You are here

Lingerie modeling: Rebecca Romijn or Layla from W4B?

If a top-ranked lingerie model has the facial features shown below, who is most likely directly or indirectly responsible?

Rebecca Romijn

The face above shows the profile of top-ranked 1990s supermodel Rebecca Romijn, and it can be clicked for the context of the image.  Take a look at the photo below.  Whereas the front view of the body looks acceptable, what kind of people would select a lingerie model with the heavy facial masculinization and manly shoulders shown?

Rebecca Romijn

A young Rebecca Romijn did not have the looks of a typical high-fashion model, but her greater “curvaceousness” made her more appropriate for modeling swimsuits and lingerie, and gay fashion designers used her for this purpose, but as the following comparison of Rebecca Romijn with a glamour model -- Layla from watch4beauty (W4B) -- shows, Rebecca Romijn is far from a woman that is feminine enough for high profile swimsuit and lingerie modeling.  The following 6 pictures can be clicked for larger versions.

Rebecca Romijn and Layla from watch4beauty

Rebecca Romijn and Layla from watch4beauty

Rebecca Romijn and Layla from watch4beauty

Rebecca Romijn and Layla from watch4beauty

Rebecca Romijn and Layla from watch4beauty

Rebecca Romijn and Layla from watch4beauty

The physique of Rebecca Romijn does an excellent job of showing that having a small waist, and even sucking in the belly while posing, does not help make one look feminine unless there are other markers of femininity; some additional examples are shown below.

Rebecca Romijn

Rebecca Romijn

Rebecca Romijn

Rebecca Romijn has played the role of Mystique from X-Men.

Rebecca Romijn as Mystique from X-Men

The tragedy of the role of Mystique going to Rebecca Romijn is that Mystique is supposed to be a very feminine-looking woman, as in the examples below.

Mystique from X-Men

Mystique from X-Men

Mystique from X-Men

Mystique from X-Men

Mystique from X-Men

It is be one thing to have masculinized women model clothes in fashion shows and fashion magazines, but another to have these models go beyond their niche; their looks -- thanks to their high status -- trickle down to models and actresses that are supposed to look feminine.  This is aesthetically unacceptable and a major reason for the existence of this site.

Three more pictures of Layla are shown below (click for larger versions).

Layla from watch4beauty

Layla from watch4beauty

Layla from watch4beauty


i agree this other girl would be a etter mystique

Wait, so I'm gay for liking Rebecca Romijn?

I've always considered her to be the most attractive woman on earth.

She has it all, funny personality, brains, an amazing face, an athletic body, and a beautiful and natural chest (I’m so glad she didn’t “ruin” herself with implants).

You people need to rethink your standards if you don't find her attractive.

Well if you thought Rebecca Romijn didn't look very feminine, you sir have problems!!
Perfect choice compared to this, porn star that you think should have got it. Calling her a glamour model doesn't change the fact that it's just the posh way of saying porn star.

Richard Justice: You are not gay because you like Rebecca Romijn. You may like her for a variety of reasons apart from looks (you mention personality and brains). Also, there are outliers within any group, but masculinized women like Ms. Romijn are common among fashion models, and this tells us something about the aesthetic interests of the people selecting them.

Mike Rebecca Romijn is unambiguously masculine. Layla isn't particularly feminine (e.g., not having sufficiently wide hips or large breasts), but still easily illustrates the masculinization in Rebecca. To the best of my knowledge, Layla does nude modelling but no porn work, and hence glamour model is an appropriate term. The point about using the nude model is to present an obvious contrast pertaining to femininity. I am not suggesting that she specifcally should have played the role of Mystique. If the fashion business were not dominated by homosexuals, I could find more mainstream models easily, but this would not be necessary in the first place because Rebecca would not have become a big fashion model.

If you don't think Rebecca looks feminine than you need some glasses. Masculine? You're nuts dude, no offense, I understand that it's all subjective, especially when it comes to finding someone attractive, but to say that she looks masculine is just quite frankly weird and untrue. Whatever floats your boat I guess, she's hot, she played Mystique perfectly, and she's a damn good actor as well.

Guys, Recca's "built" as one says of body phenotype, is undoubtedly masculine, and the features of her face further emphasise it.

There is a remarkable tendency in caucasian women to have sholders that are wider than hips, unexpressed waist, as well as sharp, almost corner-like face features.

Consider, for instance, areals where ethnic intermixing results in more diverse phenotype collections - such as around the "real" caucasus, area around the Caspian Sea. Similar areals exist in Balcans and the Mediterranean - women are much more likely to express that "curvy" pattern with better, classic feminine balance of hips/waist/shoulders.

It is unfortunate that the mainstream promoters lack education and sense to realise just how deeply degrading their cash-cow focused selections are, but what's truly unsettling is the impact that those choices have on development, broad-sense education of younger generation, as you get to see more and more women-turn-men, and men-turn-women among 20-smth kids.

You seem to have confused your view of feminine/masculine with some sort of non-cultural objective standard. Your view is most simply your own. The only well established feminine phenotypic character is hip to waist ratio. Typically a hip to waist ratio of .69 to 1 is preferred across all cultures assayed to date. Ms. Romijn certainly falls well within that "feminine" phenotypic character.

Angular features are simply that and they have been viewed as variously masculine or feminine varying with time and culture.

Your taste in actresses to play Mystique is also entirely your own. The pics that you posted support your view but they are hardly a good cross section of Mystique as she has been drown by a variety of artists. In fact one of the earliest artists to draw her did so with quite broad shoulders.

Strangely the model you chose to put foward as a better choice has particularly boyish hips and a rather nondescript waist. Also her shoulders are rather broad too, you've simply posted photos in which she is holding her shoulders at an angle to make them look more narrow, or she is covering them with her hair.

MrBAI: Ethnic background is not an issue here. European women do not have a tendency to have shoulders wider than the waist or non-feminine physiques. Your impression apparently results from being exposed to European models, mostly in fashion/cosmetics-related settings. Most of them are not feminine, and this site explains the reasons why.

