You are here

Discrimination against unattractive women

This site aims to promote feminine beauty.  If it had a significant impact, a possible undesirable side effect could be increased discrimination against women that are not feminine and attractive.  The webmaster of, a new site aiming to combat discrimination against unattractive individuals, contacted me about issues related to the promotion of feminine beauty, and I agree with him that the discrimination issue needs to be addressed, especially in light of the scope of this feminine beauty site.

The following discussion is a brief sketch of the issues involved, and will need to be elaborated on in future entries.  Discrimination against women that are deemed unattractive can be romance- or job-related.

Romance/reproduction-related discrimination

A common tool employed within this site is to contrast feminine and attractive women with models and beauty pageant contestants deemed unattractive with respect to majority preferences.  An attempt is made to educate the public about tricks of posing and fake femininity employed by the fashion world to pass its models as hot; see an ongoing series on “sexy” Victoria’s Secret models: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3; more later.  There is also a discussion of the subtlety of aesthetics within this site.  Such information helps hone the aesthetic judgment of the readership.  In addition, there is also an attempt to expose the public to very attractive women in order to promote high aesthetic standards among models and beauty pageant contestants, the idea being that even attractive women will be found not impressive when people are exposed to very attractive women.  The cumulative effect is that most women will be found to be less desirable by heterosexual men that thoroughly go through this site/become better aware of the nature of feminine beauty.

But will this lead to increased romantic discrimination against unattractive women by men?  No, it won’t.  There are few feminine and attractive women, and most men are not getting them.  As far as almost all heterosexual men are concerned, a less desirable woman is better than taking the matter into one’s hands.  Even if one considers picky men, one should not forget that sexual deprivation tends to make the less desirable more desirable.

There are also two questions that should be addressed in the context of possible romantic discrimination against women who are not feminine and attractive.

Are feminine and attractive women the best sexual partners?

Feminine beauty as addressed within this site concerns itself with overall visual appeal, which is of reduced relevance during sexual activity and no relevance if light is absent.  Feminine women will be more pleasurable than skinny women as far as touch- and pressure-related sensory stimulation resulting from fatty deposits goes, but overweight/mildly obese women will be even better in this regard.  There is also the possibility that a feminine and attractive woman will tend to rely on her looks to please a male partner and play a more passive role during sexual activity, whereas a less attractive woman will play a more active role, thereby pleasing her partner more.  Therefore, it cannot be said that feminine and attractive women are the best sexual partners.  The latter is especially true for heterosexual men who are into deviant sexual practices as feminine and attractive women are less likely than other women, especially masculinized women, to acquiesce to requests for deviate conduct.

Are feminine and attractive women the best reproductive partners?

The answer is an easy no.  Whereas attractive individuals are a good reproductive choice, and feminine women have above average fecundity and fertility, there is a problem with femininity when it comes to desirable outcomes in offspring.  The genetic/hormonal bases of above average femininity help women but harm men.  In other words, other things being equal, women with above average femininity are likely to give birth to less masculine sons, who will generally grow up to be less successful with women and less likely to be able to dominate other men.

The problem is that if above average masculinity/below average femininity is desirable in men and above average femininity/below average masculinity is desirable in women from a health and fertility standpoint, then there is no reproductive partner that will increase the likelihood of producing both types of offspring.  A masculine partner will increase the odds of a masculine son but also a masculine daughter, a feminine partner will increase the odds of feminine daughter but also a feminine son.  If a man and woman with above average masculinity decide to mate in order to produce a very masculine son, not only could the results be negative from a health and fertility standpoint if a daughter is born, but exposure to testosterone beyond a threshold could developmentally disturb the male fetus, leading to a son with a strange mix of hypermasculine, normally masculine, hypomasculine and feminine characteristics.

Therefore, a good reproductive partner, not necessarily the best, is generally one that would increase the odds of producing an average offspring.  As far as desirable outcomes in offspring are concerned, very feminine women would be a good reproductive partner for very masculine men but not most men.


It is unlikely that the promotion of feminine beauty will increase romantic discrimination against women that are not feminine and unattractive.  On the other hand, it could be pointed out that the pressure on a number of women to look feminine and attractive will increase if feminine beauty had a stronger impact.  This issue is tangential to the topic being addressed, has been partially addressed elsewhere and will be addressed in detail later.

