually attracted to children would be attracted to men...expecially with body/facial hair etc.

Statistics are just that! They can be used by anybody to prove a point. I do not entirely believe in these. Instead of using some "older, white, straight, North American men's biased" statistics why don't you do some of your own (would they be free of bias)? I am sure you are aware of polling/votes on sites such as askmen and Bastardly (which you must love?). Why have you never had a poll here? asking readers if they found a particular woman attractive??? You will be surprised! I only see that as an improvement and another way for the reader to get involved.

In the end, always a pleasure learning from you (I will admit to it) but please don't think i have not read or am not aware of your work. I know what you said a few years back. For example this change from the finer/narrower (the better) face shape/features to a more broader face for females is quite the change! I have not obviously read every single detail you mentioned but enough to remember many things you mentioned so i am not that bad...At least i am not coming and asking you why a woman with an angular chin/jaw has a masculine jawline/chin.
Coming to my looks again....Heterosexual men like femininity. Many "straight" men have said that i am pretty/feminine and if i was a girl they would...Not to mention many drunk straight guys coming on to me. So i definately don't agree with what you said, from the perspective of heterosexual men.
Anyways Have a good weekend end Erik :)

I fogot to mention something. There are other ways of enhancing breast size. I know many transgendered people who have larger breasts than real women. There is such a thing as "pills" you know what i am talking about...that can make a woman more feminine looking.
I personally like this idea of videos that you post some of them with sound. I enjoyed the video of Dasha and another girl who had a feminine voice. I think fcr people to fully appreciate feminine beauty as much as they can it would be great to post more videos...where you can hear there voice, see them in motion. Synesthesia!

I am sorry Erik for calling you somethings...but some of the comments you made/make hurt me.

Petite: I don’t care how intellectual you are as long as you exhibit an understanding of my arguments. I am not one who responds to dissent by saying that the person is incapable of understanding me, but this is my response when I encounter straw men or caricatures of my arguments.

You acknowledge that men will generally like the more feminine women, with hourglass figures, over other women. So there should be no exchange between the two of us. The reason there is an exchange is because you are ascribing beliefs to me that I do not hold.

Again, you say, ‘I disagree that liking a feminine woman automatically makes you a "lifetime exclusive heterosexual"’ but where have I ever said this? Some homosexuals/bisexuals have told me they like the looks of the feminine women I have been showing over those of fashion models. But the statistical tendency should be clear…which group is more likely to prefer what. Group differences are what matter to this site in so far as the site purpose of promoting feminine beauty goes. For instance, the reason fashion models typically look the way they do is not because of the preference of a single individual but because of the central tendency of the preferences of the dominant fashion designers, the manifestation of which is constrained by what they can get away with it, and it should be very clear that this central tendency has nothing whatsover to do with the central tendency of women’s looks preferences among heterosexual men. The existence of heterosexual men attracted to less feminine or slightly masculinized women does nothing to change this.

I also have not declared some men as nonheterosexual no matter what kind of women they are attracted to. You again forget the existence of bisexuals, some of whom are predominantly heterosexual but harbor some homosexual attraction. Some men are exclusively heterosexual in adulthood but have experienced some homosexual attraction as teenagers. What is so difficult in understanding that if these men are attracted to men and women (or were at some point) then they could be attracted to masculinized women? I am not going to judge someone’s sexual orientation based on his woman, but sometimes you get multiple cues and then you can wonder.

I know that many homosexual men are into effeminate men just as many of them are into masculine men. So what? The effeminate men are still more masculine than masculine women, on average. The preferences of homosexuals are more variable than those of heterosexuals (among whom there also is plenty of variability). So what? Don’t just focus on homosexuals. Focus on the two groups: lifetime-exclusive heterosexuals and others (conveniently labeled nonheterosexuals; 15-20% of the population). Do you think there are no central tendency differences between these groups? Should this central tendency difference not be intuitive? I know it would be nice to cite some scholarly studies that show these differences regarding ratings of women’s looks, but science-oriented researchers usually ignore the phenomenon that the majority of people that have experienced homosexual interests at some point are predominantly or exclusively heterosexual in adulthood, and the methods they employ are often close to useless for discerning the nuances of attraction.