Hourglass feminine physiques are more common in Northern Europe than in/around the Caspian sea or Mediterranean region.

more pobjective: There is no such thing as a preference for 0.69 to 1 WHR across all cultures; WHRs in the 0.85 – 1 range do not look feminine. And it is ridiculous to cite a WHR of 0.7 in a fashion model to make your case when her pictures clearly reveals an overall masculinized woman.

Angular features are not necessarily masculine or feminine, but Rebecca Romijn is clearly overall masculinized. Regarding Layla, yes her hips are not wide and she doesn’t have narrow shoulders, but her looks are an overall better choice for a lingerie model.

... and allow me to give you the references to peer reviewed journal articles to prove it.

Waist-to-hip ratio and preferences for body shape: A replication and extension

Preferred waist-to-hip ratio and ecology

How Universal Are Preferences for Female Waist-to-Hip Ratios?

Adaptive significance of female physical attractiveness: Role of waist-to-hip ratio

You see we now have this crazy thing called science that allows people to objectively determine things.

Rebecca Romijn's measurements from imdb 24 inch waisnt and 35 inch hips. Now let's see what would that ratio be? Why it's 0.6857. Hmmm seems it's almost exactly 0.69. How absolutely not strange at all given what we know about human preferences for body shape across a very wide variety of cultures. For the original work please see the above paper authored by D. Singh.

Oh and perhaps now you can stop spouting nonsense as though it is established fact.

Well, we also have this thing known as inadequate knowledge of science. You cited 4 studies published in 1997, 2001, 1999 and 1993, respectively. I have already cited and critiqued the 1993 study (most of the articles on WHR studies within this site are mentioned here; see the first listed article in particular). The 1997 study was similar to the 1993 study. I have also cited both the 1999 and 2001 studies and some other studies along these lines (WHR preferences in tribal populations) here.

More relevant to your argument, by now it is very well documented that waist-to-hip ratio alone explains a very small proportion of the variance in women’s attractiveness. In other words, a woman with a higher WHR can easily be much more overall attractive than a woman with a lower WHR. So pointing out a reported WHR of 0.7 in fashion models to argue that they are appealing to the general population is useless. Look at Rebecca Romijn overall. How can you fail to see masculinization?

Let's address your argument again shall we?

As is common in people who don't understand the fields of Behavioral Ecology, Sexual Selection and Evolutionary Psychology, you are conflating several points in your argument. The central one is confusing preference with recognition.

From the Merriam and Webster dictionary:


Middle English masculin, from Latin masculinus, from masculus, noun, male, diminutive of mas male
14th century

1 a: male b: having qualities appropriate to or usually associated with a man

Saying someone is masculine means that they are recognized as male, not that they match some Platonic ideal of male beauty. The same may be said of feminine with regards to female.

As your argument rests on her being not feminine but masculine, I presented four (admittedly older but to date accepted) studies on the cross-cultural relevance of waist to hip to refute your statement that she is "masculine".

"So pointing out a reported WHR of 0.7 in fashion models to argue that they are appealing to the general population is useless."

So in response to your above statements, we are not talking about appealing (preference) we are discussing masculine versus feminine (recognition). As Miss Romijn's waist to hip ratio is an almost perfect 0.69 she would be recognized as feminine, or female, in every culture on the Earth.

"Look at Rebecca Romijn overall."

Here you commit another classic error, stepping into the far muddier waters of masculine versus feminine faces and body measures. While you can certainly gather data from mens' faces and womens' faces, as well as measurements from other parts of their bodies, all that you end up doing is defining means and variances for those characteristics within populations. There are a number of incongruous results when you analyze the data across populations. Nose width between European and sub-saharan African populations and leg to body ratios between European and Asian populations spring to mind.

This is probably what you are thinking about as it tends to be the data presented in the majority of the publications you cite on this website. These tests are almost always done by taking measurements of faces from various populations and then asking undergraduate students in the United States to rank or compare their attractiveness of original faces or composite faces generated using various computer programs. While this does say something about the preferences of 18 to 21 year old young adults from various cities in the United States during the year that the test was carried out, it says surprisingly little that is generalizable about preferences overall or between various cultures. If the tests were done in a year the Miss Romijn had a big movie out you might very well she her face being preferred by more students than you would expect.

If you look at European means and variances for any of these facial or body measurements, I am sure Miss Romijn's falls well withing the spread of data points for women, and hence she is certainly feminine.

Any judgment or assessment of attractiveness is highly suspect and to date few if any reputable studies exist that espouse a cross-cultural preference for any body measurement. This is why the waist hip ratio data is trotted out so much. The fact that it explains very little of the preference for a particular individual is due to a number of factors but the most compelling of them is that it is a signal that identifies an individual as a reproductively active female human. This as I explained earlier is a recognition signal.

"How can you fail to see masculinization?"

Ah and now the final gross error I will address. "I see it don't you?" A direct appeal to individual taste. Whatever I think when I look at Miss Romijn means nothing. It is purely subjective. The same can be said about your opinion. In science "Eine mal ist kien mal", and the opinion of a single individual is anecdote not data. Your eye is of course the arbiter of your own aesthetic, but don't ever confuse this with any objective reality.

You try very hard on this website to convince yourself and others that your views are generalizable, but, most simply, they are not. While your opinion regarding what is masculine or feminine may correlate highly with a given data set, that does not lend it any relevance across cultural lines and lends it only weak support within a given culture. Always remember correlation is not causation and just because you think it it true does not mean it is. I have been proven wrong more often than right over the course of my 15 years in the field of Behavioral Ecology. So until you bring some real data to bear, I would tread lightly.

So I am conflating several points? You cited a dictionary definition of masculine and feminine. Has it not occurred to you that this website is concerned with anatomical variation and the corresponding understanding has to be in terms of shape (see example1, example2)? Also, whereas women are typically feminine compared to men, I am addressing variation within women. In other words, some women are on the masculine side of average among women and others on the feminine side of average. Whereas Rebecca Romijn would be cross-culturally recognized as a woman without the need to examine her genitals or breasts, and is clearly feminine compared to the typical man, she is overall on the masculine side of average among women of her ethnic group, notwithstanding her reported WHR being slightly below average and hence on the feminine side of average. Rebecca Romijn looks like a female, but not a feminine one among women.