Discrimination related to modeling assignments

This type of discrimination is a special case of job-related discrimination that is being addressed separately given the heavy focus of this site on models.  Given a limited number of modeling opportunities, elevation of feminine beauty will imply fewer modeling/related opportunities for women that are not feminine and attractive, but this cannot be called unfair since the present high status of skinny and masculine women means few opportunities for mainstream modeling on the part of feminine and attractive women as well as the use of masculinized women when feminine ones are required. 

The promotion of feminine beauty will lead to a more balanced and appropriate scenario.  The skinny and masculine norm among high-fashion models will not be changing as long as homosexual men dominate the fashion business, which will be for a long time to come.  Companies marketing products to feminists will continue to use ordinary-looking women; “real women” in feminist speak.  The promotion of feminine beauty will force mainstream high-profile beauty pageants, publications like Sports Illustrated and equivalent to use more feminine women as a result of shame, embarrassment and declining interest should they continue with mostly masculinized, sometimes heavily masculinized, women.  This can hardly be called inappropriate or unfair to masculinized women.  A beauty pageant that caters to the general public should take into account public tastes, which is to strongly and overwhelmingly prefer feminine beauty.  Additionally, if publications like Sports Illustrated or Playboy magazine cater to heterosexual male interest by using models with fake breasts and posing tricks to make unfeminine women look feminine, then they deserve declining sales for fraud.

General job-related discrimination

If an unattractive and an attractive individual compete for the same job and both are equally qualified, the fair selection procedure would be to make a random decision, but in practice the attractive person is more likely to get the job.  What can be done about such unfairness?  One possibility is legislation, but it would be difficult to enforce.  There are numerous reasons for rejecting a potential employee and it is not going to be easy for someone to prove that he was rejected for his looks.

The best way of approaching the discrimination issue is to examine why people value beauty and whether the valuation is justified.  The value placed upon beauty results in beauty having a halo effect on the qualifications of a person, making an attractive person appear more qualified. 

It will be seen that there are some correlates of beauty that are related to health and fertility and others that just appeal to sensory biases without having any other significance.  Correlates of beauty that have no significance other than simply appealing to sensory biases can be roughly considered valueless.  One should not be misled into believing that something valueless is of value.  Correlates of beauty that correspond to health and fertility can be assumed to be the result of the developmental program shaping people to recognize people who will be good reproductive partners.  However, the typical job interview is not an assessment of a potential reproductive partner, and the valuation of features related to health and fertility should not be relevant to an evaluation of work skills. 

Another issue is that with respect to the correlates of beauty that correspond to health and fertility, how much healthier and more fertile are very attractive individuals compared to attractive individuals and ordinary individuals?  In the absence of physical defects/abnormalities, a large increase in attractiveness will generally correspond to a small increase in health and fertility.  In other words, people tend to overvalue beauty.  With respective to selecting a quality partner, such overvaluing is not maladaptive, but such overvaluation should not be part of evaluating a potential employee as far as the typical job is concerned.

Yet another issue is whether some elements of the valuation of beauty are misleading.  For instance, attractive and very feminine women will be strongly pleasing to most lifetime-exclusive heterosexual men.  However, as noted above, whereas these women will be healthy, very fertile and very fecund, their high level of femininity will be problematic for most men as far as typically desired outcomes in male offspring are concerned.

In other words, there are at least three ways beauty is overvalued: valueless correlates of beauty are assumed to be of value, a higher than actual value is placed on correlates of beauty that are of value and some features that are of value for a small subset of people can be mistakenly assumed to be of value by most people.

The reasons why people value beauty are typically not relevant to evaluating a potential employee, and being swayed by the beauty of a potential employee is especially unjust given the overvaluation of beauty.  If employers can be made to understand the nature of their biases toward beauty, then being aware of their biases, they will be in a position to reduce job-related discrimination against unattractive individuals.


There is no reason why one cannot simultaneously promote feminine beauty, avoid increasing romance-related discrimination against unattractive women and reduce job-related discrimination against unattractive individuals.  This requires a lot of work, which will be done given enough time.




