text:
Drop-dead gorgeous women?
Fig 1. Shown from left: Elsa Benitez, Veronica Varekova, Elle MacPherson, Rebecca Romijn, Rachel Hunter, Daniella Pestova, Yamila Diaz-Rahi, Carolyn Murphy.
Of the 8 women shown above, except Elsa Benitez, the others have excessive facial masculinization. If all the 7 masculinized women were in their twenties, except Daniela Pestova, the others would still have excessive facial masculinization. Additionally, at the time this photo was taken, Rachel Hunter, Yamila-Diaz Rahi, Elle MacPherson and Rebecca Romijn had the faces of male transvestites.
The more interesting point is that the annual Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue is oriented toward heterosexual men, and it sells briskly, which underscores the need for this site. If the masses of heterosexual men knew any better, they would seek alternative publications for pictures of attractive women.
There is no need to discuss the looks of Elsa Benitez and a young Daniella Pestova; the masculine looks of Veronica Varekova and Carolyn Murphy have been addressed on the "sexy fashion models?" page; the manly appearances of Elle MacPherson and Rebecca Romijn have been addressed elsewhere; and the remaining two women are addressed below.
If one were just shown pictures of the face of Rachel Hunter for the first time, it would be obvious that one were looking at a male transvestite, and it would come as a great surprise that the photos are of a woman (Fig 2).
Fig 2. Rachel Hunter; contrary to first impression, the person shown is a woman; click for larger image.
Playboy paid Rachel Hunter over a million dollars to pose topless, hoping to capitalize on her fame, but as the following thumbnail collage shows, it had to go through great lengths -- convoluted posing -- to conceal the unfeminine physique of Rachel Hunter (Fig 3), something that can hardly be helped by even large breast implants (Fig 4).
Fig 3. A thumbnail collage of Rachel Hunter's nude pictures in Playboy magazine; small versions of the pictures are available at gorilla mask; see Playboy online for larger samples.
Fig 4. It is surprising that Playboy came so close to revealing the flattened backside of Rachel Hunter.
The facial features of Yamila Diaz-Rahi are shown in the next picture. Given her face, one couldn't be blamed if one were prompted to search whether Yamila is a male-to-female transsexual, but Yamila does not have a manly physique and appears to be a biological woman with an eunuch's face.
Fig 5. Yamila Diaz-Rahi.
Now, it could be pointed out that the focus in a swimsuit issue is not on the face, but on the body, and hence standards could be relaxed for the face. However, relaxed standards should still translate to a woman's face rather than that of a man's (Fig 6).
Fig 6. Molly Sims in the 2006 Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue; is this person a woman?
On the other hand, if indeed the focus in a swimsuit issue should be on the body, then what standards should be met if heterosexual men are the target? It is obvious what types of physiques would be necessary here and the kind of response they should elicit (Figures 7-9).
Fig 7. Nikita Laska from DDgirls.
Fig 8. Dasha from model flats.
Fig 9. Luciana Vendramini in Brazilian Playboy (Dec 2003).
So, did the models in the 2006 Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue meet the physique standards? Obviously, none of the big-eight except Elsa Benitez came close. But what about the others? Consider some samples below.
First up is Anne Vyalitsyna compared with Shay Laren (Fig 10). Anne Vyalitsyna has a masculine face, whereas Shay Laren has a feminine though unimpressive face, which is not a problem because the focus is on the physique.
Fig 10. Anne Vyalitsyna (left) and Shay Laren.
Among the somewhat masculine women in the 2006 Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue, Anne Vyalitsyna's physique is among the best looking ones, but between her physique and that of Shay Laren, which is likely to make lifetime-exclusive heterosexual men go "Dammmn!!!"?.
Fig 11. Anne Vyalitsyna from Sports Illustrated (left) and Shay Laren from DDgirls.
Fig 12. Anne Vyalitsyna from Sports Illustrated (left) and Shay Laren from DDgirls.
Next, we compare Brooklyn Decker with Corinna. Corinna obviously has finer and more feminine facial features, and a more impressive physique.
Fig 13. Brooklyn Decker from Sports Illustrated (left) and Corinna from Femjoy.
Fig 14. Brooklyn Decker from Sports Illustrated (left) and Corinna from Femjoy.
Next, the manly Mallory Snyder is compared to a more feminine glamour model.
Fig 15. Mallory Snyder from Sports Illustrated.
Fig 16. Mallory Snyder from Sports Illustrated (left) and Pamela from Femjoy.
If Mallory Snyder were to pose like Pamela below, would her physique look anywhere as good from the perspective of lifetime-exclusive heterosexual men?
Fig 17. Pamela from Femjoy.
Next, Daniella Sarahyba is compared to a glamour model. Compare the robust and masculine face of Daniella with the fine and feminine face of Courtney Jenson.
Fig 18. Daniella Sarahyba from Sports Illustrated (left) and Courtney Jenson from Courtney's camera.
How many lifetime-exclusive heterosexual men will find the physique of Daniella pleasing?
Fig 19. Daniella Sarahyba from Sports Illustrated (left) and Courtney from Courtney's camera.
Next up is Yesica Toscanini; note her robust and masculinized face. Yesica is compared to Miss Budapest 1994, Anita Perger, more commonly known as Anita Dark.
Fig 20. Yesica Toscanini from Sports Illustrated (left) and Anita Dark.
Fig 21. Yesica Toscanini from Sports Illustrated (left) and Anita Dark.
The full list of the swimsuit models, along with their pictures, in the 2006 Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue can be found here. Only a minority of these women are feminine, which is typical of the annual Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue. If heterosexual men are the target audience, then the appropriate choices among the models chosen for the 2006 issue would be Elsa Benitez, Petra Nemcova, Pania Rose and Maria Sharapova, i.e., 4 of the 26 women chosen. It may be pointed out that Maria Sharapova is not feminine, but given her Tennis-star status, her looks and the general looks of top-ranked female Tennis players, it would be patently foolish for Sport Illustrated to not include her. On the other hand, the physiques of these four women are not the kind that would make heterosexual men drool.
Sports Illustrated is obviously in a position to seek and select feminine and very attractive models, but no such thing is seen. In this regard, it is not clear whether the editorial team behind the production of the annual swimsuit issue comprises of a number of homosexuals who, mindful of the heterosexual male target audience, throw in a handful of feminine women and use posing tricks to make the others look as feminine as possible or if the editors are heterosexual but largely clueless about aesthetics and swayed by what the fashion world promotes as attractive, i.e., masculine looks in women, which are preferred by gay fashion designers.
Nevertheless, the annual swimsuit issue sells well, and its sales can be attributed to the advertising power of Sports Illustrated and male heterosexual buyers who simply do not know any better. As to why a number of heterosexual men do not know any better, the answer is partly obvious in the sourcing of the glamour models on this page from adult-oriented sites. The domination of the fashion business by male homosexuals is so extensive that feminine and attractive women who refuse to pose nude or to deal with the casting couch remain virtually unknown. Because of the sleazy nature of most websites depicting nudity and/or sexual activity, the models featured therein are rarely able to go mainstream. Additionally, most heterosexual men have better things to do with their time than to peruse adult-oriented sites for pictures of attractive women. Besides, random searches for pictures of very attractive women on the internet will result in successes that are few and far between. Therefore, there are few commonly encountered sources that would hone the aesthetic sense of heterosexual men at-large, and it should not be surprising if a number of heterosexual men lap up the annual Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue. This scenario does not bode well for the promotion of feminine beauty, but then this site will hopefully improve the situation and force Sports Illustrated to select more feminine models. Indeed, heterosexual men well-informed about the aesthetics of the female form will not bother perusing a magazine known to feature mostly masculinized women.
What a fascinating website. Thank you so much for being UN PC and sharing all this eye opening info.
Im going to spread your site link far and wide to other women and men out there who need an education on the fashion industry.
To me, Yesica Toscanini seems to have a less masuline face than Anita Dark. Her cheekbones are the highest on the site, giving her the looks of a transvestite that has had a nose job and plucks their eyebrows too much.
You have a very interesting website, but your central idea seems to be that porn stars (gee, excuse me, "glamour models") represent what women "should" look like. Like if anyone doesn't have a tiny waist, full boobs, and a shapely butt, they are a broken, masculinized, eunuch-looking freako.
I don't want to get into a big argument or anything, so let me just say that I disagree. Women come in all shapes, sizes, and hormone levels. For a better example of "normal women", please avoid the porn stars and look at the Dove Campaign for Real Beauty.
C.M.S.: Anita Dark isn't very feminine, but she is more feminine than Yesica, and although she is 31 now and about 11 years older than Yesica, she still looks overall better than Yesica. Matched for age, Yesica would be no match for Anita -- from the perspective of lifetime-exclusive heterosexual men. Finding pictures of Anita Dark when she was around 20 is not an easy task, but as the following comparison shows, a 20- to 21-year-old Anita Dark was much more feminine-looking than Yesica in her late teens.
The following pictures of Yesica Toscanini show her masculinized facial features, and she is going to look much manlier ten years from now.
The following pictures of a younger Anita Dark show facial features unambiguously more feminine than those of Yesica.
Just a quick thought from a male point of view….
Sure, runway models are not representative of the average woman….never have been, never will be. Why?
Although it sounds far more sensational to blame the 'homosexual fashion industry' and their predilection towards young boys, the truth is simply this – It's a marketing strategy, and a damn successful one, at that.
Think of it like this – a fashion company, like most other companies, is in business to sell something.
In order to sell something, you have to create demand. Enter the 'fashion model'.
She possesses uncommon features, unrealistic proportions, and unattainable status….basically, she's nothing like the average woman. She's skinnier, prettier, taller, more refined, more glamorous…. Everything that an average woman wants to be, she IS, and much more.
So when that 'model' wears a certain kind of clothes, or is seen in a certain pair of shoes…it doesn't take a marketing genius to predict what the average woman does in this situation… she buys the same clothes and shoes. It's a simple and powerful marketing principle – we tend to emulate those who we perceive to be superior.
I'm not condoning, approving, or defending…just info.
On a more personal note, I'm a heterosexual male, and I've always been partial to very petite/slender women. Just because a woman isn't spilling out of a huge bra and shaking a big ass doesn't mean she isn't sexy or desirable. I'd take the skinny waif over the buxom blonde any day.
CT: I am well aware of the Dove campaign and have thought about addressing it at this site; I might do so now that you have mentioned it. Dove is addressing a different problem than the one I am addressing. Dove is addressing the body image problem whereas I am addressing the aesthetics problem. My desire is that top ranked female models, especially beauty pageant contestants and models catering to heterosexual men in mainstream publications should be feminine and attractive. If this were realized, the body image problem that a number of girls and young women experience will remain, though it would be of a different kind, but they will at least not be prompted to indulge in negative health behaviors such as unnecessary dieting and excessive exercise in order to acquire the physique of the feminine models since dieting and exercise are not going to make one look feminine and attractive.
This site is not about how women should look like; it is about aesthetics and the looks of models and beauty pageant contestants. Regarding the glamour models shown, many of them do not engage in sexual activities on camera and are thereby best not referred to as porn stars. Hence, the generic label of glamour model is reasonable. Besides, a number of glamour models/porn stars are not feminine and attractive, i.e., it is far from the case that I think that women/models should look like glamour models/porn stars. If this site were successful in the long run, then there will be plenty of mainstream models to choose from when it comes to illustrating what feminine and attractive looks in women are about.
Jon: You may prefer a slender woman, but if you are a lifetime-exclusive heterosexual man, it is unlikely that you find broad shoulders and other masculinized skeletal features -- disproportionately seen in high-fashion models -- attractive in women.