Other things being left intact, even if Rebecca Romijn’s WHR were to increase to 0.9, she would still be cross-culturally recognized as a woman. So you are unnecessarily bringing in the recognition of femaleness issue, which is a non-issue to start with.


You wrote – As your argument rests on her being not feminine but masculine, I presented four (admittedly older but to date accepted) studies on the cross-cultural relevance of waist to hip to refute your statement that she is "masculine".

To date accepted? Singh’s ode to a 0.7 WHR has been refuted. Better methodology has revealed an optimum preference for lower WHRs among European populations and cross-cultural optimums clearly different from 0.7. And you did not refute the masculinization part. Reported WHR (and also front view WHR, as assessed in numerous studies) is not strongly correlated with other measures of physical femininity among women. Hence, an overall more masculine woman can easily have a lower WHR than an overall more feminine woman. You have also focused on reported WHR, which captures far less information about Rebecca Romijn’s look than the numerous pictures that I have cited. The woman is clearly on the masculine side of average among women of her ethnic group.

In response to my asking you to look at her overall looks, you wrote –


While you can certainly gather data from mens' faces and womens' faces, as well as measurements from other parts of their bodies, all that you end up doing is defining means and variances for those characteristics within populations. There are a number of incongruous results when you analyze the data across populations.

I have long cited geometric morphometrics within this site, and it goes far beyond capturing mere means and variances; it describes shape variation as shown in the two linked examples above. Ethnic issues are irrelevant to this topic.


You wrote – Any judgment or assessment of attractiveness is highly suspect and to date few if any reputable studies exist that espouse a cross-cultural preference for any body measurement.

A strong preference for above average physical femininity in women has been repeatedly demonstrated in many studies, including cross-cultural samples, and is surely not a highly suspect find. Studies that have documented this find have shown it for variation within women, which is what this site is concerned with. Not all of these studies are limited to young adult judges. Besides, an aesthetic preference need not be cross-culturally generalizable for it be of any significance.


You wrote – The fact that it [WHR] explains very little of the preference for a particular individual is due to a number of factors but the most compelling of them is that it is a signal that identifies an individual as a reproductively active female human. This as I explained earlier is a recognition signal.

Recognition signal? The typical young adult woman with a WHR of 0.8 – 0.9 will conceive and give birth, but will, on average, have lower fecundity and fertility than young adult women with a WHR of 0.6 – 0.7. The recognition issue is not about whether the woman is “reproductively active” but about whether the woman has high reproductive potential. The reason why WHR by itself is poorly correlated with overall attractiveness has to do with WHR capturing little of the information regarding a woman’s overall looks and being weakly-to-moderately correlated with miscellaneous measures of physical femininity.

My question – “How can you fail to see masculinization?” – is not an appeal to my taste. Physical masculinization is an objective assessment. The question “How can you fail to see her unattractiveness?” would be an appeal to my subjective preferences.

If I have a spare hour or so I may come back at some point and tear apart this set of straw man arguments salted with research from an assortment of second tier journals, but at the moment I'm tired and busy.

So I will most likely allow you to wallow in your agressive ignorance.

Singh has hardly been refuted. What you have done is called "cherry picking" in the scientific community. You cite a handful of obscure publications that support your view-point.

You want to put forward some personal agenda which aparently has something to do with gay men in the fashion industry, while at the same time inflate your personal preference to a generalizable ideal. It's patently nonsense, but if thinking this keeps you warm at night then I won't tear away your security blanket.

I actually do research in this field an as such should spend my time on people interested in data and hypothesis testing, and not personal opinion and diatribe.

If you do research in this field, then I look forward to your tearing apart my arguments. Criticism from academics is always welcome, and yours will hopefully be substantiated. You will not find people more interested in data and hypothesis testing than me, and I am your man if you are looking for pictures and computer-generated imagery to do research on female attractiveness.

I actually do research in this field an as such should spend my time on people interested in data and hypothesis testing, and not personal opinion and diatribe.

If Erik is wrong, I would very much like to see you refute him so that I and others are not lead astray by him. However, I haven't seen anything particularly convincing in your arguments so far.

I totally agree that you people are not looking closely enough at the feminine beauty of rebecca romijn, also, she was great as mystique very curvy and graceful

Layla looks positively boring. Very plain.

I think the authors of this site have feminization confused with attractiveness. You don't have to be overly feminine as a female to be attractive nor do you have to be majorly masculine as a male to be attractive. Just lookat rockers and actors through out history alot of them have androgynous qualities and I don't think woman are lesbians for liking them. This is especially true cross culturally, asian societies, japan in particular, value a pretty boy sense of beauty above truly masculine males. Tales of genji etc all value a very boyish, and soft men as the ideal. Fashion industry may be dominated by homosexuals, but any survey comparing romjin with layla to heterosexual males will have romjin coming out a huge winner. She's has great curves, a striking somewhat masculine face which lends itself to the camera. Your article makes her sound like some monster or something.

I read through some other parts of your site after this article, basically your view of beauty is centered around feminization while "gay" designers are supporting masculine looking women as you say. you sound almost as judgmental as those so called gay designers.

There is no confusion between femininity and attractiveness within this site. You haven’t read enough; see the information on aesthetics.

Regarding rockers or actors, their appeal is not necessarily related to their looks, and it may be in spite of their looks as in talent or the role in which they are cast compensating for their looks.

I’d be interested in a survey that asks men in general to judge the physical attractiveness of Rebecca and a more feminine-looking woman such as Layla, and finds Rebecca being ranked higher.

This site is not about being judgmental. Of what use is mere judging a woman’s looks? Read the FAQ to better understand this site’s purpose.

"I am addressing variation within women. In other words, some women are on the masculine side of average among women and others on the feminine side of average. Whereas Rebecca Romijn would be cross-culturally recognized as a woman without the need to examine her genitals or breasts, and is clearly feminine compared to the typical man, she is overall on the masculine side of average among women of her ethnic group, notwithstanding her reported WHR being slightly below average and hence on the feminine side of average. Rebecca Romijn looks like a female, but not a feminine one among women."