Erik said:
If a man and woman with above average masculinity decide to mate in order to produce a very masculine son, not only could the results be negative from a health and fertility standpoint if a daughter is born, but exposure to testosterone beyond a threshold could developmentally disturb the male fetus, leading to a son with a strange mix of hypermasculine, normally masculine, hypomasculine and feminine characteristics.

If you have this mix of qualities, then who should you mate with?

Hugh Ristik: The best choice for this person would be a woman that is normal to feminine. As a side note, homosexual men often have this strange mix and they will generally not be mating with women.

lol@you thinking your site will have any discernible effect on anything.

you're a total closet homo.

Actually, asshole... I used this as a reference to a research paper. So, it actually did make a difference. lol!

Erik says,

"If a man and woman with above average masculinity decide to mate in order to produce a very masculine son, not only could the results be negative from a health and fertility standpoint if a daughter is born, but exposure to testosterone beyond a threshold could developmentally disturb the male fetus, leading to a son with a strange mix of hypermasculine, normally masculine, hypomasculine and feminine characteristics."

Ok. So let me get this straight. For a guy to have "strong" masculine sons he shouldn't mate with a feminine woman, because his sons will turn out feminine and weak looking to women, however he shouldn't mate with a hyper masculine woman because then the fetus will get "damaged"

So he should mate with an average woman right?

I don't know, that doesn't really make sense to me, its very dumbed down, kind of like a first grader's logic. Not to mention its kind of insulting. I want to have boys and girls and I don't think that just because I am feminine I can't have masculine and good looking boys. Besides, feminine features in men are actually attractive. Nice eyes, fuller lips, etc. are all nice traits...

"Companies marketing products to feminists will continue to use ordinary-looking women; “real women” in feminist speak."

There is a typo? I think you meant to say speech.
This is an interesting post however again i don't agree with some points.

1. You mentioned that if this site, feminine beauty became "big" or somehow feminine beauty became more appreciated in the fashion world it would "equal out". Feminine as well as masculine women would have a place in the fashion world. Do you really think this is feasable? I think NOT!
If above average feminine models came into the picture do you think there would be hope for the above average masculine models? (like many at the moment). No, It would be a dream come true for you and other exclusively heterosexual males but would work against above average masculine models. Once people become aware of the existance of above average feminine models being used in fashion i don't think many people would care for models such as Gisele Bunchen.

2. I do not like your use of the word "strange" to describe men who have a mix of feminine, hypermasculine, normally masculine etc. characteristics. Strange to who? You? Since you only appreciate "Extreme masculine" looks. I can guess why...
I find Dorian Yates physique to be repulsive. I have no idea why in all hell's name would you post him as an example of an attractive male or male physique....referring to your other posts. You mentioned most/many women would find the physique of the body builders unappealing or repulsive. Then why use them?

3. Turst me this influence of homosexual males on "selecting" masculine fashion models will change in your lifetime. You can bet on it.

4. In defense of non feminine seem to have left out that in general they will have a higher libido.

5. Correct me if i am wrong but isn't the technology to select the sex of their child available to couples? If that is the case in the future...this antagonistic sexual selection issue won't be of concern?


I look like these fashion models. A lot of people have told me that and trust me I actually do. However a lot of people have also told me that I am attractive! Are you saying that I am actually not attractive, and it is in fact just peoples perceptions of the modern world and influences that have made me "look good" so I am doomed to a life of ( If you get your way and change perceptions) living alone. If you get your way would the women who look like me and are "masculanised" would we be the new fuglies of society.