I have addressed your notion elsewhere. The majority of women assign higher aesthetic appeal to above average feminine looks in women, and most people, including most young women, find the typical skinniness of high-fashion models socially unacceptable. Therefore, there is nothing marketable about the typical looks of high-fashion models. If unattainability of appearance is a criterion, then as I have explained toward the bottom of the "skinny fashion models" page, a tall and feminine appearance with a healthy amount of body fat is less attainable than tall, masculine and skinny looks. It is simply the case that gays dominate the top ranks of the fashion business and have a broad license as to what kind of models they can use given the high desirability for designer clothing. Gay fashion designers select looks they find appealing, the central tendency of which is to approximate the looks of adolescent boys.
"My desire is that top ranked female models, especially beauty pageant contestants and models catering to heterosexual men in mainstream publications should be feminine and attractive."
You should realize, then, that "attractive" is PURELY an opinion. Most heterosexual men that /I/ know do NOT like "feminine" women, as you define it. I know there are men out there that like "feminine" women, but you don't need to be pushing this shit like it's fact that if a woman isn't "feminine" she's ugly and/or a eunuch.
Tany: What constitutes attractiveness is far from mere opinion when broad agreement in the general population has been amply documented (see FAQ). Nowhere have I said that unfeminine women are ugly or eunuchoid. The masculine women shown on this page are not ugly, but some do not have the faces of women. Besides, I do not know how you have managed to come across heterosexual men who do not appreciate feminine curves.
What on Earth is wrong with you? Your FAQ page pretty much states that if a man prefers "masculine" looks, he either A) is gay, or B) has something wrong with him mentally. Why is it so hard for you to believe that a man may *gasp* find something attractive that you, personally, do not? A man doesn't need to have something wrong with him mentally [or be homosexual] for him to have a different opinion on women.
There have been SEVERAL instances on your site where you've referred to women with "masculine" features as eunuchs.
In your FAQ, you also state you are attempting to "[increase] the prevalence of feminine and attractive women among top-ranked models and beauty pageant contestants." which leads one to presume you truly believe non-feminine = unnatractive.
Even if the entire population of this country thinks "feminine" looks on females are more attractive, it is still, and always will be, an opinion. It may be an opinion shared by a vast group of people, but it's an opinion nonetheless.
"This site also intends to promote high aesthetic standards among female models in general."
Like they don't have ENOUGH high standards to meet? I think the last thing models [that are usually intended to attract WOMEN to buy the clothing, by the way] is a man putting more ridiculous "standards" that he believes all women should meet because he believes anyone who goes against his opinion is wrong.
Tany: Nothing is wrong with me, but something is wrong with your reading comprehension. I have not said that a man who prefers masculinized looks in women is either gay or mentally abnormal. Gays are not the only people who are not lifetime-exclusive heterosexuals; the latter group includes bisexuals, too, and most people falling into this category mostly lean toward heterosexuality in adulthood. Men who like masculinized women are obvious candidates for either not being lifetime-exclusive heterosexuals or having narrowly missed nonheterosexuality. The citations about increased psychiatric morbidity among nonheterosexuals associate a preference for masculinized looks in women with brain abnormalities. This association is of a statistical nature and is not guaranteed. I have specified that whereas every single incidence of a preference for masculinized features in women cannot be called abnormal, given the association of the latter with mental abnormality, this preference is appropriately designated anomalous and is abnormal in a number of cases.
Some women with masculinized features do indeed look like eunuchs, and I don't see why you have a problem with calling a spade a spade.
As far as unfeminine equating to unattractive goes, there is a threshold of masculinization beyond which most if not all people will find the woman unattractive. This threshold is not the same for all people, but for most people, high-fashion models cross this threshold, on average.
If the aesthetic preference of the majority for women with above average femininity is a mere opinion, then it is an opinion just like the sky looking blue in the daytime to most people is a mere opinion.
As far as the promotion of high aesthetic standards goes, this is only for models, not for all women as you have stated, and there is nothing ridiculous about feminine standards. Most women, like most men, aesthetically prefer feminine looks in women, and one should not be deluded into believing that the looks of high-fashion models are selected taking into consideration that they will be catering to female clients. Anyway, this entry is about a publication that caters to heterosexual men, yet features mostly masculinized women.
Look at it this way. If homosexuals want to have magazines, fashion shows and beauty pageants featuring masculinized women, including women who look like male transvestites, male-to-female transsexuals and eunuchs, they can very well have these things, but there should be at least one prominent mainstream outlet where feminine beauty is appreciated for those who are enamored by feminine beauty. There is no such thing at present, and this is the reason why this educational site is needed.
To me, this website seems to have been written by a bunch of closed-minded boys. This site is just as bad as those trashy gossip magazines and the fashion industry promoting thin bodies and dieting. People are all different and everybody has different tastes. I know many of my male friends find Kate Moss, for example, extremely sexy and attractive, others prefer more rounded figures. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. You say many times "a model should be feminine and attractive." Women shouldn't have to be anything. This entire website is written from an incredibly shallow point of view. There is so much pressure for women to conform to so-called 'ideals' and seeing yet another website about 'perfection' in a woman makes me very angry.
Helen: The nature of this site does not reflect closed-mindedness but heterosexuality instead. I was born with a liking for feminine beauty; I just can't help it. Whereas not all people have the same tastes, there is broad agreement in the general population when it comes to what constitutes physical attractiveness, and this site reflects the broad consensus, as per numerous studies cited elsewhere within this site.
If you read carefully, you will note that this site is not about how women in general are supposed to look like. This site is partly about how models and beauty pageant contestants should look like in situations where masculinized women are not required. This entry focuses on a publication targeting heterosexual men, and it is appropriate that the choice of models therein reflect the central tendency of aesthetic preferences among heterosexual men.
I don't get the point of this site either...
Women buy the clothes high-fashion models wear and men buy porn with big boobed bimbos. (It doesn't seem like men are paying much attention to the faces there, because... wow, there's alot of ugly going on. But neither can anyone remember the faces of 90% of the runway models. It is about the clothes.) Everyone's happy. And most women in pageants are just butterfaces. It's always like the runner up is the prettier one.
Bree: Read the comments thread carefully and also the FAQ page to better understand the purpose of this site. The main purpose of this site is to promote feminine beauty. For instance, you have acknowledged that most participants in beauty contests have unimpressive faces and less attractive women often outcompete more attractive women. On the other hand, when you observe top sporting events or nominations for the Nobel Prize in science, the candidates are drawn from the best people available and the winners are the very best among the outstanding. Similarly, beauty pageants should be about the most beautiful women and the highest aesthetic standards. There is a lot more to this site; just go through it.
Besides, everyone is far from happy. To address two issues relevant to this site, the aesthetic preferences of homosexual fashion designers create problems; read the eating disorders page; and when mainstream publications targeting heterosexual men, such as the annual SportsIllustrated swimsuit issue, and even beauty pageants feature mostly masculine women, how can heterosexual men well-aware of the nature of feminine beauty be happy?
Replacing one beauty ideal with another won't help selfconcious girls. I don't think heterosexual men have any more right to dictate what the perfect woman should look like than gay men. Action against eating disorders promoted by a prevalence of very skinny women in the media would be to allow women of very different (healthy) shapes model clothes (reflecting the actual bandwidth of bodyshape in the female population). I would appreciate that.
The other problem... you just can't make me believe any man is unhappy because the naked chick in playboy has a somewhat broader ribcage. I also don't think porn needs to be "mainstream". There are lots of magazines and webpages out there catering to specific prefernces. Heterosexual men liking masculinized women "because they don't know any better" is not a problem. It's not like they'd shun a feminine woman when they have a chance with one. Nobody gets hurt.
Bree: Most men and women share the same idea about what looks good in women, namely feminine beauty. Therefore, this site is not about establishing a new feminine beauty ideal, but about the reasonable expectation that there should be at least one mainstream outlet for the appreciation of feminine beauty since this is the what most people hold as the ideal for women.
No one here is talking about mainstreaming pornography; pornography cannot be mainstreamed; to talk about a mainstream outlet for feminine beauty appreciation is to talk about the establishment of a big publication along the lines of the annual SportsIllustrated swimsuit issue or a prominent beauty pageant where the women are feminine and attractive. In order to be mainstream, this outlet has to avoid nudity.
yamila is beautiful so you are saying yamila is overall feminine? can you do an annalysis on the following supermodels naomi campbell, helena christenson and singer mariah carey
Simy: Who has said that Yamila looks feminine? Do you see a feminine face when you look at her? Her physique is not manly, but this does not mean that it is feminine; her breasts appear to be fake. Naomi Campbell is masculine, Helena Christensen has a masculine-looking face but not a masculine body, and Mariah Carey is in the normal-to-feminine range.
I was reffering to yamilas body not her face as you had mentioned in your site her body is more feminine, i agree with you her face is more masucline.i agree with you on naomi campbell looking masculine as for helena christensen i dont find her face masculine if anything i think her body is more masculine than her face, her body is tall, lanky and not in proportion and her back and backside is certainly not feminine, she doesnt have an hourglass figure either. i agree with you on mariah carey being more on the feminine side.
However even mariah sometimes appears masculine to me body wise
Congratulations on creating a website that offers a fresh alternative to the stick-thin, boyish looking standard the world of high-fashion modeling has tried to push on us. I am a straight young woman, and I completely agree that the glamour models used as examples are much more aesthetically pleasing to look at. I understand that high-fashion models are thin and have plain faces in order to distract us from their appearance and cause us to pay more attention to the clothes they are advertising, but this doesn't mean they are more attractive than other women. In fact, quite to the contrary, I find women who have healthy curves and delicate or "girly" faces to be extremely pleasing to the eye, and these androgynous supermodels to be someowhat odd to look at (and my opinion is credible because of its objectivity, since I'm straight and a female...arousal isn't a factor here).
I have a few bi-sexual male friends who may find the androgynous look of supermodels appealing, but most all heterosexuals I know would prefer the glamour models anyday. I don't find these nude models degrading, because they are being photographed to display the beauty of the female body. Artists and painters do the same thing without being reprimanded, and they always use(d) soft, feminine women; never sickly-thin or manly-looking girls.
Too many people out there complain about the current state of what's considered beautiful in a woman without knowing the why's or how to change things. Your website offers intellectual insights and is very well put together. Thanks for exposing the truth!!
Mindy: Thank you for your comment, but a slight correction is needed. Fashion models are used in many ways that are not consistent with their use as "clothes hangars" -- e.g., excessive hip swaying, deliberate exposure of breasts/nipples, bizarre make-up, etc. Therefore, it is not correct to assume that the looks of fashion models are selected to avoid people being distracted from focusing on the clothing. Additionally, if you consider fashion photography (applicable to fashion magazines), regardless of what kind of model is used to model clothing, people have all the time they need to examine the clothing in detail, i.e., being distracted by the looks of the model is not an issue. Fashion designers select models they find physically appealing.
CT: I finally addressed the Dove campaign for real beauty in the context of body-image/esteem problems among women.
You think Naomi Campbell is MASCULINE?! Wow, you really ARE blind. And please quit calling women "transvestites." You are so rude and mean. There are people who naturally look like models and I know damn well you're hurting their feelings with such comments.
mariah carey had a dreadful boob job and has a thick middle---how is she feminine? i see naomi has middle of the road-- i think since she is part chinese, her facial features (most notably protruding cheekbones and defined jaw) is due to that east asian ancestry. she said this in an interview---that she is part asian. many jamaicans are. tyson beckford has a similar ethnic background---and looks like the truyly masculine version of her. her body is so muscley--but she is a classically trained ballet dancer so... all i know is in person, she is just glowing and insanely, overwhelmingly delicate and beautiful . she isn't super feminine, but no gisele.
Mar: As I have replied to you elsewhere, women are not being called male transvestites and transsexuals here; some models and beauty pageant contestants have the looks of male transvestites and male-to-female transsexuals, and pointing this out is simply an accurate description of their looks, which I would normally avoid, but it is necessary within this site. Look carefully at the pictures of Rachel Hunter above and tell me whether she looks like a normal woman. Naomi Campbell looks masculinized; I don't see why anyone would dispute this.