Don’t waste you time with individual preferences when they are not relevant to this site’s purpose, and you must make an effort to understand my arguments.

Peter: Your emails were sent to an address I use for this site. I will not be responding to off-topic comments in it either. This has nothing to do with you but I don’t have the time to respond to matters related to this site, let alone off-topic issues. I will get around to answering your emails when I have the time.

I have a site on homosexuality where you can challenge my views, and in some form or the other it has been around much longer than this site, but I have not responded to comments or updated it for over an year. So your comments there will have to wait for a response, and chances are very high that my response, not anytime soon for sure, will be a dismissal of your straw men or caricatures. I would recommend that you not waste your time reading what I have to say on homosexuals and bisexuals. You won’t understand and you will not like it.

I have never appreciated feminine looks in men. So rest assured I will not like your looks, and this has nothing to do with deviation from the norm; just my preference. The only looks in men that I have any respect or liking for are very masculine looks; mere masculine looks are only acceptable to me in the face. This is in contrast to my liking for women’s looks, which ranges from the slightly masculine to the feminine but not extremely feminine, leaning overwhelmingly toward the feminine side of average. I have stated my preferences here but when I talked about people’s preferences in general, there was a need to mention them.

Your comment mentions the scenario “… More feminine women are accepted into porn …” Pornographers are not declining feminine women; there just is a natural shortage of them. In any case, pornographers would rather sell 5 videos with one attractive woman each than one video with 5 attractive women…business interests are play. So it is unlikely that we will see a lot of porn full of attractive feminine women, which heterosexual men will surely appreciate if it came out. The “good girl to take home to Mom” is irrelevant to enjoying pornography or appreciating the physical attractiveness of a nude model. The goal of this site is to go mainstream with feminine beauty promotion, and this means definitely avoiding porn stars and preferably also nude models. This is the reason why I am not pleased to come across a model that I could use but it turns out she is a porn star; her porn work does nothing to change my opinion of her physical attractiveness. At some point I will come up with a mainstream version of this site, minus the science and the nudity. I will avoid nude models there.

Married men with children who have sex with men are obviously not exclusively heterosexual. One of the groups I mentioned comprised of people who are exclusively heterosexual in adulthood but had homosexual interests in the past, which went away. This has repeatedly been documented in probability sampling of the general population. It is not like all these people are liars. Some have lost their homosexual inclinations completely, and some people reporting this are older individuals that did not seek homosexual encounters even though they could have. You want to take a look at these studies… you know where to look them up. This is an off-topic issue for this website.

Statistics are not just “that.” They are required for making one’s case empirically, and if they are misused, then it is possible to document misuse. Polling askmen or bastardly is a waste of time. They will not yield probability samples. I have much better data: controlled laboratory studies, data from probability sampling, etc.

I have never gone from “finer/narrower (the better) face shape/features to a more broader face for females.” Finer facial features are a different matter from narrowness-breadth, and I have never wavered from a preference for finer facial features. And the breadth issue is a shape one, the feminine ones being wider if other things are held constant, and again I have never wavered from overwhelmingly preferring feminine faces in women; the only examples where you would see me with appreciation for somewhat masculinized faces in women is when the masculinization is accompanied by fine facial features.

alright now that you have "clarified" yourself. You don't like feminine looks in men and i don't like men with below average to average self confidence. Confidence level being more important to me than looks, I myself have above average confidence. Just out of curiousity and this is a personal question. What is your orientation? strictly heterosexual, narrowly escaped heterosexual etc?