A pity you make comments such as these then:

"In the picture below, Elle MacPherson could be easily mistaken for a transgendered male with breast implants."

I'm sorry, but you reveal your agenda here. A scientific assessment is one thing, but you are clearly intent on trying to bully people round to your point of view by unsubtly attacking their attraction to women you have decided are "masculine", by picking particular pictures of them. And before you attack me for liking women like RRS, I would point out that I am also a fan of Jelena Jensen and Tera Patrick. I've not been duped by the fashion industry as you might like me to believe, and I've also not been duped by your bs.

Yawn: Your criticism doesn’t address any science pointed out by me and hence you have not validated your accusation of pseudo-science.

Regarding my agenda, if you like a woman’s looks and I have something unflattering to say about her appearance, then will you change your opinion of her looks or will anyone else? Your opinion of a woman’s looks is based on your preferences, which I cannot affect by writing something about her looks. I can only affect your opinion by showing pictures of the woman that more clearly reveal her shape and by contrasting her pictures with those of other women, but if this alters your opinion, then the alteration will still be along the lines of your preferences. So you got my agenda wrong.

I have no interest in attacking people with different preferences. The reason this site addresses the preferences of homosexual/bisexual fashion designers is not to attack their preferences, which by itself is a waste of time, but because their preferences are responsible for the problems that have prompted the creation of this site. The homosexuals can pick their models as long as they leave alone venues where feminine beauty is more appropriate, but they won’t leave these venues alone, and I am not letting them get away with it.

If anyone believes that my description of Elle MacPherson quoted above is biased, they need only look at the picture of Elle MacPherson (larger version) that the comment is meant for. Sorry, but she does not look like a woman in this picture.

I don't want you to believe that the fashion industry had duped you. The citations from controlled studies show that most people's aesthetic preferences have been unaltered by the promotion of thin and masculinized women.

You don't appear to have any real reasoning behind what constitutes more or less feminine other than your say so, with insulting commentary to back up your opinions. You saying she does not look like a woman doesn't mean she doesn't look like a woman in that photo. Even the most unflattering pictures of Elle MacPherson don't make her look like a man to anyone. Some of the women you cite as beautiful look masculine to me, thus proving it's a matter of opinion.

Yawn: There is a lot of anatomical evidence cited to back up what I am saying about women’s masculinity-femininity. To say that a woman doesn’t look like a woman doesn’t mean that she looks like a man. Note the reference to a transgendered man with breast implants. The correct term should have been “male-to-female transsexual with breast implants,” who happens to be biological man that has undergone sex reassignment surgery, typically resulting in looks that are neither those of men nor those of women. I would never mistake Elle MacPherson for a man, but based on the photo alone I would question whether she is a biological woman or a male-to-female transsexual.

Yes, some of the women that I have shown in the context of attractive women are somewhat masculinized, and I have often explicitly mentioned this, but this doesn’t prove that it’s a matter of opinion. It shows that femininity is not the be all and end all of attractiveness in women. There are numerous correlates of beauty, and it is certainly possible for somewhat masculinized women to outcompete more feminine women in the attractiveness department.

Sorry dude, you've clearly got issues!

Me, I'm going to stick to enjoying looking at the women I enjoy looking at and not worry about whether some crackpot thinks they're "masculinized". If she looks beautiful then as far as I'm concerned she's perfectly feminine.

p.s. I'm what you hilariously refer to as a "lifetime heterosexual male" too.

I can't believe this website. You are a psychopath. The women you choose as attractive all look like inbreds to me. Yes, I do fing Rabecca masculine in the face but I actualy think it is UGLY for a girl to be super super feminine, after all testosterone is what gives women a high sex drive....... same with men, we all like feminine men! you want him to have a nic e strong body yes... but u still want a pretty face. Also this model here, here bones just look underdeveloped compared to Rabeccas.......... ugh you deluded faggot.

Jenny: Super super feminine women look less attractive to me also. I haven't been showing any of them. The woman contrasted with Rebecca Romijn is herself not that feminine (see previous comments). And who is deluded that Rebecca is appropriate for lingerie modeling? I don't need to state it. You have done so using a non-PC term.

Anyone who thinks Rebecca looks masculine obviously does not know what a woman should look like. The fact that she does not have a pair of Volkswagens parked on her chest or a 14 inch waist does not mean she has masculine features. Her shoulders are far from masculine for a female form. If you want to see over developed shoulders in a woman look at Gabrielle Reese or the Williams sisters. All 3 have very developed shoulders but are still considered beautiful, not by the fashion industry alone but by the majority of men. Go jerk off to a Men's Health and stop hating. Even with extensive surgery you will never be 1/10 as feminine as Rebecca.! i never seen anything so intense on a forum b4! i can cut through the tension here because it's sooo thick. i'm with "yawn"
here! all the scientific data in the world can't change my mind on what i constitute as feminine/masculine or not. i'm female who is athletic/slim/muscular yet very feminine in most ways(too me). men enjoy and compliment my muscle tone and outlines abs at the gym. the woman aforementioned in previous posts is not masculine by any means.she has curves. the men/women who came up with that hip/waist ratio gave their opinion too..thats all that is.. most women who are slim will most likely have smaller breast/hips compared to larger science behind it..but u see it continually! some ppl become some brainwashed behind stas/numbers..and old science..decades ago it was considered to be masculine if a woman had any muscle at all...which is nasty (be it skinny or fat) because you have no form or shape withpout muscle...i'm not saying i don't have masculine ways...but i definitely look female! r

there's no scientific data(to my knowledge) that i can run faster than my 5 yr old students, but i know i'm faster...some things you just know...

Dude. I am Northern European. Northern European women have small perky tits and asses okay? So don't say that they usually have the "curvy" hourglass shape cuz they dont kay? This doesnt mean they arent attractive. It just means they have really athletic bodies and thats why I like my Northern European women okay? Maybe you are talking about central Europe where the women are shorter and curvier. But Northern European women are known from being tall and having long legs, and perky small breasts and cute little asses and sexy athletic bodies. Sorry, but if you come up here in the North you will see the tall beautiful angels not super curvy rounded women. Dude, seriously though. What is your problem? Like who seriously puts a website like this up? And by the way don't be dissing Rebecca. She is like a typical beauty. WTF?