Kristin: As I recall, Mariah Carey did not have a thick middle as a non-overweight young adult. I am not aware of her having gotten breast implants. Even if she did, my recollection of her pictures as a young adult suggest a woman in the normal-to-feminine range.
If you are trying to promote natural beauty in women, then you should be choosing the everyday woman. They are women, right? Even these porn stars/glamour models you choose are unrealistic. They are beautiful, but not mainstream. Women, with broader ribcages, or smaller hips, are still WOMEN. They don't look masculine, because they are WOMEN. That's how women look! That IS the woman. Not all women are as curvy or busty as porn models, but that doesn't make them masculine- they're still women. And thats the true woman- what ever she looks like.
What people find attractive is decided by the mainstream media and western philosophies... you are a prime example of this. In fact, if you look into history, many different regions of the world had a totally different view of feminine beauty- some being the opposite of what you site. Parts of the pacific islands actually found women with a more tubular middle, rather than hourglass, attractive. It is all dictated by culture. But a WOMAN, whether she have a big or small ribcage, no curves or lots of curves, is still a WOMAN. Those features are not masculine if a WOMAN has them- they are just the features of a natural woman.
Melody: I agree that women, regardless of how masculine or feminine their physical appearance is or how curvy or slender they are, are all women. However, there are a lot of people who prefer physical features in women that are molded in a developmental environment of somewhat above average estrogen levels and somewhat below average androgen levels. I believe that such individuals should have the opportunities to appreciate the female form they like, something that is also ideally suited for modeling purposes in an alternative fashion industry. There is definitely scope for using ordinary-looking women as models for selling clothes, though this is unlikely to be a high-profile endeavor. In my estimation, there should be two alternative fashion industries, one using feminine and attractive women to undermine the gay-dominated one and the other using ordinary-looking/mildly pleasant models for women neither pleased by the use of skinny women nor feminine beauty for modeling purposes. I will have more to say on this later.
I have largely avoided using porn stars, and if I am successful in the long run, I will not have to use nude models so much, either, and things will become more mainstream. Beauty is not entirely dictated by culture; there are intrinsic elements, too.
I think you meant low "testosterone" levels in the post above. Androgen is what turns into Estrogen.
Anyway, it would be useful to know that its now always about what men want. Women models aren't here solely for man's pleasure. These models are advertising women's bathing suits. The only thing they are advertising to men unfortunately are their bodies- and you still beat them down. Here are these beautiful women and you go and say they look like men. Instead of advocating for something useful like self-esteem or portraying beauty for what it is- a broad and untamed spectrum- you insult women that are already "the best of the best". Women shouldn't have to feel bad about themselves because men say they should fit a certain image. They've been doing that for centuries too long. Beauty is ever changing.
Your website is only taking women backwards as you consistently reitterate how they should fit a certain image and be a certain opinion of aesthetically pleasing. Women are not here to please men. They are humans not commodities. They should not be the women you keep at home while you fantasize about your playboy/glamour shot girl or whatever you want to call them.
It'd be appreciated if you weren't so critical. All these women are gorgeous and many more in this world. If you critisize models this way, what do you say about other women on a daily basis? Do you critisize yourself this intensely?
Once again, women are not here for men's pleasure. They are human beings and should not be subservient to what men want.
You are just replacing a negative with a negative. (models shouldn't look this way- they should look this way). If you're going to put so much time into a website, why don't you make one that tries to change the world for the better? Instead of bitching about how the popular models in magazines are "masculinized" and aren't pretty enough for you.
sorry that site doesn't work. here you go:
Pisham: The Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue is not about advertising swimsuits; it is supposed to function as eye candy for heterosexual men. The point of this entry is not to bash/criticize the models pointed out, but to critique the people/circumstances responsible for making the choice of SI models, which requires that the masculinization of SI models be pointed out.
This site is not arguing that women should fit a certain image. Haven't you noticed that it is focusing on models and beauty pageant contestants? There are actresses, singers and other celebrity women whose looks are not addressed here except in rare cases in response to reader comments; I do not care how these women look. This site is about aesthetics. There are scenarios where feminine beauty is required, as in the SI swimsuit issue given its target population, and all I am saying is that feminine beauty should be used when it is required, not that feminine beauty should always be used or that women should look feminine. This site does not in any manner imply that women are here for men's pleasure or that they should "be subservient to what men want."
to erik: Whereas you may believe how women should look like, I don't believe that women should have a particular look. See my reply to Pisham.
OMG! rachel hunter is fugly. your criticism is precise. many of the women purported to be "supermodels" don't even exhibit femininity. i'll put veronica zemanova or susana spears up against any of the so-called supermodels on any day of the week.
"Anyway, it would be useful to know that its now always about what men want. "
Your site is basically saying that fashion models should change to be more pleasing to men. You did not directly say women should bev
"subservient to what men want." But that is the point of this website. To change the fashion models so they please you more.
"It'd be appreciated if you weren't so critical. All these women are gorgeous and many more in this world. If you critisize models this way, what do you say about other women on a daily basis? Do you critisize yourself this intensely? "
I'm repeating what I said before because you tend to avoid addressing certain things that I write you.
"Your website is only taking women backwards as you consistently reitterate how they should fit a certain image and be a certain opinion of aesthetically pleasing (yes, you aren't saying all women should fit a certain image, you are saying super models should. but you know as well as I that fashion is part of the media which dictates cultural ideas of beauty, therefore, women will be expected to fit these ideals in order to be attractive.) . Women are not here to please men. They are humans not commodities. They should not be the women you keep at home while you fantasize about your playboy/glamour shot girl or whatever you want to call them. "
Pisham: A change in the looks of fashion models is desirable from two standpoints: reducing the likelihood of some girls and women believing that good looks lie in skinniness and aesthetic purposes. Note that most men and most women judge female attractiveness in a similar manner. Therefore, the aesthetic goal is from a general public perspective, roughly half of which comprises of women. Hence, this site cannot be described as saying that "fashion models should change to please men."
Once again, the criticism here is of the people/circumstances responsible for selecting masculinized fashion models rather than the looks of the models. Pointing out the masculinization of fashion models does not equate to criticizing their looks. Like I said, I don't care how most women look like. What purpose would it serve to criticize the looks of women?
I have already addressed all points you made in your previous comment. I am pleased to see you acknowledge that I am not insisting that all women fit a certain image, but you have incorrectly concluded that I want super models to fit a certain image. This entry is not about big-name models per se, but about models in a publication that is supposed to function as eye candy for heterosexual men. It is reasonable to argue that such a publication feature predominantly feminine and attractive women. One needs a variety of models, and feminine women would not be appropriate for some modeling tasks. Therefore, there is no argument here that big-name fashion models pr se should fit a certain image.
You are correct that numerous women draw a sense of what looks are desirable by looking at fashion models, but then I am not insisting that all fashion models have a specific look, and if you read around, you will come across me saying that it is unlikely that the gays who dominate the fashion business will be switching to using feminine models. In other words, one will have to set up an alternative fashion industry if one wanted to predominantly use feminine and attractive women as fashion models. This would mean that there would be competing standards in the limelight and women would not get the impression that there is only one look that is desirable.
You also have to consider that feminine beauty cannot be acquired by indulging in negative health behaviors and that most women already harbor a feminine beauty ideal, i.e., I am not pushing something at odds with the preferences of most people. Once again, I don't believe that women are here for men's pleasure.
No I think Elsa Benitez and Rebecca Romijn are the hottest in there and i'm a straight guy.
Noooooooo. I by far prefer the Sports Illustarted Swimsit models.
Like one of the posters in this thread,I prefer slender/petite women. Not a women with big saggy breasts (regardless if they are natural or not)and not a big ass.
I find those features disgusting, and matronly.
Small to medium breats and butt hips,bone structure and slim. All of those sports Illustrated Swimsuit modles have hot faces and bodies.
Yes I'm a hetrosexual male. Sorry
What the fuck is wribg with you Erik?!
All the women supermodles and such are all very femminine!
The other women you think are femminine are plain jane fat cows with hanging cellulite and need to trim their bushes! Nasty!
Chris/Elijah: You must stop using multiple aliases and repeating your points over and over again.
g2go: If you believe that these fashion models are feminine and that the feminine women that I am showing are "plain jane fat cows with hanging cellulite" then you are wasting your time here.
I just think that the women you show look like dogs and are homley compared to the real v.s,sports illustrated swimsuit models.
Damn does a woman have to have super narrow jaw, tiny nose,tiny lips, big huge breasts, big ass,cellulite to be considred femminie?!
I hope not!
g2go: You have posted under numerous aliases such as Chris, Chris2, Elijah and a whole bunch of others. This is the last warning to you. You have repeated your points many times. Repeat them once more or use another alias and your comments will no longer be entertained. You will get nothing out of this site...don't bother with it.
Erik I think you protest to much. Are you still in the closet?
Dude, just stop. You obviously have a problem, sexual dimorphism has been shown to be a racist-sexist pseudo-scientific method. You don't like skinny girls, that's fine. Gays basically run the fashion industry, again, no argument, but saying women are masculine or eunuchs because you don't like their features is wrong and disingenuous. You like what you like, don't use fake logic to prove you are right and anyone who disagrees has the potential for being bisexual or gay.
Joe / Abe: Sexual dimorphism doesn't exist? Even apart from sexual organs, haven't you observed physical differences between men and women, on average? Sexual dimorphism applies to differences between the sexes, not to differences between ethnic groups. So how can it have been shown to be racist? Why would I describe a woman as masculine or eunuchoid if I disliked her looks? I could dislike a woman's looks for a variety of reasons. If a model looks masculine, then she has to be described as such as far as the article above is concerned, and beyond some level of masculinization, the odds that men who are attracted to her are proper heterosexuals are bound to drop.
I basically like your site and your train of thought; all the more unfortunate it is that sometimes you have gone to the other extreme trying to justify your cause. Let's see for example the pictures of Daniella Sarahyba on this page. Yeah, she's not much from the perspective of figure as seen on Fig 19, but she has a markedly pretty and womanly face on that picture. You obviously saw that and carefully selected a much more unfavourable picture of her (Fig 18) to criticize her as masculine in the facial features. That picture simply doesn't do her justice. Of course she may again look different on a third picture, I have no idea. But that's sure once you're trying to back up your position on a semi-scientific basis, you should strive some more to look less biased.
Oliver: Fig. 19 is a small picture, not sufficient for evaluating the facial attractiveness of Ms. Sarahyba, but it is clear that her physique isn't feminine regardless of the comparison. Her facial features are much clearer in Fig. 18. An attractive person should look good from all angles. If the face shape of Ms. Sarahyba looks good in some pictures but not good in others, then her face shape cannot be designated as good looking, especially if these pictures happen to have been taken professionally, which is the case in her two pictures shown here.
Erik, wouldnt you agree that Yamila Diaz is more femenine than the other women in the picture? you can clearly see that her hips are more femenine, she has more of an hourglass figure than the other women.
Elizabeth: Yes, Yamila's waist-hip proportions look more feminine than those of most others in the group photo, but I think she has breast implants. It is her face that mainly spoils it for those who prefer feminine beauty.
No joke. This webpage is one of the weakest statements I've ever heard on female beauty. You should have your eyes gouged out and fed to you.
what is attractive is sunbject to taste like everything - music, art etc.
I too agree that some models are mannish looking - Rachel Hunter is a good example - but all this peudo science and "eunuch references" are just unnecessary - you dont like these girls ok - others do. Who cares if the fashion industry is run by gays? Fashion is ridiculous and ireelevant.
I suggest you use your obvious intelect for something worthwhile.
(But thanks for Corinna - my favourite!)
I have followed this entire thread. Very interesting.