About Statistics....Lets see if i can explain this. If i am looking at child molestors, most of them happen to be related to children. (As well most incestuous child relationships happen in "heterosexual" families). So i can come up with a statistic that a child is more likely to be molested by someone "heterosexual" in the family. Do you understand what i am trying to say?
As well if i am looking for "uninhibited" sex across ethnic groups even in North America...what do you suspect my findings might reveal? White heterosexuals and homosexuals are more likely to engage in such behaviour compared to their ethnic counterparts. So must i conclude from this that White people are more "promiscuous"? I know your aware that this is the "belief" held by many Middle Easterns/South Asians/East Asians of White people.

Looking at this mental illness that you have mentioned about homosexuals. Why do you think that is? Do you think homosexuals have an easy acceptance, societal abuse, jobs etc. So is it surprising that many have mental illnesses???
Do you realize mental illness does not have to be a permenant, life long situation? A person interviewed about mental illness can not suffer from its symptoms a few years later? So using that person as a "statistic" a few years later is ok?
Consider this information....About 50% of marriages end in divorce in North America (mostly white), children of divorce/single families have higher rates of mental illness, new immigrants have higher rates of mental illness, women of ethnic minorities (such as Muslim women facing cultural constraints by their male realtives) have higher rates of mental illness.....WOMEN have a higher rate of mental illness than men!
So if i use some of the statistics and "target" a group is that good? What if that target is non heterosexual men?

I personally don't let statistics cloud my judgement. Mental illness is very "easily" used these days. For example i can say you "suffer" from some kind of mental illness based on what i know about you. When people think of mental illness they think of extremes....psychiatric hospitals, locked up etc. Mental illness is very variant and indefinite. So i don't think targeting a group is fair. I can come up with a statistic saying African Americans are more likely to suffer from mental illness because of poverty, lack of jobs etc.
According to "your statistics" I should be a mentally ill homosexual male participating in risque sexual behaviour involving "faeces" BUT i am far removed from it.

i did not say USE polls from those websites. I meant using polls on this site!!! Such as in the attractive women category where people can leave their opinion in terms of polls. It will make for a more "unbiased" opinion. You are choosing and posting pics of women that you think are feminine/attractive. What if there was a poll and most people found one to be more/less attractive. At least it will tell you how uninformed we regular people are? Its a good way to get more interactive with this website.

"I would recommend that you not waste your time reading what I have to say on homosexuals and bisexuals. You won’t understand and you will not like it." ~ ERIK

Do you realize what you just wrote?
So your saying somethings about homosexuals/bisexuals through "data/statistics" you have collected and it should not be of concern to another homosexual? So who is this information directed at? Homophobic white male population? religious groups?
Erik you mention many times won't understand won't understand that. I do WANT to understand/learn. I know some homosexuals/bisexuals who will flat out reject it and never bother with it but i want to understand. I don't believe its a good idea to tell people not to come back to your site, stop reading, not understanding etc. If you are trying to bring your point across whatever it might be (feminine beauty/homosexuals). Do you think academia visit your website? or do you just want "yes men"/ people who agree with you to be on this site and anyone who doesn't obviously hasn't read everything or "stupid" enough not to figure it out.

I like learning from you Erik...oh i forgot to ask you
I mentioned Spice girls before (I was/am a huge fan obviously) did you "appreciate" any of their looks?

Peter: I gave you a link to a website where you can post your homosexuality-related questions and asked you to not post off-topic issues here. But you have not listened. Your kind of questions waste my time and I have no choice but to defend myself. Consider yourself warned. No more off-topic questions at this website.

I am compelled to answer your questions because I strongly reject accusations of misusing statistical data.

I gave you a link about the data showing a clear strong relation between nonheterosexuality and sexual interest in children. You have not disputed anything in it, and you must not dispute it at this website, but at the homosexuality site. What you have brought up is molestations within heterosexual families, but the fact remains that heterosexual families do not necessarily comprise of heterosexuals. As I have mentioned repeatedly, most homosexual interests have occurred in predominantly heterosexual people, and these individuals are not lifetime-exclusive heterosexuals, obviously. The tendency for same-sex attraction to cluster with sexual interest in children is strong and very clear. Try disputing this. It is clear that either factors leading to same-sex attraction increase the odds of sexual interest in children or vice versa. This is an empirical find and the homosexuals can do nothing but come up with sophistry to refute this.