I have been descriminated against because I am not pretty. who wants tall big b oobed women anyway. I have been told I am ugly. I act like i am smart and pretend i am a creative person because it makes me feel better. even when i let men control me i cant keep a boyfriend cause they embarrassed of me and dont want me to meet his mom. laura balladur

For number 4- I was wondering that too. perhaps that is why there are as many non-feminine women as there are, because you would think they might be weeded out to some extent at this point; they probably put out more, and therefore reproduce a lot more than the feminine women. I also wonder if this means that hyperfeminine women, who have on average less active libidos than hypermasculine women, will somewhat die out themselves, especially with the culture we are currently living in where female promiscuity is less frowned upon as well as single mothers and narrow hips. Although this makes sense, I'd like to also see some proof that females with higher male hormone levels (and therefore higher waist-hip ratios which create more masculine female figures) do indeed have higher libidos than those who don't. I am a definite pear shape which generally means I will have low androgens and low estrogens as well, with a whr of ~.71 at 27/38 waist/hip measurements. However, I have a very high libido, (which every single guy I've been sexual with has remarked and rarely been able to keep up with) and I don't think I can say in real life that I've seen this proven.
It's seemed more to me that more attractive women are more sexually active on average, but maybe this is more of a confidence issue than anything else.

I'm going to come back and say this bothers me. I know I commented on this post already, but it troubles me. If you are a feminine woman, you will have beautiful daughters but your sons will be probably just ok, or just weak looking. If you are a masculine woman, you will have the son that every woman won't be able to resist, but you will have the daughter that no man wants to go near. If you are average, you will have average sons and daughters.

So, good looking people are just very lucky. Average people are just the norm. And ugly people just got screwed.

Great. Life sucks.

I want to have daughters and sons and if one is attractive the other won't be!? That just sucks.

So, Erik,

What do you think about research that indicates a feminine woman is more likely to have daughters, a masculine woman is more likely to have sons, and average woman are meant to have both sons and daughters?

The idea is that each type of woman is designed to raise a certain type of child. A feminine woman may have trouble handling routy boys because it is most likely not in her nature, however a more masculinized woman can handle routy boys. On the other hand a feminine woman will be more gentle, one suited for raising daughters. An average woman can handle average kids.

Also, how does this problem get solved, or is it supposed to be this way?

What is the goal of nature?

A. To create averaged out human beings
B. To create the most optimally attractive human beings

Does attraction really have a good correlation to fertility, intelligence, health?

Which way is better to go? Attractive or average?


Why are Northern European men more masculine and Northern European women more feminine on average? Why is the gap between feminine and masculine bigger? What did they do differently in terms of natural selection that caused this?

Because if the masculine man chose the feminine women, it doesn't matter they would still get only average sons. If an average male chose a masculine woman, their daughter would be average. If a feminine man chose a feminine woman, their son would be pretty feminine.

The way I see it, it would all just create a lot of average, if they followed the general rules. So what rules did they follow? How did they develop to have more masculine men and more feminine woman?

I think there are averages where anything is concerned, my sister is very feminine, and her sons are very masculine. Their father is relatively masculine, and their daughter is too young for it to be obvious yet, whether she is feminine or not, but she takes after my sister and I quite a bit, and we are pretty feminine.

Besides heredity and genetic factors, there are other variables.

Besides Godis, whether a woman is masculine or feminine or not, does not determine the liklihood of what sex her children will be, as it is common knowledge that it is the fathers sperm that determines the sex of the baby.

It could be that Northern Europeans have good genes, and no matter whether the masuline/feminine element of either the mother or father, the children will be attractive with appropriate hormone levels. That is an extreme guess, but my mom's feminine, my dad masculine, and my brother takes after my dad, and my sisters and I take after our moms, aside from some facial characteristics, etc., the conclusion is that me and my siblings are all appropriately feminine(me and my sister), and masculine(brother).

About discrimination:

To choose the best partner we can get is not to treat someone unfairly. To make a choice is to distinguish between differences, because we are aware of the significance of these differences. Consciously or subconsciously.

If we become so afraid of hurting someone that we fail to choose and select for the best, then much is lost and nothing is gained. If everything is considered the same, then nothing has any higher value. To choose somebody or something over somebody or something else is necessary, because all is not the same. Misunderstood "human" values are inhuman if they lead to the elimination of differences that support and enrich life. That is truly to throw the baby out with the bathing water. To make a positive choice in favor or somebody or something is different from hating or treating someone unfairly. It can never be "unfair" to choose someone because she or he has desirable qualities.