Even though I, too, prefer thinner women with smaller breasts, your points about the models cited in Sports Illustrated seem undeniable. I confess that I never gave it much thought before.
My impression of why heterosexual men buy the Sports Illustrated swimsuit edition is that it is one of the few times in our society where the "ogling" of women is considered acceptable. If men bring SI home and "check out the women," even their wives won't object.
This website is trying really hard to pretend to be professional about defending itself. The truth is there is rampant homophobia all over this site and it's kind of silly to suggest that gays are behind the deterioration of society and femininity. Women's biggest enemies have always been themselves. Girls treat each other like crap and expect insane aesthetic demands out of each other. For instance, how many guys honestly care what shoes a girl is wearing? Most girls I know also look better without makeup, but that doesn't stop them. Let's face it, gay guys can be good at fashion, they know more than 10 colors, which is more than I can really say for myself.
As for this "glamour model" debate. Shay Laren and Anita Dark are most definitely pornstars; try typing in "Shay Laren dildo" or "Anita Dark lesbian" in Google search and see what kind of hits you get. Let's call a spade a spade, right?
In general I agree that most supermodels are kinda fugly. I prefer a woman with curves, as Mixalot would say a girl "beans and rice didn't miss". But Sports Illustrated perhaps has its reasons for including physically fit, well-dieting girls in it's Swimsuit Edition and most people I know wouldn't call any of these women non-feminine or eunuch looking.
I think admiring women who get paid for getting naked over women who get paid by staying in a ridiculous, virtually unattainable physique isn't a quite a step in the right direction. Healthier? Dietary-wise. As far as self-image goes, not much better. Whether girls want to lose weight, want bigger breasts, butt implants, botox or whatever, we might as well face it, girls might be permanently compromised. All of that aside, plenty of guys and girls alike might think Shay Laren is hotter than Rebecca Romijn, I could go either way, but there's also a bit of a social stigma against pornstars. Who has more self-respect issues, the girl puking up paintchips or the girl diddling herself on webcam?
If all girls cared about was getting laid like most of their male counterparts than they wouldn't have a problem. You might not get top pick, but chances are there's someone out there who'll gladly oblige you. I think the obsession with aesthetics any which way or another refers to some deeper issue that women have that can't be explained away by "gay men are evil". It's a problem women have had for a while now, a problem which this website does NOT help.
Travis: What homophobia have you encountered? Keep in mind that facts cannot be prejudiced. My argument isn't that gays are "behind the deterioration of society and femininity." Gay fashion designers, not gays in general, are responsible for setting the standard among high-fashion models, and these standards trickle down to beauty pageants and the SI issue.
Anita Dark is a pornstar but not Shay Laren. A pornstar can certainly do glamour modeling, and if most of the models shown are glamour models but not porn stars, then glamour model is appropriate as a generic label.
I agree that most people wouldn't describe Sports Illustrated models as "non-feminine or eunuch looking," but most people haven't read this article or taken a careful look at SI models and compared them to more feminine women.
This article and the website in general are not about "admiring women who get paid for getting naked." If even beauty pageants or sources supposedly catering to heterosexual men such as the SI swimsuit issue are largely devoid of feminine women, then where does one seek feminine contrasts? And if the aesthetics of the physique were to be addressed, you would need pictures of women in minimal dress.
Yes, women compete with each other and many women have issues with looking attractive, but they are not responsible for establishing the skinny and masculine norm among fashion models. The people responsible are homosexual fashion designers in general and to say this is not to imply that "gay men are evil."
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder! Yesica is the hottest S.I. model in my eyes! All those ladies are hot! All of yours are hot, too.. but not as world class as S.I's!!
Physical beauty sucks- and I have always hated hourglass women and other super feminine looking women. I'm a 24 year old female and I've been sick all my life for not being "beautiful" or "feminine" enough. I've always felt insecure. Physical feminine beauty has always been my worst enemy! Other women have always been my mortal enemies- especially the very feminine ones.
To me, all your "more feminine" looking women just seem more dull and bland. Unless you got into the ideal ratios with male and female faces I don't think I'd be sold on your ideas.
What I think underlies this whole discussion is the idea that women should fit a certain ideal of beauty. Of course a lot women will resent that because they do not fit the ideal. I think the real problem is that our society, western society that is, particularly the US is obsessed with sex, youth, and beauty. Women have been dehumanized and turned into sexual objects. It is my opinion that too many women base their intrinsic worth as people on how attractive they are.
However it is also a fact that beauty is a very real thing. There is not going to be total consensus on it because people never completely agree on anything. But there are some things that are universal when it comes to beauty. Believe it or not the author of this article is right about some things. There is a biological reason for practically all the traits that are considered attractive in both men and women, and that is why they are practically universal. Female attractiveness advertises health and the absence of disease as well as the ability to successfully bear children of good genetic makeup, and raise them to maturity. These are the traits.
Clear skin is a sign of general health. Long legs, are a sign of sexual maturity. You will note that when women are pregnant their breasts enlarge in order to store milk. The breasts also enlarge during intercourse due to the flow of blood. Red lips are a sign of arousal and so are blushing cheeks. An hourglass figure with rounded hips signal a wide enough pelvis to easily give birth. Also, what we consider an attractive face is by and large a symmetrical face with well-proportioned features. A feminine face is a face with a smaller chin, raised eyebrows, and a rounded jaw line.
Of course if you don't look like that you're going to be at a disadvantage just like Danny DeVito isn't going to attract as many women as say Jude Law, at least based on a first impression. But alas life isn't fair. I think the problem with society is not that we see beauty, it's that we put it on such a high pedestal. The truth of the matter is it's just a first impression and frankly if Danny DeVito has a kick ass personality or is amazingly intelligent and Jude Laws an idiotic dick Danny might attract a lot more women. And, certainly they have the same value as human beings.
Another thing is personal taste of course I love Milla Jovovich for instance even though she's flat chested. I also like Gong Li, Halle Berry, and Selma Hayek. But I guess I'm just an eclectic kind of guy I also listen to classical, classic rock, heavy metal, opera, hip-hop, alternative, punk, and jazz. To each his own.
Firstly Sports Illustrated Swimsuit issue is not intended as masturbatory material, it is supposed to be beautiful athletic woman in bikinis. Frankly it promotes one of the healthier mass market images of female beauty. Secondly there is no simple universal answer to what is beautiful or attractive. I like Natalie Portman, I recognize she looks like a 12 year old boy, but I am not interested in 12 year old boys, just natalie portman. further the exact opposite is true when it comes to male models, the most successful male models are those with feminine features. people tend to go toward the androgynous. you say at one point that masculine models are not "marketable" but the exact opposite is true. the reason masculine models are used is not some evil homosexual conspiracy it is because over time companies noticed that ads using masculine models moved more product than did ones using feminine models. the only motive existent in america and possibly in human beings in our modern capitalist society is the profit motive. either it makes money or it doesn't and these models make money.
YOU ARE lifetime-exclusive heterosexual, erik. you judge women, the real males don't judge. they find all women are their opposite of sex.
take the orange dots off thier nipples dude,we all know what they look like,we've all seen them.they are nothing to be ashamed of,or embarrased of.youre not fooling any one.except yourself.its like janet jacksons NIPPLEGATE all over again!OH MY GOD!NOT A NIPPLE!HOLY SHIT!THE WORLD'S GONNA END!!!!
Kami: Nothing here suggests that women should fit a certain ideal of beauty. The discussion is about the models that appear in a specific publication and what kind of looks would best suit the general preferences of the publication's target audience.
Chris: The argument isn't that SI should use nude models. Artistic photos of feminine and attractive bikini-clad women would not serve as masturbatory material. The argument is also not dependent on universal criteria for beauty. Basing the selections on majority preferences is reasonable.
Successful male models are not necessarily effeminate. Male models tend to have normal to masculine faces though many have thin physiques. A general preference for androgyny has not been documented in controlled laboratory studies examining people's aesthetic tastes.
I did not mention an "evil homosexual conspiracy." The homosexual designers are doing what pleases them and they get away with it because they sell desirable items (designer merchandize) in the absence of a competing fashion industry not being dominated by them. It is patent nonsense that the masculine looks reflect observations that masculinized women sold more products.
TJ: The mild censorship makes the images more suitable for a wider audience. And, I haven't censored them all. In Corinna's picture, the nipples could barely be seen and hence there was no need to censor them, and in my estimation there was no need to censor the nipples of Rachel Hunter because most people wouldn't be aroused by her appearance.
I have no idea why you have spent so much time compiling this web page but its fascinating...
All you have to do is read the FAQ and you'll realise that this website is a joke.
And I laughed while reading the page entitled "Improve your looks", "addresses some steps women can take to make themselves more physically attractive".
This website is just a silly gimmick to promote your adult websites, links provided!
aaronimpact : I think the same to u also, awhile reading this websit I find it quite funny, both FAQ and also the comments, lol it quite relax when u have the hard work and spend sometime reading on here, one of the most amoucing websit I have known.
To erik : I know your intenion and I wish u'd be more brave to write it straight way from your mind? perhape people are understand u more? I find it's nice what u are trying to attribute, but please do not ridicul to anyone. I do not like how u compare pictures of supermodel to the glamour models, they are both beautifull on their way.
What I have seen in your article is nothing!
You attempt to provide YOUR physical preferences in women as a definition of feminine, when in fact it is nothing more than YOUR PREFERENCES!
Far too many men are programmed by others to view only women with large amounts of body fat deposited in the breasts and ass as the real women to nail sexually and be the ones to marry and make babies with.
I myself was one of those. I always used to look for so-called hourglass shaped women, right up until I started to realize that the hourglass shaped women far too often required two chairs (one chair for each butt-cheek (sorry if I offended any large women, but see comments below about my own family's genetic tendencies) to sit on after they have had a kid or three.
My family has enough big body genes, that I do not need to reinforce excessive body fat by marrying and making babies with women who also carry big body genes.
So I made the conscious decision to concentrate on women who do not carry large amounts of body fat.
I also do not care for women who go for plastic in their bodies or other such fakery.
Your statements are seen for what they are, a personal preference and an attempt by you to sell your products... which mostly contain women with large amounts of body fat.
HAHAHAHAHAHA. This is among the dumbest things I have ever read. Way to get the worst pics you could of the SI models too and compare them to high quality pics of no name girls that are a dime a dozen. HAHAHAHAHA, so dumb.
I think Men with more feminine features (not making them any less of a man!) would find the Sports Illustrated model with masculine features more attractive. I fit this feminine ideal you're talking about. I know I only get turned on without stimulation by men with very masculine features. I am told alot of the time I have "bad taste" but I just don't find men with femine features like Leonardo DiCaprio or even Brad Pitt sexualy attractive.
I agree with you on most of them. Some of the S.I. women are PRETTY manly - looking, IMO though. A lot of the non-S.I. girls are beautiful, not all of them, but wow! Nikita Laska, Shay Laren, and Corinna are my favorites. Amazing!
Guy, you are totally gay. No "life-exclusive heterosexual male" actually comes up with the term, "life-exclusive heterosexual male," and then uses it repeatedly. Your fatal flaw is that you arrogantly claim to know the universal mind of the hetero male, and then spend dozens of paragraphs inadvertently proving otherwise. You doth protest too much, my friend. Not only are you gay, but you are gay fascist trying to create some quasi-Riefenstahlian aesthetic-- wait, I'm going to stop now. I've just wasted too many calories on a closet homo. Forget what I said, dude...you're as manly as they come.
Dude, you are the biggest fucking idiot on the world wide web!!!!!
Sorry but my pecker is too hard to think about comparing these chicks! As long as there is no buldge in the front other than the top, The chicks are smokin'! All of 'em, call me low-standard if the SI swimsuit models are not hot enough for you...I DON'T GIVE A FVCK!
This is possibly the stupidest, most pointless, deluded lot of tosh masquerading as science that I have ever seen in my life.