In the U.S. the promiscuity of whites is intermediate; some ethnic groups are more promiscuous, other less. So what? This is not an issue under discussion. It does not show that I am misusing statistics. It does nothing to refute the contention that sexual interest in children is more common among nonheterosexuals. Why do you digress?

Beliefs about white promiscuity held by Asians are of no relevance. The data from probability samples is of relevance. I am not citing people’s beliefs about nonheterosexuals being more likely to be child molesters, but published data.

Why should I be explaining to you why mental illness is more common in homosexuals? There is much on this that I have written and a lot of it, including the gist, is freely accessible online. You must make the effort to read it and I can be of no help to you if you are unable to understand it.

Of course, I do realize that mental illnesses do not have to be a permanent condition. There is nothing that I have ever written that implies otherwise. One can certainly have a meaningful comparison of two groups with respect to any mental illness diagnosis in lifetime or symptoms within the past year. Any way you look at it, the nonheterosexuals are more mentally ill.

The 50% divorce statistic in America is likely false. The true figure should be still substantial, but this statistic and your other examples about rates of mental illnesses are irrelevant since you are using them as examples of statistical data that should not be used to target groups. Your assumption is that I am using the data on homosexuals to ‘target’ them as a group. My intentions with the data have been to seek an understanding of nonheterosexuality. Just because I have come to unflattering conclusions does not mean that my intentions have been to ‘target’ the group. What the public thinks of mental illness is of no relevance. I have used notions of mental illnesses in modern psychiatry even though a conclusion of mine is not consistent with a gay-lobby-concocted position statement of official psychiatry organizations.

There is nothing in the statistics that I have presented that should make you ‘a mentally ill homosexual male participating in risque sexual behaviour involving "faeces".’ The statistics that I have presented are about differences in prevalence, and you have again ignored the note about statistical distribution I left in a comment above. Do you realize why I recommend that you should avoid reading my arguments on homosexuality? The answer is that you do not have sufficient background for the understanding. People with an interest in homosexuality, an open mind and sufficient education will want to read it regardless of their orientation, profession or beliefs . You seem to have the interest but not the education, and I am not sure about the open mind part.

Other issues: Don’t waste my time asking about the Spice girls. Yes, I am exclusively heterosexual. I don’t need polls about the women I am selecting. Most people going through this site will not bother and malicious individuals will not provide their honest opinion. What I need is free time to improve this site, and you must not waste my time or your comments are unwelcome.

Ok Thank you and good luck. I hope you put your intelligence to "good use". Some facts are better not brought to light for "ethical" reasons such as Nordics having the highest frequency of good looking/fine featured people, homosexuals most likely suffering from mental illness, molesting children etc.
I ask you how would you feel if some scientists came to the conclusion that the "group" you belong to has the most likelihood of child molestors? mentally ill people? and people's general opinion of your ethnic group's looks was not high? Can you imagine how it feels? especially when one did not choose to be born that way. I think i can imagine what some "masculine" women might be feeling after reading material from this site. I am sorry to you all but please be comforted by the fact that there is someONE out there for you even though the majority seemingly "prefer" something else.
I will not be bothering you again Erik.

erik, nordics may have the highest number of good looking fine featured people but they also have an extremely low birth rate and a high miscegenation rate and those fine features are going bye bye. when they are gone i wonder what the porno people are going to do.

Terry: I hope you do not intend to post comments along the lines of Peter above—derailing the discussion in an unrelated direction and involving bad data/arguments.

Northern Europeans do not have an extremely low birth rate. Scandinavians and their northern counterparts in the U.S. tend to have close-to-replacement-level fertility; the least fertile are disproportionately southern and eastern European countries.