Our human intelligence, which is rightfully being considered the foremost of our species, is an example of a quality that has been developed and can only be maintained by selection. The same with curvaceous bodies in females and masculine bodies in men. By selecting the most attractive partners that are available to us, we ensure that their attractive and desirable traits are being maintained in the population and the gene pool. The curvaceous bodies with feminine hourglass hips and cat-like softness of movement represent the highest degree of polarity with the masculine, more straight and "hard" form. These differences are crucial to attractiveness, bonding and mutual satisfaction from sexual togetherness. To select for the differences, by choosing partners who have these qualities, is not unfair discrimination. Rather, it is a healthy and beneficial choice which ensures that the sex differences will be kept for eternity.

Therefore, it is most fair and most healthy to choose partners that possess strong sexual characteristics.

Men need something from women and woman need something from men.
Something that not all girls know, is that, for men might be very easy to lie speaking sweet words without feeling guilty. And this is not known until some bad consequence occurs.

In my case, I think that girls support this falsehood, if just searching vain stuff as outer beauty.

I note with sadness how some girls just listen, and trust in a false reality, and they choose to do so.

There are so many "little things" that stimulate the man that many women do not have the slightest idea of "all messages sent through them"

Men are stimulated visually. Since the trend in women is more to romance, feelings, when the man on the other hand tend more to react to what they perceive their eyes. I do not want to say this man is not romantic, or that do not give importance to their feelings, no, I want to emphasize is that their sexual response is much faster than the women with what is perceived visually.

The design that God created for man and woman is written in the Bible.

The importance of knowing the nature of our bodies and their reactions is not excluded in the Bible, this design does not dispute any of our special physiological needs.

so, what is wrong with beauty?: Nothing.

The Bible says:

"There is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him.” Mark 7:15

so, what come out from men? All what they see is publicity, "beautiful" faces and bodies around the world.

Perhaps the desire to be with that person, but not love.

and, What come out from Women? Just doing this, (I'm not sure), and I'm sorry about many girls hide, forget, or don't take care and pay Attention to the Important Things.

What a woman need from a man?
(Surely Not Exactly a muscle man, it could be common into our Minds. Who put this in our mind?. ) .

I’m afraid, because I think that someone or something is blinding all those girls, many men found something special into girls and they are afraid that girls will to leave that aside. I’m sure I’m not the only one.

God teach us:

The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a HELPER SUITABLE FOR HIM" Genesis 2:18

In this Same Way, Their Husbands ought to love wives as Their Own Bodies. He who loves His wife loves Himself. Ephesians 5:28

Wives, submit to your Husbands as to the Lord. Ephesians 5:22

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and Gave Himself up for her
Ephesians 5:25

Women (For the spiritual state) before God is equal to man.
The Bible does NOT say that the role of man is more important than the role of women.

Ok, it is all about Husbands and wifes, but, what God teach us is too close similary to what we really need, because God knows what is good for us. He made us, and it is his model.

Now answering the question: what a woman need from a man?

God says:

"After all, no one ever Hated His own body, but he cares about it and feeds, just as Christ does the church."
"For We Are members of His body."
"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh."
Ephesians 5:29-31

I know I can do it, with the love that God gives me, to give this to people, without cheating or making false promises, because the human feelings are fickle and weak.

The Bible describes good women, like, prudent, suitable helper and many other adjectives.
I believe in that and I really pay lot of attention to this. Now I know it's what I really need.
I would like to know from a woman, if a man like bible describes is the right one for women.

God says:

"Your beauty should Not Come from outward adornments, such as braided hair and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes.
Instead, it Should Be That of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, Which is of great worth in God's sight. "Peter 2:3-4

Also in the bible:

"Your cheeks are beautiful with earrings, your neck with strings of jewels."
Song of Solomon 1:10
"How Beautiful You Are, my darling! Oh, how beautiful! Your Eyes Are Doves."
Song of Solomon 1:15

When we give our life to the Lord we are saved and we can learn what the Bible teaches us to love with love that He gives and teaches us.

"" For God so loved the World That He Gave His one and only Son, That whoever Believes In Him Shall Not Perish But Have everlasting life. "John 3:16

"For the Wages of Sin is death, But the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus Our Lord." Romans 6:23

"That if you confess with your mouth," Jesus is Lord, "and believe in your heart That God raised him from the dead, you will Be saved" Romans 10:9

There are many Attitudes toward beauty, some of which are harmful (INCLUDING RACISM, DISCRIMINACION ETC.) (Again Mark 7:15)

This is God's perspective.