What a load of complete and utter crap. The simple use of the term 'lifetime exclusive heterosexual' is so riddled with homophobia and fascistic intent. So someone who once experimented with another man, and decided that wasn't really his thing, is 'tarnished' and no longer a 'lifetime exclusive' such a crock of shit.
What business is it of yours who finds what attractive and what their sexual preference is?
This website is pointless offensive, homophobic, and fascist.
Disgusting. You should be ashamed of yourself
the main problem here is that you dont have a firm grasp on either the PURPOSE or commercial mandates of the fashion industry. fashion is not in the BUSINESS of beauty. living in manhattan I see models all the time and know a number of girls who have modeled big shows and done print work. anyone with a clue who's actually seen models IRL KNOWS as axiom that models are not "beautiful" they are not "pretty." in person models are abnormally skinny, have abnormally small heads, very masculine body proportions and the faces are unremarkable. the only truly beautiful thing you see on most girls is nice skin. on occasion you see a beautiful girl model but they are not selected for such, and a true beauty in the modeling world is a random outlier among a population selected for another, different purpose... much like occasionally seeing a beautiful volleyball player among women selected for height and athletic prowess.
models are essentially clothes hangars. they're uniformly skinny and 5'7"-5'10" because they need to fit the clothes. NOT because homos are inflicting a world view upon us. models are purposefully androgynous because they cannot overpower the clothes with great beauty or personality and because WOMEN themselves find these types of women to appear cool and sophisticated.
MEN do not BUY CLOTHES. actual MALE preferences towards beauty are nowhere to be found in the fashion equation. you seem incredibly clueless about how anything works. MEN are nowhere in the SI swimsuit equation either. JULE CAMBELL, a WOMAN been editorial chief of the SI swimsuit issue since its inception in the 60s. She personally chooses the models and controls every aspect of the issue. She is NOT A MAN. she does not CARE what you find attractive. GET A CLUE. Her mandate at SI is to make even swimsuits RELEVANT and FASHION FORWARD, NOT to give you images of beautiful women you can go into the bathroom with.
You make some points with your site but really you're ranting like you have no idea what end is up. Models are androgynous and masculine and aren't actually pretty? WOW ORLY NEWS FLASH WATER IS WET
Ed - Good job on stating what most men know of fashion models. They are absolutely not pretty. There are a few here and there that are, but most are not. I agree with a good portion of what you are saying.
I disagree with the general idea though that the models themselves are not the designers idea of what is attractive. If they are to fit the clothes, the designers do have the intent of stating they feel that women should be size 0, flat chested and tall. There are perfectly plain Janes out there that would not overpower the clothes designed for *normally proportioned* women. These could be the clothes that *make* the normally *plain* women *beautiful*. However most of the clothes that high fashion tends to show off are god awful creations of people so high on thinking they know what beauty is.
This website is just another stab at normal women and what they should find themselves desiring to look like for the benefit of men. Women should want to be healthy, not thin like a model, not fake implanted chest. There is a normal amount of fat to be healthy. This is what screws up womens minds with *what they should look like cuz its what the world feels what beauty is* rather than what they should look like because it is healthy (healthy NOT being a fashion model size 0). I would also say it is a stab at homosexuals and fashion designers as well. Though I don't mind Fashion designers being stabbed a few times LOL. It is also trying to force an image on men of what is beautiful by calling into question their sexuality (which most men would fiercely defend gay, bi or straight). Only men who have had gay experiences can find these SI models attractive? And you are the authority why? I find Elle (while not my ideal woman) to be attractive. Same goes for Elsa. I have had no homosexual attractions/urges in my life. Please explain this one.
BTW, FYI I am a 5'5" man (yep short) and currently about 10lbs overweight (seasonal gain in winter lose in spring/summer, helps keep me warm in the Buffalo snows). I do not like women that are ridiculously thin (if she weighs less than 110, she better be less than 5' tall). I tend to like my women proportionate to a 5'3" 120-130 lbs or so. This matters so you can understand.
To combat extremism, one does not have to first travel to the other side of the extreme. All it does is lengthen the trip to moderation.
Oh Ed, the other thing i disagree with is that Men DO BUY CLOTHES. Otherwise, we'd all be naked. Men just don't buy clothes like women because Men's clothes don't get the clearance prices women's clothes get LOL.
I think all of the sport swimmingsuit models above this article are very attactive and feminine. slim, slender waist and curving legs, very good shape in my openion. I do not like robust women with big breasts and board round face I prefer well face's structure and well chin like Benitez, Veronica Varekova, Elle MacPherson and Rebecca Romijn. throught they look not that gentle and sweet like audrey toutu or malion cottilard but still they have good structure.
here, History of boylish fashion model.
Chanel was to become one of the most influential designers of the twentieth century. She was not influenced by previous fashion, but had entirely new ideas on how to make a woman look feminine. Dispensing with the frills and furbelows of the Edwardian era, she brought in a clean, uncluttered look that was to become the basis for much of the haute couture design in the following decades.
Chanel took women's fashions away from corseted styles and introduced casual, practical clothing, promoted slimy women that borrowed fabrics and attitudes from men's fashion. She was the first to introduce black as a fashion color; her versatile, semi-formal "little black dress" to sportswear. became a Chanel trademark and an enduring fashion standard.
Chanel's own lifestyle fueled her ideas of how modern women everywhere should look, act, and dress. Her own slim boyish figure and cropped hair became an ideal, as did her tanned skin, active lifestyle, and financial independence. Throughout her career, Chanel succeeded in packaging and marketing her own personal attitudes and style, making her a key arbiter of women's taste throughout the twentieth century.
She successed in sexual escapades with all high class males such as nobel man, artists, the Duke (of Westminster and Duke demitri of russia etc.) and politicians even nazi office. and all women in "s" shape were jealous of her skinny cute body, short hair and her sophisicate boylish cloth.
chanel selected the models for her brand by herself. her favourit ideal's models are Audrey Hepburn and Catherine Denurve. the women with sophisicate slim body, versatitle looking between the boy and stubburn little girl. and I think this type of women are very extremely cute and attactive, somehow sexy in very gentle and romantic way.
here chanel's models.
Beautifull skinny coco chanel the mother of fashion.
Try to immegin? how could this little skinny woman successed in sexual intimating with all high class males like the duke, nazi officer, artists, politicians etc. how many time did this type of women win the heart of all powerfull males? just take a look at betty wallace, audrey hepburn, coco chanel.
I find the SI swimsuit issue has been rather bland since Cheryl Tiegs stopped wearing the fishnet one-piece. I think that the photography has a lot to do with the stale nature of the SI shoots, and it's not the models' faults.
However, I find both the supposedly 'masculineized' and feminine features of the models on this page to be attractive in their owns ways, and not neccessarily distinct.
If given the choice between the swimsuit or the porn models, men would gladly take the one that would have them!
Erik : which part of these women do u find pretty? they are too fat, u even could see the stretch mark around their nipples, thigns and hips same well as the cellulites on their legs and their massive nipples, sack breasts like pragnancy women? I'd rather prefer si models with small firm breasts, curving legs, slender waists just like the frechy adolescent women.
And now take a look at the fashion models below. u could notice the fashion models are look more feminine, fresh, petite, modest, innocent and smarter than many of the booby models of this site. and I find the feminine fashion models are very feminine to me, they look small for me than the booby women which I find they'd be more fatter and fatter after they have a kids. different from the skinny little woman like coco chanel, audrey hepburn that were always look smart and active even in their old age.
Zonneschijn: Since you do not understand in plain English my repeatedly telling you that you must not leave more comments here under more than one name and that you must wait for me to respond to all of your previous comments before leaving more comments that address my arguments, perhaps you will understand what I have done to the 6 comments you left above. I have set them to not display. If you leave more comments addressed to me before I am finished replying to you, I will do the same to them. Do not waste your time. When I have the time to address your comments, I will redisplay your comments and leave a reply.
Erik : It's not fair that u doing this? erik, why don't u put every comments of every people whom argued your articles into not displaying all of them? why it's must be only me? is that because my comments are the evidents that the fashion models got young, feminine and cute shape than some of your booby models? I just wanted everyone and also U to see what's real feminine. I have seen a lot of feminine women with small shape. and most of the time I couldn't find the adolesent woman with big sack breasts and the wide hip like the models on this article, the most of women with wide hip and big breasts always a women whom passed giving a labour. I really have never seen the virgin young women with such a big breasts and wide hip like the women in this site. indeed, I find some of your articles are interesting and informative. but I do like how u try to promote that the porno girls are look better than the women whom have developed their beauty from their own brains, career and talent untill everyone around the world consider they are beautifull. anyway, I will looking foward to see your reply and yes, u can set this comment of me into not displaying.
Erik : The picture of Nikita Laska, Pamela from Femjoy and manymore on this site are clearly to me that someone using some easily cheap tool curved their fat waist. the woman without chin, board face and round hip like that seems to me that they have Endomorph shape (apple shape). just like drew barrymore. it's so impossible that she got fat face, fat hip and thigns but has small waist instead of the prominent belly. from my observation any women that do not have so skinny shape, they tend to have prominent belly except u must be very skinny so u have flat belly.
P.S the one name Pamela from Femjoy looks creepy to me, especially her tiny waist that isn't going well with her wide fat hip. it's obverse that someone used the cheap tool in photoshop made that tiny waist because the left side of her body isn't balance with another side of her waist. I working graphic design and I can do it better than that much.
u could notice the waist of pamela of Femjoy is blur, also the side of her left breasts and also not straight like another side. erik, don't forget to use "sharp" tool to conceal it next time. if u wanted it to look more real.
Erik : Rachel Hunter isn't has that flat back. u used photoshop I know it looks blur and even has ugly curve on her arms. why u doing this? if u wanted t promote the feminine beauty? why don't u just accept who is real pretty and who isn't? the pictures are saying noting because everyone are all know that the slender or slim women look curve more than the women with fat women like many of models on this site.
u could see from the people with skinny legs, the skin is closing to the born so u could see more clearer shape of the legs than the women with fat on the legs because u couldn't see what's the real curving shape of the bone only the fatty on the muscel.
Sports Illustrated doesn't do a good job appealing to the erotic sensibilities of heterosexual men because the photographs are ridiculously stagey and the models chosen for reasons other than their sex appeal. A lot of this relates to the sensitivity of their advertisers, thus one gets a clean-cut version of sexy; a kind of acceptable sexy for the guy with a wife and three kids in suburbia. I never even look at the damn thing, because it's ridiculously transparent tact is insulting. I suggest "femjoy" for guys who want more honesty from photographers and their employers. On the issue of "masculinination" in female models, I think the point is a stretch. I've date some very hot women with chiseled jawlines and boyishly athletic figures who were smokin hot. But I do agree that that particular look can be taken too far, like anything else. In summation, Sports Illustrated does come across as a kind of poster child for what's acceptable, rather than what's sexy.
ed :
models are purposefully androgynous because they cannot overpower the clothes with great beauty or personality and because WOMEN themselves find these types of women to appear cool and sophisticated.
Androgyny draws attention away from the clothes too, cause it's striking and unusual.
If they really didn't want to "overpower" their creations they'd be using neutral-looking women, like Robert Palmer girls, not those scary scrawny mangly scarecrows with ghoulish hairstyles and make-up.
the main problem here is that you dont have a firm grasp on either the PURPOSE or commercial mandates of the fashion industry. fashion is not in the BUSINESS of beauty.
Silly me.
I thought that the purpose of the Fashion Industry was to sell garments to the ladies, not to "sell" them the idea that androgyny is "cool and sophisticated".
I thought that they were running an "Industry" (Kraft), not an "Art" (Kunst).
Sex & Beauty & Nature are KITSCH
Bring out The Dead Walking Women !