Thank you! An expert on the subject who actually knows what they are talking about!

CeeCee: Looking female is not the same as looking feminine unless feminine is defined in comparison to men. Femininity as considered here is among women.

dude you are...: Among European women, Northern Europeans have larger breasts on average. If I had stats on the backside, especially hourglass shapes, the find would be the same.

Yah but British women are an exception. They are fugly. I am talking about Scandinavian like Swedish, Finnish, Icelandic etc. Nobody cares about British women really.

dude you are...: If you think British women are fugly, it is your opinion. But they are not an exception. From the countries mentioned, the top 4 are UK, Denmark, Netherlands and Belgium, and the bottom 4 are Greece, Switzerland, Austria and Italy. I suppose you are familiar with their geographic locations and can observe a tendency for Northern women to, on average, have larger breasts than southern and central European women. Individual country statistics could be off because of sampling error. For instance, I have seen another study where the average French woman was reported as having a B-cup, compared to an average C-cup in Britain, but the French women are in the middle of the distribution on the linked page and seem to be placed a little higher. What is less likely is that sampling error is responsible for the geographic trend.

You mentioned Scandinavians. The Danes are Scandinavian and are in the top 4. About 1 in 4 Danes are of the the Hallstatt or Österdal Nordic type, which happens to be the predominant element ranging from Eastern Norway through Southern Sweden to parts of Western Finland. The Dutch and the Flemish part of Belgium are mostly the Keltic Nordic type, which is at least a third of eastern Scotland, eastern Ireland and England. And the stats show 1 in 4 Swedish women having a D-cup and another 30% having a C-cup (but also 14% with an A-cup). Iceland is not mentioned, but the Icelandic population is largely a mix of Norse men and British/Gaelic women. So it is unlikely that Icelandic women are small breasted.

You said that you are Northern European, yet write as if you are non-European. Since high-fashion models are mostly small breasted and typically Northern European, those that have not lived in the West and mostly observed European women in beauty and fashion magazines can be excused for thinking that European, especially Northern European, women tend to have small breasts, but those familiar with European diversity should have no such illusion.

Yah, Im genetically Northern European I don't live there but I have dated other Northern Europeans that were not mixed and of course I have travelled there and was there not too long ago in the summer. I have also dated other women. The women that I have dated that had the biggest breasts and curviest figures were Eastern European. I dated a girl who was 100% Serbain who had 36C breasts, her waist was a 27 and her hips were 36.2. Another one I dated was a bit more slender however her boobs were a 34C. I'm not sure about her other measurements but she was very slender, and extremely curvy. I have only dated one girl that was Italian and something else I do not remember but she was just average. She was like a B cup. My girlfriend right now is Northern European and she has an A cup. She is 100% Swedish and she is tall, slender and gorgeous. I know that most "nordic" women generally don't have really curvy bodies. Instead they have really beautiful tall athletic bodies with small breasts and buttocks. However, they are very attractive. Since they look so toned I think they are the most attractive women compared to other countries. That study is bull. Who conducted it? The British right? I don't see British women as very fit, not unfit like most American women, just not very toned. They probably have very saggy breasts and of course then they will need a bigger bra. I don't see physical excercise a priority for British women unlike the Swedish women who are very athletic and active.

Please read this. This explains why you're British women have such full breasts! It seems hormones related to menopause, excessive alcohol comsumption leading to obesity, and just obesity in general which seems to be a problem in the UK are the major factors why the breast size has gone up!
A long time ago if a woman was fat it meant she was rich and powerful. This is why they were attractive. Now we want women who are athletic and strong. A woman can still be athletic and strong and still be feminine. Also remember that life is all about balance. A woman that is too feminine has no definition. Lack of definition is unattractive and therefore her more "masculine" yet still feminine women will take her competition. A man that is too masculine is unattractive as well. A women who is overall feminine but has some masculinazation is ideal. A man that is overall masculine but has some feminization is ideal. Both sexes like smart, beautiful, strong people of the opposite sex. A person like this can be achieved with a combination of the right amount of testosterone and estrogen. Not mostly estrogen and mostly testosterone. A woman will have more estrogen than testosterone, but the absence of testosterone totally would cause her to look hideous! People like women who take care of themselves. Women who work out and still are soft. This means smaller breasts but who cares? The woman overall is attractive. We don't want cows we want women. A woman with a C cup but slender body is beautiful! However a woman with an A cup and slender body can be just as beautiful! You are stuck on this idea of attraction that is not ideal. Get over it!

I don't like your website. But I must admit that some of the other people that argue with you have issues! Seriously.

dude you are...: So your inference about the geographic distribution of breast size is based on the women you have dated? You will make an excellent statistician.

A cursory visual inspection of closely related populations is not very likely to suggest geographic variation in breast size since in any population one finds many women with small breasts, many women with large breasts and many women with medium-sized breasts. Systematic studies are needed. The study was conducted by a company that makes bras. It needs the data for efficient allocation of resources and inventory. So don’t tell me that the study is bunk.

You cited an article about potential explanations for an increase in the breast size of British women. Some of the causes mentioned include increasing obesity, increased impact of estrogens due to behaviors such as reduced child bearing, and increased exposure to environmental estrogens. But guess what? These factors also apply to Swedish and other European women. The issue is that the ethnic differences have remained. I have come across old anthropological works describing Irish women (especially in the West) as bigger-breasted and more prone to obesity than Swedish women.

You said that fat women were considered attractive in the past because it implied riches. If this reference is to Europe, then you had better read about the status of obesity in Medieval Europe.

I am not promoting too feminine women or overweight women. There is an upper limit of femininity beyond which attractiveness diminishes.

People indeed like smartness, but this website has nothing to do with smarts. Women have more testosterone than estrogens, not the other way around (in men, the difference is much greater). And your discussion focuses on breast size, which this website isn’t about. It would be very easy to find a woman with an A-cup who looks overall much better than a woman with a C-cup, and it is the overall looks that matter. I haven’t even bothered addressing the breasts of Rebecca Romijn.