In addition, few Northern Europeans have children with people from other populations. Taking the U.S. as an example of what may be expected in an ethnically diverse society (the U.S. is about 60% white), recent (2005) natality statistics reveal that approximately 90% of children born to white women and 93% of children fathered by white men are white. These figures are unlikely to considerably change with continued immigration because mixed-ancestry children born to whites do not vary strongly with the proportion of non-whites in a region. Note also that continued immigration promotes increased “ghettoization” and greater ethnic tensions, which are not conducive to the mixing of ethnic groups.

The [American] National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health survey [started 1994-1995 and cohort followed through 2008] reveals the lower willingness of Northern European women to have relationships with men of other ancestries. For instance, the proportions of white women who reported any African-American sex partner, by hair color, were: black (8.2%), brown (5.0%), blond (3.9%) and red (3.9%); obviously, the proportions of mixed-ancestry children born to these women are/will be much lower.

In addition, there is no nice way to describe the physical appearance [and also personality characteristics] of the majority of white people who have children with non-whites, but I will leave it at low odds of any serious decline in the number of fine-facial-featured good looking Northern Europeans in the next couple of generations.


It is true that Scandinavian countries have some of the highest fertility rates in Europe (as opposed to Southern and Eastern Europe where the fertility rate has dropped to the critical rate of 1.3 children per couple. This is essentially the rate at which a population will die out.

Sweden's rate is 1.67 - which is below the replacement rate (roughly 2.1). As far as I know, no society that dropped below 1.9 was able to reverse the decline.

The data is troubling for the West and for Caucasians.

Regarding the fact that few White women show interest in non-whites...there are always other, less savoury means to 'acquire' White women:

Apollyon: I obtained fertility rates of 1.9 (Iceland; was over 2 before the financial crisis), 1.8 (Norway), 1.73 (Finland), 1.74 (Denmark) and 1.72 (Netherlands). So the overall picture is not bad, especially if you consider some background issues.

One factor to consider is the diminishing wealth of the masses in the West, which makes it harder for couples to have as many children as they desire. This also affects welfare/minority handouts. Whereas initially immigrants will take advantage of the handouts to have more children than whites, in the long run their fertility is going down because there is only so much that can be given in handouts, not to mention the increased ethnic tensions resulting from a productive majority supporting an increasing minority underclass while this underclass blames its ills on racism and discrimination. Fewer handouts will also tend to make the West less attractive to immigrants.

Another factor to consider is that women less likely to give birth are disproportionately feminist or feminist-influenced. Personally, I am pleased that some of the feminist-types that I have come across have not reproduced; they will leave a better world than the one they came into. With some exceptions in Scandinavia, the feminist movement has not been favorable toward motherhood. As the feminist impact diminishes, more motherhood-friendly policies can be expected to improve fertility, assuming other things are held constant. Even in Scandinavia, the feminist impact is likely to diminish as more people realize that the movement is not exactly about women’s rights/welfare. The immigrant rape issue is a good illustration. Most of the rapes of Scandinavian women are caused by immigrants who are a numerical minority. The cultures these immigrants bring with them are also far less gender egalitarian than Scandinavian cultures. This pits the welfare of Scandinavian women against more immigration and “immigrant rights” that the feminists promote. That the feminist leadership sides with immigrant interests in this case shows that there is much more to feminism than women’s rights/welfare, and probing into the innards of feminism will bring forth unsavory facts.

As far as acquiring white women by force goes, the acquisition is temporary, will rarely cause pregnancy and result in mixed-ancestry children in the extreme case of the raped woman who refuses to abort because abortion is a sin. The rapes increasingly radicalize white youth, the most fertile/soon-to-be-fertile white demographic, against immigrants, which combined with white flight from increasingly immigrant-rich cities such as Malmö, translates to no serious threat to the number of attractive Northern Europeans. This is not to say that Western nations do not face various demographic problems, but at least Northern Europeans do not face the issue that Terry brought up; most of the other demographic issues are better discussed at more appropriate websites.

Click here to post a new comment