Feh.. Too much mean-spirited language. Masculinization implies the act of changing oneself to look more masculine, so it's not appropriate. I won't dispute what the author thinks of as pretty. It is possible that he even has sources to back up his ideas of beauty, but his writing makes it seem like everyone should be agreeing with him. FORGET THAT. Everyone should find their own idea of sexy, pretty and beauty.
Furthermore, the only purpose of the fashion industry is to sell clothes, so let them do what makes that happen. It is the responsibility of family to educate children about beauty, and the family should keep the child from watching media that reflects a fashion obsession. We shouldn't initiate some crusade against this industry, especially if it would mean choosing this author's idea of pretty as the ONLY thing we should ever see.
you obviously want to fuck your sister, don't you
Bring out The Dead Walking Women !
Posted by Der Wanderer on April 05, 2008 at 02:39 PM ??
You find those SI models as dead walking? on the contrary I find them have very good shape, healthy and elegrant. hence, whom gonna take booby models into anykind of international bussinesses? think about the policy, law, culture and tradition organize, feminist group? what'd they say when you put the women with porno shape into the fashion industry? which women gonna buy their cloth? what'd the childrens say when they walking at mall and passed the poster of the models which their breasts aren't even fit to the bikini, ( or the breasts come out of the bikini)
I find the SI models got formal, polit shape which can be promote on the public places. u can take a look at this picture below and tell me which one look more polit, formal?
between the fashion models in tankini vs. booby model in normal clothing. u will find that the fashion models in tankini look lesser impolit, infomal and sexuality than the booby model.
Matter of opinion pure and simple! Obviously you think huge naked boobs are more feminine. Why is it that these girls (who are a dime a dozen on the net btw) are not getting paid huge amounts by Playboy to do spreads? Yep, thats right. Nobody cares about buying playboy to see some totally average girl with a fake rack and a landing strip.
I'm a hetero guy and I see fashion models as unique looking. That is why they are beautiful not because they are a cookie cutter version of what some guys who dont get out of the house find as feminine.
I agree curves and breasts are beautiful and I am most attracted to that compared with the tiny waife look of the runway but I would'nt consider any woman Sports Illustrated photographs to be manly....Well, except R. Hunter. SHE IS average!
Have you seen Bar Refaeli? Masculine? She is all woman!
gotta go with the fact that all women everywhere are finer than those women over there. In other words its a matter of taste.
I would kill for Molly or Daniella, as would I for Shay. You can have the reest of 'em.
Great site. Here's the thing about masculinized faces and hetero dudes. Masculinized faces are a sign of extra testosterone in a woman, and higher levels of testosterone are medically proven to enhance libido in women (as well as men). So, Masculinized (beautiful) faces in women are attractive to hetero guys because they signal sexual readiness.
Not too hard to understand why "lifetime exclusive heterosexual" men find these women totally hot.
Just .02 from a hetero dude who digs masculinized, beautiful women
Thanks for a thought provoking article. I always wondered why the women in SI's swimsuit issues were so manly. Well, according to some of the comments here I now know it's to make the average housewife who is supposedly flat chested and looks more like a man to want to aspire to become a supermodel. Yeah right! Z is trying to make a point with his/her example, but fails miserably. I would have been more inclined to agree with Z's point of view if he/she did not purposely choose a woman with a humongous pair of breasts. It's quite obvious the public would not accept this in mainstream magazines and having used this example shows the immaturity and lack of intelligence that Z has to try to get his/her point across. Besides, not only does that woman have breasts that are too big (at least they are real) she is so pale! Yikes!
I guess this comment is pretty late in the game, but, what the hey!
My preference is for the beauty that only a young girl from 11 to
14 has. As long as a girl has yet to realize her power to interest a man, she will exude a sensuality that is real. If only our laws reflected the realities of life and permitted us to pursue our sexual desires as the urge dictates.
I agree totally with Justin's commentary on the use of the term "life-exclusive heterosexual male." What a strange term for someone to coin, and certainly to repeat ad nauseum. You could just use the term "straight" perhaps with the caveat of explaining early in the article that you mean men who have not been with a man, nor have any desire to be with a man. The fact that you didn't do that makes straight guys suspicious.
I can't believe I read the whole thing, including the comments. Your "theory" is at least interesting, if at times off. While I fully realize that one of the true motivations behind this site may be to get click-throughs, I nonetheless will play, and offer some observations on the alleged theory (not critiques that you must respond to, but instead observations):
First, I understand the author's frustration with some of the comments - he's saying in a very specific case - Sports Illustrated - ideal feminine beauty is not being used even though you'd think that would be the exact place where they would use ideal feminine beauty - huge circulation targed to men. I think that at this point it is not quite so simple - S.I. has taken some hits over the years and as a mainstream magazine cares more about being P.C. than other publications might, so if they thought that the feminine ideal that men most desired was not P.C. they may depart from that ideal a little. For instance, all things being equal, babes with otherwise similar builds but with giant natural tits probably wouldn't play well with the decision makers. That factor plays against many men's and definitely your) feminine ideal. The same pressures tend to make the S.I. photos less seductive, and more about the overall scene - more artsy and location-driven and "classy" and less about the entire focus being on making a woman look drop-dead hard-on sexy.
Your use of Luciana whoever in figure 9 is not nec'y a good example - I don't know if her ass is really that three-dimensional - it's a Playboy pose, truly marketed to men, they have no qualms about her making sure she sticks her ass out by arching her back a lot. That's what she is doing here, and perhaps without her doing so her ass looks much more flat.
Some of these models are not good examples because S.I., at least in this case, seems to be kind of having a "legends revisited" kind of theme. Thus they're using models well advanced in years compared to when they were totally the "it" girls. Of course, time affects their facial appearance. Also, since they're older and/or since they're no longer full-time models, some of them have put on a little weight through the middle, and therefore according to you they have "masculinized." By definition then, it seems that a woman can become more masculine just by gaining weight through the middle. I would submit that their structure with even 7 to 10 pounds less bodyweight (or more in some cases) would show them to have very feminine waist-to-hip ratios. I think that small-boned light women do not have to possess "big" hips for that to be the case - many petite "skinny" women have have great waist-to-hip ratios because their waists are tiny.
One of the factors for SI and fashion in general which is odd and goes against the real world is that the models are so tall. In order for them not to be considered amazon women then they have to be very light, for if they weren't, at 6 foot, they could easily weigh 160 to 170. The fact that they're very light/skinny and so tall means they're less shapely for their weight than a short woman. Even more so because most models don't have an athletic background. For me, I'd much prefer looking at a 5'3" model who, even with more shape and musculature, is still only 120 pounds or so.
I think something you're missing out on is scale. Some of these women may look "masculine" to you in the poses, but if you put an S.I. model next to a guy of the same height, there'd be a lot better sense of her delicateness, even for the older models. I think that relative delicateness is something that men find attractive. I am a lightly built man, but I recall a girlfriend and I looking in the mirror together with her standing in front of me, and the differences in scale and shape of our shoulders, torso, neck, and heads were striking, even though she had some extra pounds on her. "Wide" shoulders and "thick" middles on these women do not nec'y look that way compared to men, or even average women, and that fact I think would make them look much more feminine in real life or in a picture that showed such a comparison.
Similarly, I've gotten the impression (I'm not going up to review to be sure at this point) that a defined jawline is suspect to categorizations of "masculinity". I think scale, again, is key to this. A defined jawline I find VERY attractive on a woman. I think that in the best cases defined does not mean masculine because a woman's defined jawline can still be a delicate jawline. As you point out, a very small distance from lip to tip of chin is a much more feminine feature, and that holds even if the chin is part of a defined jawline. My jawline is quite defined, but it looks like I could take a punch from an MMA fighter. Winona Ryder's is quite defined, but delicate enough that you imagine it wouldn't survive such an encounter.
I can't tell for sure, but I think you may just think big lips and a wide mouth are "masculine". I think that much of the population thinks the exact opposite, as the popularity of injections and augmentation attest. Liv Tyler has a broad mouth, and I think that the general consensus is that she's a gorgeous lady. I'm not sure it is despite her mouth and lips. Same thing to a lesser extent for Sandra Bullock and Anne Hathaway. And the popularity of South American models, many of which have full lips or wide mouths, backs this up. Never mind that there are gorgeous black women in every nook and cranny of the world, and obviously they overwhelmingly have full lips and usually wide mouths. Small lips and a narrow mouth may be quite striking on some women, but I don't believe the opposite characteristic is considered masculine in any way. Aesthetically, I think that a wide mouth helps because it makes the rest of the jawline and the chin look relatively smaller.
There are better example of non-pornographic publications featuring feminine beauty that are truly marketed to men. FHM and Maxim come to mind. The girls there, while probably representing a decent range of physiques and facial structure, are much more representative of what the average man finds incredibly attractive, and I think you'll find that your concerns raised by the S.I. models don't hold for those publications. Unlike the swimsuit edition, they are not skewed by photos having come almost exclusively from women with a fashion background, with that inherent uniform body type.
Don't get me wrong - other women may catch my attention just as much or more, but the SI models are a pretty decent sample of feminine gorgeousness. And anyone who thinks Rebecca Romjin(?)-Stamos doesn't look feminine needs to revisit the X-men trilogy armed with the pause button of their DVD remote.
So many lovely women! People have different tastes. What is more feminine to one person is less to another. For example this article doesn't even bring up voice. A woman's voice can be a huge turn on or turn off. As well as body scent. You may laugh at that but trust me it makes a huge difference!
Some people just smell naturally more sweeter than others. Some people have to use more perfume and deodorants to mask their natural scent. Whereas others have wonderful scent and don't have to use as much perfume.
As well as makeup. Some people are naturally gorgeous. While, others need much more makeup to look sexy.
Anyways, I love foreign women. Like Asians, Latin Americans, and Europeans.
That includes Russians, French, Scandinavian, Greek, just to name a few.
California girls are great too! Lots of diverse beauty there! ;)
These women are all sexy and delicious! Too much nitpicking and over analyzing. I want all of these goddesses! hehe
I think the odd part is that no less then three people have come onto another persons website and insulted them about the beliefs they put there. I mean, yes, this websites viewpoint might not be in line with yours (it isn't in line with mine) but insulting them over that sparks me as slightly childish. Type in EU; and you will see that 1 in 10 of the websites talking about the EU are referring to the idea that the EU is the embodiment of the anti-Christ! If your going to go insulting people in what is essentially their property, at least insult people who are actually trying to be insulting to someone else, rather than someone who is expressing their opinion. Not once has the site or it's owner said that men were queers for not agreeing with him, or insulted your own opinions. And the people arguing... The best way to rid the world of Pseudo science is to ignore it and teach the people you know to think better than that.
I entirely agree with Justin & Larry! I mean dude c'mon! I'm a completely hetero guy, and believe me, almost everything you say screams "biggest-homophobic-self-loathing-repressed-closet-fagot ever to have walked this earth". I mean.. "life-exclusive heterosexual male".. Had you only mentioned that term once I already would have been convinced that you were yourself homosexual and not comfortable with it (nor even have you probably realized it/admitted it to yourself). but repeat it so many times.. wow!
On top of which the fact that you clearly are incapable of making the difference between objective/reason/logic & subjective/emotion/taste seems to be indicative of lacking grey matter..
PS: I hope my use of the word 'fagot' does not offend anyone, I was only using it for drama; I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with homosexuals (nor with 'masculine' women for that matter).
Cheers (to other readers).
Fascinating website.
An extremely well thought out and researched site. You really have opened my eyes, in more ways than I imagined upon first looking at your site over 3 hours ago. The differences between the fashionable, masculinized woman and the regular feminine woman are striking.