I am sorry but the truth is your study is bunk. It has absolutely no credibility whatsoever. If I were to cite that as a source back in college for one of my papers, I would have failed that essay. Everyone knows that "The Sun" is a tabloid. Since when did tabloids become good references? If you are going to make a point and reference it please use scholarly journals backed up by idk maybe something called research and intelligence and not false assumptions backed up by a laughable survey to nothing? Also,I am sorry but I do not spend my whole life studying these kinds of things so no I did not know that women have more testosterone than estrogen, however you are intelligent enough to realize this is not the point I was making. I did not major in biology and the last time I learned anything about biology was at the age of 18 which is not long ago but yet long ago enough. Also, if you want to use a reference about how obesity has been viewed throughout history please do not use you're own website. What I write is biased to my own points of view and so is what you write. This whole website is filled with tons of pseudo-science and your opinions. You are intelligent but you let your biases get in the way of finding truth.

Also:"Boticelli, Cranach and Rubens belonged to closely related Germanic populations."

Boticelli is Italian and he has never belonged to any Germanic populations. Not even any Germanic populations within Italy. Thank you. That much I know.

Again I suspect you let your biases cloud the way that you view things. Not every great person in history is "Northern European." This would be a conveniant thing for me to believe because I am genetically 100% Northern European, however I know better than that. I wish you would know better than that. Boticelli is Italian, it is as simple as that.

dude you are... The great statistician tells me that the study is bunk because it is sourced from a tabloid, but fails to notice that the tabloid is a secondary source, not a primary source. The study was conducted by a company that makes bras and the results reported in many news outlets one of which I cited. And you want me to cite scholarly journals. I have cited plenty of articles from scholarly journals, but not everything will be found in them. What prestigious journal would be willing to publish data about breast size distribution in Europe?

Someone of your mighty intellect has chided me for backing up my argument by citing my own website, but you have failed to see that the citation is an article written by me that cites two especially relevant papers published in peer-reviewed journals and includes paintings from Medieval Europe. So my argument is based on the papers and the paintings, not my word as in this is the way it is because I say so. You are a malicious individual and I don’t wish to deal with stupid arguments. You must not accuse me of pseudo-science without justification or else don’t leave comments here.

Is Germanic synonymous with Northern European? Only part of Germany is in Northern Europe and half of Germans cannot be ethnically classified as Northern European. So not only is your comment ‘Not every great person in history is "Northern European"’ retarded in reference to my mentioning Germanic populations, but it has nothing to do with anything I have written. And you must stop saying that you are genetically 100% Northern European. Enough of this; your ancestry is irrelevant, and on the internet you can claim to be anything.

Below Botticelli’s painting of the birth of Venus I mentioned that it comes from Florence. So I am aware that he was Italian, but he was a light-haired man, born a millennium after the Roman empire was a footnote in history, in large part because the Romans had let the African and Asian slaves greatly outnumber them. Botticelli’s ancestry would thus be difficult to trace to the Romans or the slaves. The other candidates that could be said to have contributed much to Botticelli’s ancestry would be the Germanic populations that settled in Italy, mostly in the North and the central regions (Florence is in North-Central Italy), after forcing many of the slave-descendants down south. Botticelli was one of the Renaissance figures, and the Renaissance was centered in Northern Italy, originating among the [Germanic] elite. So the point was that the culture within which Botticelli’s Venus was painted was effectively a Germanic culture, not a Roman-Italian or a post-Rome Southern Italian one. Italian is not incompatible with Germanic.

"What prestigious journal would be willing to publish data about breast size distribution in Europe?" -Erik

Exactly. What idiot would publish something about breast size distribution in Europe? Oh wait I know one!
You're right Erik, no presitgous journal would publish anything remotley similar to what you publish on your website. Thank you for admitting that your website is pseudo-scientific racist and biased crap that no one respectable will take seriously.

Why do I keep coming back to this website?
You're right. It is a waste of my time to read anything on this website. I am only polluting my mind with the crap written on it and I will not return anymore since it is useless to argue with someone like you. You are an individual that has some issues. You believe that you can identify what is most desirable in women but fail to understand that nature identifies what is most desirable in anything. Not you! Remember, it does not take someone with a high IQ to realize what is attractive or not. It is our nature, our instinct, to be attracted to certain characteristics in another individual. I am not saying that the study of attractiveness is extremely absurd, however, I am saying that your studies are absurd. You have not proven to anyone that the women YOU consider attractive are for the most part universally attractive because most straight/heterosexual men do NOT prefer the women you post as attractive on this website whether they are more "feminine" or not. In the end sexual selection will determine what "attractive" women will look like in the future. Explaining to men what is attractive or not isn't necessary.

I am a malicious individual. However, you fail to understand that you as well are a malicious individual. No one has arguments that are 100% accurate, yet I fail to see you admit that some of your ideas are bogus anywhere on this website. Perhaps I would take an individual who realizes he has faults and is not always 100% correct more seriously because an individual like that is interested in evolving and not staying in the same place trying to prove the same thing that is most likely incorrect. The most polished arguments are only those that have constantly been challenged and altered for the better. However, you fail to evolve. You are stuck in your ways and although you claim you are open to criticism you are not. You consistently either re-explain yourself (which is fine) or argue with any individual that disagrees with anything on this website. You claim you value feedback, however, you do not use that feedback as a tool in realizing what might be wrong with your reasoning. This is not to say that any feedback should change your view on something, only that certain critical feedback is valid and you do not take that into account. Instead you continue to argue when your argument has clearly lost its credibility.

A question for you Erik?
Why do you refer to me as a statistician? I have never referred to myself as one. Is this your attempt at sarcasm? I realize that my arguments "push the wrong buttons" Perhaps this is because I have a point?