There are no grounds for supposing that feminine women with curvaceous bodies are not desirable reproductive partners. Nor is there any reason to believe that feminine and curvaceous females have a lower libido. My experience with women is the exact opposite, naturally curvaceous women I have met have had a powerful libido and a strong desire to give birth to children. To downplay the value of a strong femininity is counterproductive, since the purpose of promoting feminine beauty and to honor the differences between the feminine and the masculine is thereby defeated. The same is true if we become so afraid of "unfair" discrimination that we fail to pick the best partners who are available to us. It makes no sense to call it "unfair" to choose the best partner we can attract, because it is precisely the selection processes in nature that have made us and that make evolution and survival possible. Everything is not everything, and differences are the ever present melody of Nature. If it is "unfair" to select a partner which has more desirable qualities, then it is unfair to choose anything over something else. If everything is said to have the same value because we are afraid to be "unfair" against somebody or something, then nothing can have any higher value. Such a fear of "unfairness" has no justification because in a living world differences exist and are re-created all the time, and they are significant in the life processes at every level. A situation where everything is the same and nothing is differentiated, is the opposite of life.

Life is characterized by differentiation with creative polarities and exchanges between what is unlike. Yes, we are all united in the Universe, but Universe is about differentiation. In order to truly appreciate Life, we need to understand the beauty of this paradox and be proud of the diversity of it all.

We have to accept that since beauty, intelligence, and other desirable qualities are valuable and important it is also important to select for them. Feminine women have qualities that are highly desirable, and can never be wrong to select for desirable qualities. On the contrary, it is the right thing to do.

As for "average" appearances, the "average" qualities of women and men need to be sufficiently unlike to make the respective "average" feminine and masculine appearances so much distinct from each other that an attraction between what is different is created. This is ensured by positive selection.

The main reason why feminine women have curvaceous bodies lies not in the fat deposits, but in the anatomical structure itself. Fat deposits contibute to a more rounded appearance, but it is the anatomy of the feminine skeleton that makes the major difference. The hips and pelvis of feminine women are naturally wide and create a swinging gait and a curvy appearance even to the angle of the legs. These qualities need to be selected for, if they are to survive. And they need to survive and continue, if sexual polarity and differences between sexes are to exist. Sexual dimorphisms with distinct feminine and masculine types create attraction between polarities, and this is important in the processes of pairing, mating and life in general. It is truly beautiful!

dude, erick right? stop writing so much!!! u make my brain hurt!! and wat ur writing didn't rely answer my question anyways..... so ya ~_~

Discrimination in modeling? I would agree if we are in the 80s and the catwalk and magazine covers are ruled by the likes of Cindy Crawford, Claudia Schiffer and Christy Turlington. These days models either look like they need something to eat, need more sleep or need substance-abuse help. The ‘yuk factor’ is in, e.g. gap an obvious in the teeth, squinty eyes, a humpback slouch, and it is just sad that modeling has declined to this.

The part about offspring is bullshit. Especially since my parents are very masculine, and my brother and I are very feminine looking. The fact that he's "pretty as a girl" has never caused him trouble in finding a partner, quite the contrary. I also think that a masculine looking woman can be beautiful (some of the Victoria's secret models ARE stunning), and a feminine looking woman can be unattractive (like some of that porn actresses you give as examples). I don't understand why everybody has a problem with differences amongst people. Oh, right, now I know - your undestanding is limited and you have a need to put everybody under labels, so your tiny brain won't hurt. Which would bring us to the fact that media moguls are the same kind of fools with limitations in understanding, since they promote only one type of beauty. You're no better then them, really.

I wish for a world where women can express their sexuality freely, feel attractive in their own skin, and say "No!" to such brainwashing, discriminating, labeling shit.

What a waste of half an hour of my life.

The fashion industry is ultimately run by (i.e. financed by) heterosexual old men. Why don't you put together a website on that?

Click here to post a new comment