There does seem to be a terrible lack of feminine, pretty, sexy women available in our magazines, TV screens and so on. We have been inundated with images of boring-looking women, and though I cringe at what comes across as your homophobia, I support you in your endeavour to open the world's eyes to more femininity, beauty, and sexiness!
how come men don't have to deal with this? all the get to do is decide which manly girl is hot or not... :)
oh to think we will all be gone from this world one day and that none of it will matter...not how we look, not what we spend on these products, not how big our breasts are, not how pretty we should be, nothing not one bit..
although I guess when I die I want people to remember me as feminine and pretty
guess woman are screwed the moment we're born.
These women are the reasons why I purchase SI's swimsuit issues.
I think every single one of these women are exetremely attractive. But unfortantly, alot of american males, never leave there own country. Don`t get me wrong I love my country. That`s why I fought for it.And how I got to see the world. I don`t want to "tick anyone off". But I feel that the contact with women outside the usually standard of, TV and mag. Limits you scale of what a man likes. Also we all in part decide what is beautiful based on what (friends,co-workers,and family)around us see as well. I`m talking about, "perspective" my friends. We see, we observe, we colabarate, we rate, and learn to rate. Sorry ladies, it starts at pubity. Point is. As a man travels to different places, make new friends,and learn different cultures. Your perspective changes. How do you think some men stay with the same women 25 years, and sees her as hot? No he`s not looney, his perspective changed. When I was playing the feild I always went for hot, superslim women. Why, that`s what the world called for, It made me the man, and she was perfect arm candy. Simple,Cool guy = slim,cute,foxy girl. But, was that my main attraction. No, sorry slim trim lovers. When I decide to choose a wife. Great top and bottom small but curvy. Why you say? Cause sex may sell. But we don`t want to settle down with a women who can`t carry a baby, and won`t feed her unborn child correctly because she`s too worried about her shape. Running around Burning my meals, or draining my bank acct. trying to stay young w/ Plastic surgery.Besides everyone knows curvy looks do last longer, than skinny looks. Fact, not busting on anyone. No one likes a skinny wrinkled old women. So, the TV and mag. may control what the public youth may see as the ultimate sex symbols but the don`t have the edge over nature. Don`t believe me? Look at Grace Jones. Oh yeah!!! Right? Heck NOOOO. But go back 20 years, and she was it. Like it or not. Why was, she hot? Well, some famous dude (gay or straight I don`t know I don`t keep up with that stuff)said so. So everyone said," if HE, the man with the doe said so, it must be true. People agree and thus the labeling is placed. So Model dude you have a point. But, I`ve also been to africa, and there are alot beautiful women with strong jaws, and superslim and, very, very, attractive bodies. It looks great on "them" because it`s there chemical make up (Or chemi.cookie as I like to say). But let`s not say that`s the only super hot, cookie out there. Relax model dude! The media can`t change chemical attraction. Some hot momma`s gonna punch all of our cards,And they ain`t all super models, And men your gonna enjoy getting you cards punched. that`s mankind, we don`t know what the heck we want. Sly God aint gonna let that happen.
Erik, i think this is a brilliant post
i'm surprised you are recieving so much hate from other men on this website. It is true, realistically that someone like shay laren is going to put a woman like Rachel Hunter to shame. We know that women come in all shapes and sizes, and we know that women can be beautiful regardless. However, Erik is correct in his assumption about feminine beauty and finding large amounts of deeply interlocked and corroborating evidence to support his claim.
He really didn't even need to do that, I think the pictures above with no commentary would have been enough to convince any man about the truth of the claims made. I think we've all kind of missed the point, and I believe this is the reason why Erik is getting so much hate right now. His point wasn't to sit here and debate with anybody about why a certain SI model is or isn't hot, it was to spark a discussion about why our mainstream modeling industries and magazines are promoting models that many men would not have sex with. It seems shallow, but really what is everybody talking about here, but sexual preferences? I think it is absurd to talk here and defend the idea that you like a woman because shes masculine looking.
Erik great post, I see exactly where you're coming from, please don't let these soccer moms disguised as men prevent you from speaking your mind.
while I can appreciate what this page is illustrating. I Do think that it is fairly one dimensional. Feminine beauty reaches beyond the physical. While physical traits such as measurements and curvature help define classic beauty, they do not always hold up next to other traits. Healthy physiques and energy usual win out. The best example I can think of at the moment can be found in Starship Troopers. Clearly the more "phiscally beautiful" actress in that movie was Denise Richards , but I have yet to find a man that would not rather take Dina Meyer home. While Dina Meyer did not posses the giant breasts or curves of Denise, her confidence and physical fitness along with a stunning face made her irresistible. Here are a couple images to illustrate my point.
In a still photo Denise comes clearly across as the more sexually attractive and bodacious woman. But Dina has got "it". In the end ... she is definitely the more desirable woman. And she has many of the man traits you pointed out in your post.
here is Dina Meyer
This is one of the most stupid sites I've seen in a while, and I'm in the web industry. I hope your ad hits make up for your idiocy. You just made a lot of people drop an IQ point by condescending to read and respond to your posts.
i consider myself an independent thinker, and a connoisseur of female beauty.
. . . and i disagree with pretty much everything you state.
only problem i have with most models is their height.
i prefer petite females.
but i can see how this makes them photogenic, and how it can help show off the whatever it is they happen to be wearing/selling . .
. . which is what they are paid to do!
You are just so elitist. You've labeled yourself a "lifetime-exclusive heterosexual man" (Implying you are the epiphany of masculinity). Not only that, you've decided EXACTLY what ALL "truly heterosexual" men like to see in a woman. You've backed this up with all sorts of "facts", yet you fail to see the obvious. Beauty truly is in the eye of the beholder, and sorry, not everyone agrees with you, not even other heterosexual men! It is true that there are some similar guidelines that men tend to follow when they judge whether or not a woman meets their physical ideals, but that in no way means that all men are going to rate all the same women as the same attractiveness. Each man still has their own perspectives. You however, refuse to believe this.
It gets better though. If a man was to disagree with your apparently flawless judgment of who is feminine/beautiful or not (Once again, putting yourself and your opinion on a pedestal), why, those men must NOT be REAL men. They must be effeminate in some way, or not really all that in to women at all. If a man disagrees with what YOU think is beautiful about a woman, you immediately question their sexuality. You two couldn't POSSIBLY just have a difference in opinion! Nope.
THAT is what is wrong with this entire website.
Petite: Being a lifetime-exclusive heterosexual man has little to do with being masculine or feminine. It is just being normal; the term describes most men, a number of whom will be effeminate. There is nothing in my arguments suggesting exactly what all truly heterosexual men like. And I don't question the sexuality of any man who disagrees with me. Someone who leaves a comment expressing disagreement could be a man or woman and of any sexual orientation. How would I know which is true? I am not going to waste my time speculating, but it is obvious that beyond some level of masculinization in women, the men attracted to them will increasingly lean toward nonheterosexuality. Don't waste my time with straw men. As it is I have many unreplied comments to deal with.
Erik: What exactly does "normal" mean? That seems to indicate to me very much the exact same thing as I was describing before. That somehow men who agree with your standard of beauty are "normal" and men who do not are not normal. Who are you to judge what is normal and what is not? Why is your standard of beauty the only correct one? Like I said before, while I would agree that men generally like the same sorts of things in women, their standards on what is attractive and what is not can vary quite widely.
I was with you until you showed the face of Anita Dark compared with Yesica Toscanini. Aside from Rachel Hunter who indeed has a very masculine body and face that I have never found attractive, There is no better example of a masculine "transexual" face than the two shots on the left of Anita Dark. The info you've given though, does indeed have a lot of scientific backing. Back in college I studied human sexuality, and there was a whole section on this very topic. However, finding these women attractive does not mean an individual is in violation of your "exclusive heterosexuality" theory. That is complete nonsense, and it greatly damages the arguments you make on this page.
Sorry to say but I still like Yesica Toscanini better. And your comparison is not relevant because the makeup of Anita Dark is a very different stile form Yesica. They wanted to show different things and if one takes Yesica and makeup her in the same way she will look exactly as feminine as Anita. I mean you have pics of Yesica going to a party and shooting for fashion and Anita shooting for a porn movie!!!
Petite: In my reply to you I used the word normal in relation to sexual orientation. Normal here is functioning in accordance with design. Even homosexuals know that heterosexuality is normal in this sense or they would never have been born. This is not a matter of judgment. You then went into a discussion "that men generally like the same sorts of things in women, their standards on what is attractive and what is not can vary quite widely," which no one, myself included, would dispute. When it comes to models reaching the top for a major publication catering to the male heterosexual population, the looks that will carry the most weight will be the ones that most men find highly appealing, assuming that this preference determines the selection of models, but a different preference is behind the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit issue.
Ross: I fail to see anything close to a masculine transsexual face in Anita Dark's pictures from her early twenties. Anyway, there is nothing in my argument that men attracted to the Sports Illustrated/fashion models are violating the notion of exclusive heterosexuality. The argument is that the high status of these women cannot be explained in terms of male heterosexuality. Heterosexual men will find numerous women, harboring above average femininity, more attractive than the masculinized women Sports Illustrated is glorifying, which means that these masculinized women would not have made it to the top if male heterosexuality were behind the selection.
Some people above have a difficult time accepting the notion that proper heterosexuals are those that have never experienced same-sex attraction and have never voluntarily indulged in homosexual behavior. This notion is very well supported empirically, and I have described the evidence, but it is not online. I will come back at some point and list this evidence.
Regarding Corinna.. well it depends of the pics and angle.... here she is that nice anymore...http://www.hq69.com/galleries/femjoy_corinna_blue_room/femjoy_corinna_bl...
Sorry, I agree though. Anita Dark has a very transexual face. I agree with the super models you posted up. Many of them look transexual. However, even in your attractive women's section, you have "attractive" women that clearly look masculine. They aren't even in the "somewhat masculinized section". I just don't get it. There is one woman that clearly has a small waist, ribcage, and large breasts in relation to her thinness. However, her face is so masculine I wonder how you didn't notice it?
Nikita Laska has a masculine face. Look at her robust nose, cheekbones, and her face shape if very angular. Look at her eyebrows, see her browbone? It sticks out too much. She is not feminine at all, despite her figure. Her face is just screaming transexual, and in a few years it will be a lot worse! I am also sure if she gained a bit more weight her body would become a bit more masculinized as well, and her waist would not be so small. However, her body would still be feminine, where her face won't be feminine no matter what she does...
sorry wrong one. I am speaking of Dasha from model flats. The girl with a blue bikini bottom. MASCULINE! gross. Her chest is too boney as well.
Shay Laren from DDgirls has a flat backside. She positions herself to make it seems as though she does not,however she does. It is obvious... It's not even a bit flat, its really flat.
Corinna from Femjoy has an extremely masculine belly button. However, I have to say she is gorgeous and it doesn't bother me at all...
Besides having large breasts,Courtney from Courtney's camera, does not have a feminine body at ALL! Her figure is 'boyish'.
anita looks like a crack whore.. Yesica is gorgeous..
I think you have a point. I was watching "DollHouse" last week and pointed out to my wife that it seems like everyone that they try to put forward as a beauty generally doesn't have a tiny waist and curvaceous hips. They said on the "Science of Beauty" that men think women are most attractive when their waist-to-hip measurements are in the proportions of the waist being 70% the size of the hips. I guess that's the thing I focus on the most besides the face. The size of the breasts do not matter, unless there are implants, which ruins everything for me.
I enjoy the women of SI Swimsuit editions, especially because of the lack of implants in most, if not all, of the current models. However, I prefer feminine traits over masculine traits, and some of the examples, like Rachel Hunter, do strike me as having manly facial structure. That doesn't mean I think they are transvestites or men or anything of the sort. It's just that I noticed that there are an awful lot of women who are supposed to be the feminine ideal that are very manly. The way I put it is that "she's the brother she never had".