Thanks for your time Erik. I hope that you realize that you should probably re-evaluate yourself a bit. I do not understand what could have caused you to become the way you are. However, life is about constantly re-inventing ourselves for the better. I think that this website does have good qualities. I agree that eating disorders should be taken seriously and that young women should not look to fashion models as role models. Unfortunatley there are few good role models out there for young women these days. I certainly would not want my daughter to look up to fashion models, glamour models, or most actresses these days. You are obviously an extremely intelligent individual. If you were not I would have never taken a second look at this website. I wish that people like you would forget their prejudices and put their intelligence to something beneficial.

Dude you are... So no prestigious journal would publish anything remotely similar to what I publish at this site? Funny, a lot of what I publish here is taken from science journals, many prestigious. Here is an example of an article that is directly relevant to this site; note the author of the article. Your allegations of pseudo-science, racism and biased crap remain allegations.

You said that I believe that I can identify what is most desirable in women. This is poorly summed. What I can do and have been doing is to identify physical features that most people find desirable in women, illustrate these features, discuss alternative preferences and the reasons underlying the preferences. You said that ‘It is our nature, our instinct, to be attracted to certain characteristics in another individual.’ What have I been doing if not documenting what these characteristics are using the best possible sources that exist?

You have acknowledged your malice, but you have little choice since I have listed numerous examples of it, but where is your justification for my being malicious? I have never said that I am 100% correct or faultless. How can I even begin to admit that some of my ideas are bogus unless you identify them and preferably justify why they are bogus? Yes, arguments that have been altered after challenges are more polished, but you have failed to identify a single example of criticism leveled at my arguments that has undermined my arguments yet I have not altered my arguments. I suppose you could point to comments that I haven’t replied to, but I have limited time, and unreplied comments do not imply that the criticism is valid, and if you point out such comments, I will make it a priority to reply to them soon rather than at my convenience. On the other hand, I have used the feedback I have received to make my arguments clearer and more comprehensive.

I have called you a great statistician because your method of statistical inference – in reference to the breast size distribution issue – is the hallmark of a great statistician.

Thank you for the compliment. I don’t believe that my work is completely non-beneficial. This site has greatly pleased many and also strongly displeased some. This is consistent with doing noteworthy work though not proof of it. Beneficial work is not necessarily something that pleases all.

I should like to point out that: (1) The cited article is E. Holland's ONLY publication in a peer-reviewed academic journal; (2) it is not an original research article, it is a critical review of another author's work; (3) it is published in a journal with a relatively low impact factor (around 0.5). This means that it is not a very prestigious journal and generally publishes articles of limited importance.

If your many ideas really do stand up to scientific scrutiny, why not publish more of them in academic journals?

Dude, you're a moron.

MarxEngland: This is a response to your 3 points and your question. First, the cited article is not my only publication in a peer-reviewed academic journal; here is another one, though not related to this site. There are others on their way.

Second, the cited article is an original research article. The website of the journal offers a free preview of the first page of the article, and “Original Article” is clearly stated on top of the page. The cited article is not a critical review of another author’s work because Marquardt has never published the validity of his mask in a scientific journal and hence there is no scientific work of his that I am addressing. Some people have published some journal articles on the validity of Marquardt’s mask, and I do address them in my paper, but my work is original. In addition, criticism of some claims do not prevent the criticism from being classified as original research work.

Third, low impact factor of a journal is not the primary criterion of an article’s quality or its importance. If you look at funding, medical research is funded many times all science research combined. The gap is especially stark when pure science, i.e., scientific research not aimed at any applications, is concerned. Therefore, medical research will generally be more high profile and cited in all sorts of places, hence having a high impact factor. The journal I published my article in addresses aesthetic plastic surgeries, which do not concern themselves with medical problems. So the articles in this journal will generally not be addressing high profile issues in medical practice. Aesthetic plastic surgeries are a subset of plastic surgeries, and one of the articles that I have argued against (by Bashour) in my paper was published in a plastic surgery journal having a higher impact factor, which is simply due to the fact that plastic surgeries generally address structural/functional medical problems, not merely aesthetic problems. But, the key to deciding whose article is superior, Bashour’s or mine, does not lie in the impact factor of the journal that has published it, but in the evidence cited in the article. Bashour uses Euclidean morphometrics, the old way to compare shapes, but this approach does not take into account the geometric configuration of the landmarks of the shapes, whereas I have used geometric morphometrics, and cited plenty of literature addressing its superiority. Aesthetics is a low profile research topic compared to medical issues and application-oriented science, and hence, if an article on aesthetics is of low importance in comparison to peer-reviewed journal articles in general, it does not mean that it is of low importance within its own domain.

Last, the answer to your question is that more publications are on their way. Some of the ideas within this website are politically incorrect and would be difficult to publish in a peer-reviewed journal at present, an example of which is assigning the responsibility for the very thin ideal among female high-fashion models upon male homosexual fashion designers. You cannot tell me that this difficulty has anything to do with the validity of this notion because this notion is indisputable. The reader has the option, on many pages of this website, to try and dispute this notion, and is more than welcome to try. Politically incorrect arguments, as arguments in general, should be judged based on the evidence cited rather than the inability to get them published somewhere. The politically incorrect ideas within this site will approach common knowledge at some point. More and more people are surfing the internet and realizing that there is a whole world out there that their newspapers, magazines, TV shows and books obtained from mainstream publishers pretend doesn’t exist. So eventually, I or maybe someone else could get some of the politically incorrect ideas within this site published in peer-reviewed science journals.

Being politically incorrect does not validate an opinion a priori. However, a reader can garner a great deal of insight into the mind of the author based on his defense of his opinion. Anyone who claims that his position is "indisputable" or that it will become "common knowledge" when he overcomes the conspiracy to silence him establishes all that a reader needs to know about the mind behind the opinion.

Jay Brophy: Obviously, political incorrectness does not make an opinion or argument valid, but neither does difficulty in getting it published in mainstream or ‘respectable’ sources make an argument invalid. The conviction of an author who argues that a specific idea of his is indisputable could be based on delusion or the simple fact that he is right. Hence, a strong conviction does not offer any insight into the mind of the claimant. You and others have the opportunity to argue that I am wrong. Also, I haven’t mentioned a conspiracy to silence me. Some people examining some of the core issues addressed within this site have come across this site, have realized the error of their thinking but pretend that this site doesn’t exist. We shall see how long they can keep their pretense or continue to defend their hypotheses.

dude you are effed up on Fri, 10/24/2008

nature identifies what is most desirable in anything
However, you fail to evolve
You are stuck in your ways
life is about constantly re-inventing ourselves for the better

Dude... haven't you heard about Evolutionary Suicide ?