It's amazing that you can put so much effort into attempting to make a scientific argument (which you clearly believe lends credibility to your stance) only to completely forgo it once you get to the analysis of individual models. I strain to see any real consistency at all when it comes to your judging of individual women. The fact that you compare each "masculine" model to a unique "feminine" model should be your first clue that you are straying from any form of standardization. Also that you simply conclude models are "masculine" because it is obvious, self-evident, or clear, without pointing out lines, angles, measurements, or even referencing your standards, is absurd. Theres also a discussion to be had about the fact that you are choosing photos with ambiguous angles that specifically suit your intent. I won't even get into your "should make a man say, 'damn'" argument, or your ridiculous comments on each glamour photo.
All that being said, I can't say I disagree on all your observations, just a couple of them. More importantly, nothing you have written can convince me one way or the other, since it simply lacks substance. As stated, your figures are nearly meaningless. Have we forgotten the "label your graphs" rule? Show me that you can put more effort forth than pairing what you believe to be bad SI photos with what you believe to be good glamour photos and maybe I'll give it a second read.
Brett - A life-time heterosexual man, but more importantly, a man who understands logic, argument, and the scientific method.
Fashion models seem to be more about status than sexiness, regardless of the orientation. It may be that androgynous faces (I would describe the faces as androgynous rather than outright masculine) are deemed by the editors to convey a sense of high-status cool reserve that would be less readily presented on a more feminine face.
You speak of the objectivity of beauty, yet if beauty is so objective and if 'feminine females' (personally i would say a lot of the faces you showed were weak and unhealthy ) are so desired by men, then why do such beauties not have a mainstream outlet (which you have also stated)? The homosexual fashion designers right?
You esentially pinpoint the media as homosexual or 'non exclusive hetrosexuals', but you could just as easily make the assumption that the supposed variance between their values and those of the average joe population could be a class discreprancy. You have just abitrarily picked a contextual element, whithout exploring others.
Your site further implies that males and females have either been tricked by the fashion indistry into 'masculinaisation', or, in the case of males, are simply 'not exlcsive hetrosexuals'. Firstly, if beauty is as objective as you say, how could they be mislead?
And secondly, you assume, with no evidence, that any male who prefers the "masculinized" form, as most likely being 'not exclusive hetrosexuals'. This lack of evidence, alongst with childish name calling and framing biases, are littered throughout your site.
If beauty is so objective then how do you explain differences in perception of beauty apparent over time and accoss cultures? What biological foundations of beauty do you think exist (excluding the generally scietific concensus of symetry being attractive, which i note, your 'attractive women' section had deficencies of)?
More importantly, if hormonal optimisation makes a woman more beautiful, is the same not true for a men? If you do belive that is the case then why are commonly perceived beautiful males such as certain models and hollywood celebrities, not overwhelmingly masculine (not to say they are completly non masculine)? Is this due to homosexual women also running the media?
On a more personal level, i do feel that the majority of 'fashion models' you have presented are more attractive than your 'glamour models'. A lot of men i know would agree with me. From my own personal observations, so merely an opinion, i feel that the prefernce for beauty is much more defined by the persons cultural interest. Whilst some males i have seen who persue more blue-collar interests seem to favour your'glamour model' form, men who persue alternative cultures to this do not. A lot of males i know, including myself, would feel that the 'glamour models' you have displayed look 'trashy', showing that, to some extent, it is a class discourse which seperates them.
I do agree with you on some instances though, for example, giesele, in looking too masculine, however, your scientific method has been poor and biased, and i would agree with Brett's comment above.
Aslo, a few of your commetns about men only finding the swimsuit models sexy becuase they look like they would be easy to bed is a bit hypocritical seeing as your main source for 'glamour model' images seems to be from porn sites.
This is an incredibly dumb site. Beauty is all subjective. I find most of the women in the "attractive women" section unattractive--and it certainly doesn't help that half of them are porn models. Audrey Hepburn is my idea of ideal facial feminine beauty, not any of those bimbos you have listed here.
I think all of those models are attractive (either labeled "feminine" of "masculine") except Yamila Diaz's nose, which is quite ugly. But also she is very feminine except the nose.
Though it was not mentioned by you, but someone mentioned Leonardo DiCaprio to be feminine-featured man, and I think he is more feminine than many other man. But then I compared Rachel Hunter and Leonardo DiCaprio and she was NOT more masculine than Leonardo.
And indeed there should be some kind of measurements or something, rather than saying it's obvious that those models are more masculine than the others.
Well I ain't no model, but I am a little horrified at the idea of these women being considered "masculine", when I personally find my face to be extremely masculine in appearance-heavy set eyebrows and jaw, close set eyes, but would never put those women in the same category! Anyway, I feel that this person, whoever they are, are just a part of the machine that seeks to perpetuate the self-loathing that exists among women today b/c they don't fit "this" or "that" standard. It makes me sick, b/c has anyone seen such blog composed by a woman deciphering such characteristics of men based on trite foolishness! Once again we have given the upper hand to men, and I really just want to say "fuck you" please stay the hell away from women with your garbage. One of the great things about beauty, is that it is universal, but at the same there characteristics of someone's face that give it a distinct quality that makes it more memorable and enticing ie-Angie Stone's full lips, Tyra Banks' sparkling green eyes, Christy Turlington's hooked nose, Kate Moss' delicate jawline or Alek Wek's apple shaped cheeks, everyone male of female is beautiful in their own right and let's not forget inner beauty far outshines what is on the outside:)
Every woman pictured on this page(even the writers examples of what he/she considers to be feminine)could be considered to have a masculine face if you imagine hard enough. The "more feminine" examples are all porn stars. I suspect the writer might be a hopeless virgin.
Enjoy your hand.
Hunter, Yamila and Sims. None of them look like male-to-female transsexuals to me.
I spend a lot of time with male-to-female transsexuals and female-to-male. Believe me, they're undeniably female. Not just their bodies, they have female faces and your reactions seem unnecessarily harsh and knee-jerk.
Although I don't disagree with your praise of feminine beauty, I like curvy, feminine women too. But really you're too harsh. Your judgement seems to be that these magazines are wrong. But they're selling, so obviously the other hetero men are just ignorant. Sounds faulty to me.
what a loser, how are you going to call a bunch of beautiful women masculine? don't you have something useful to do with the time you have between playing role playing games and masturbating?
The only response I have to this site is to laugh. Either it's a huge troll or the originator is too delusional for words.
Very succinctly and beautifully stated rebuttal to this informative but largely sexist and bogus website!
You don't present any evidence whatsoever regarding how or why any of these women have masculine faces or bodies. You just start off your article stating that they have man faces. You are ridiculous. Also, Yamila Diaz-Rahi is insanely gorgeous. Do you honestly think that people would assume she's a transsexual?
Interesting argument Erik, but possibly you have picked the wrong target in Sports Illustrated.
If you look at most successful female athletes, you will notice a majority of them have a tendency towards masculinity.
This is purely because larger, stronger athletes have a natural advantage in most sports.
Conclusion: In a Sports magazine, you will find women who, even if they are not athletes, are more suited to sports than glamour modelling. I am not surprised, and neither should anyone be.
You make a really good argument with what said about the models, but i couldn't help but notice that the other women being used in comparison to the Sports Illustrated models are mostly pron stars. i don't know if those women are considered "Glamor models" if most of the time they are seen, they have their faces buried in a man's crotch. If by that you mean"Glamor models," then by all means, show us the pictures of them with their faces full of the other kind of "foundation."
wow... this is the stupidest thing I have ever read. You are an idiot.
Come clean, Erik, you were caught red-handed with folders filled with porn and had to create this sad little excuse of a website to justify yourself. Women are beautiful regardless of their size and shape and you suck!
i am a bit concerned over the arguments made over this. i agree on all terms that there shouldn't be one-sidedness to certain magazines or the fashion world as it appears, but everything depends on the time and place. feminity holds much beauty but so does masculinity. that is equivalent to saying "men with feminine features" should not get publicity and that they are not desireable. unless the rules don't apply to guys, then that it unfair to women. in reality, holding these preferences just creates an equal amount of inequality in the world. women should be able to have their magazines, just as homosexuals and lilewise, your fellow men. do not worry! don't hold too much frustrations for the fact that in reality, you're seeing what you do not like to see. you have the power to choose. just don't give too much attention to what you don't like. eric is just being honest in his pov. this one-sidedness from all of these arguments has got to go! unless equality is of little or zero importance, carry on.
You are a cynical piece of shit, these women are all beautiful. The author of this article is obviously fat/ugly and mad at the world, because they choose not to put forth the hard work and dedication these women have done.
Good Nights..
I discovered this web-page because I'm an artist and wanted to draw women much better. They are more difficult to draw then men, due to their curves and delicate features.
When I first saw the page, I was disoriented and thought I was on another porn site with no real purpose, and almost left, and stopped when I saw the comparisons.
I have read many comments, some of them I do not agree, like insults directed to the creator of this website.
I do agree that beauty is something we must cherish and look forward to, but there is still some "decency" that is not present which dirties the good arguments here exposed.
But again, the purpose of this web site is pointed towards men directed products. Maybe another website with a more decent approach to the matter will help to create a better tool for the cause.
I totally agree with the creator on the more feminine and more masculine features of the women here exposed, with some minor details I won't loose time explaining. It is well known how hormones affect a women, and how a well balanced nutrition or the lack of it may also affect this hormones, as well as other activities.
At the moment, 2 of my friends (we are all heterosexual men) agree on the arguments here exposed. We will consider them when creating female characters for our various artistic creations (non naked of course), using at times the more masculine or feminine type when we consider that appropriate.
So I must say thanks for the effort..it is well done, but could be better in a more decent manner.
As of today I am still struggling with the concept of decency as to how far nakedness is wrong. When I have an answer, I will try and let the creator of this website know.
Best Regards,
This is an excellent site and you have a firm grasp on evolutionary sexual-selective pressures. What I find is truly HILARIOUS, is the amount of closet homosexual men that read this site and then shriek at you for exposing their latent homosexuality. This is just side-splitting to read if you are intelligent enough to understand it. For the less intelligent:
Erik has pointed out that a significant amount of self-identified heterosexual men have *slight* homosexual tendencies. This can be demonstrated by the preference of these same men for *masculine* women (women who have features that resemble those of a man).
So what happens? Some men hop on this site, read about Erik pointing out this demonstrable, nearly tautological FACT, and then they become genuinely offended because it points out their own latent homosexual tendencies, and this is reinforced when these same men look at the *masculine* women and become aroused. So, what do these closet homosexuals do? They try to cure their own cognitive dissonance by *projecting* their own homosexuality upon the author of the site, Erik! This is pure comedy, folks.
Most *strictly heterosexual* men COMPLETELY agree with Erik (.70 waist, curvy butt, larger breasts are preferred, and wide shoulders, man-like hips, and strong jaws/brows are not preferred). Did you stumble upon this site and then become offended when Erik's drew attention to the fact that *masculine* women are, generally, more *masculine* than feminine women? LOL. There's your sign! You can still call yourself "heterosexual" but just come to grips with the fact that you are farther down the scale of sexuality than you thought you were. You indeed exhibit traits that indicate either bisexuality or latent homosexuality. Don't blame Erik (by calling him homosexual, LOL) for being the honest messenger!
There are many characteristics that indicate whether a person is male or female. Setting all of them all the way toward the direction that indicates female yields one face, one physique, zero variation. There's no reason to suppose that this one look is the favorite of every strictly heterosexual man. It only takes a few of them to clearly indicate that the person is female, as long as the others are merely in the androgynous range rather than masculine enough to call the person's sex into question. Once a man has established that the person he's seeing is female, it would make sense, even for a strictly heterosexual man to use the rest of the characteristics to evaluate the person's appearance on grounds other than redundantly confirming that she's female. And the vast majority of these women have no really masculine features, just moderately androgynous ones, combined with other features that are quite unambiguously feminine. There's no good reason for a heterosexual male to reject them on the basis of appearance, nor any good reason not to like variety.