Der Wanderer:

you are either erik in disguise or you are erik's gay lover. The only reason you personally attacked me is because I bother you because I have a point and you just suck erik's dick all day.

by the way I am constantly re-inventing myself for your information.

evolutionary suicide is nothing but a theoretical possibility. THEORETICAL being the key word there. Now don't get me wrong, I am not one to dismiss something just because it is a theory. I do have an open mind. However, even if evolutionary suicide is occuring we still do not need someone to tell us what is or is not attractive. And if evolutionary suicide is occuring then why would I care if who I pick is attractive or not? ... because evolution has no meaning anymore and therefore we are free to choose whomever since it goes towards nothing really. Im tired and done with this whole website. I find no credibility in it. All I see is some lonely guy who writes meaningless articles that he thinks are true. There is nothing wrong with studying things and researching things, however when you believe your work is extremely accurate and argue every single possible point never once admitting someone else to have a valid point, then we have a problem.

i mean ill give erik kudos for changing some of his very unattractive women in his attractive women section but i feel like he has a long way to go. now i know i come off rude and just plain horrible sometimes, but erik is a person that knows how to push peoples buttons. i really do hope that the guy finds happiness in whatever he does, but i hope he can find happiness without necessarily demeaning others. not to say he is demeaning others but he doesnt seem like the nicest guy.

I am a fan of this site. I will offer supportive comments and suggestions as time permits.

Rebecca Romijn does not bear comparison to Raquel Welch, Jane Fonda, or the young to middle aged Elizabeth Taylor, among others; indeed, her looks are obviously inferior in femininity and attractiveness to heterosexuals to those of typical actresses and models who were active during the first two thirds of the twentieth century. Only a communist would deny this truth. There must be some method of visual presentation that can demonstrate, with much more persuasive power than this site has so far developed, the true extent of the decline in the average of femininity and attractiveness of high status models and actresses that has occurred since the 1960s. The need for improvement of persuasive methods is evidenced by the undesirable effect that the low social status of Erik's chosen instruments of contrast, internet glamour models, has on many who visit this site. A perusal of the comments sections shows that a high percentage of those who choose to comment are influenced more by social status than by reason or the experience of their eyes. What improvements could be made to Erik's approach? Consider the following hypothetical: if a time machine were available and could be used to collect certain models for the purpose of a photo shoot, side by side comparison photos could be taken that would prove many of the points made on this site, e.g., a side by side bikini shoot comparing cameron diaz or julia roberts to jane fonda. Many actresses and models of the 1950s - 1960s interval are still household names, and it is easy to convince most people that lesser known figures from that period were neither white trash nor porn stars. Time travel is not currently available, but there is a vast stock of photographic evidence that could be appropriately presented online in order to approximate the scientific and persuasive effects the time travel project would have. Schools of fashion design have libraries in which this evidence is reposited in book form. One need only make digital scans of some older photographs that are not subject to copyright protection to begin producing side by side comparisons between past and current high status models. Some effort would be required to scan these photographs, but the effort would be worthwhile as a way to avoid relying on nude photography and near-pornography. A new and more public relations optimal website might be the best outlet for displaying the results of the method I have outlined. The most striking contrasts might be found between top fashion models of the 1950s and those of the 2000s. There are many factors that complicate such a comparison, e.g., changes in fashion setting institutions over time (see, but such a comparison could be a knife in the heart of homosexual hegemony over the modeling world. A new website might have other virtues, such as simpler content more easily understood by the masses and the absence of a comments section.

Carolyn Lynley was once the top teen model in the United States:

useful links:

see and for a good time

Dude you are...: Der Wanderer’s comment on you features no personal attacks, whereas your replies are full of them and directed toward both him and me. And you have the chutzpah to say that Der Wanderer personally attacked you because you have a point. People who resort to personal attacks, such as yourself, are the ones who have no valid counter-arguments to an argument that deep down they know to be true. You must bow out of this discussion if you cannot behave. You have again accused me of never once admitting someone else to have a valid point, completely ignoring my question, “How can I even begin to admit that some of my ideas are bogus unless you identify them and preferably justify why they are bogus?” Don’t keep coming back to this site if it bothers you.

Dustin: I have addressed twentieth century trends in the looks of models and beauty pageant contestants, but not in graphically illustrated form. Women of low socioeconomic class (SES) are most likely strongly underrepresented among the nude models whose pictures I have been using, for various reasons. Attractive women are underrepresented among low SES women, especially those who take up stripping or nude modeling as a source of livelihood. If by low status you weren’t referring to financial status, then presently there is not much choice. If they were clothed I would still get abusive comments, perhaps less, which it appears you intuitively realize since you would prefer that the public doesn’t get to comment on an alternative site with broadly similar goals, but few things beat minimal dress for illustrative purposes.

Scanning pictures of yesteryears models and actresses is not a bad idea but is far less convenient for me than getting the pictures that I need from the internet. Maybe I can add forums to this site and people can scan these pictures and post them there. In any case, I have definitely planned on coming up with a new site or some publications, somewhere down the road, featuring pictures of non-nude feminine and attractive women, minus science and most of what is in this site. The pictures shall speak for themselves.

Avoiding nudity would make this site more persuasive, but this is a much more time consuming task because I will have to find pictures of women in clothes that clearly reveal their body shape. In any case, I don’t have reasons to be disappointed with how persuasive this site is. Without comments or with comment moderation or some kind of comments policy, it would be difficult to gauge how persuasive this site is, but if you look at the opposition, personal attacks, foul language and people posting under multiple pseudonyms are signs that I have hit a raw nerve, which, of course, will not be literally acknowledged by the opposed. The reasonable criticisms I have either responded to or will respond to pending free time. Thank you for your suggestions.

Dude you are effed up on Wed, 12/10/2008

by the way I am constantly re-inventing myself for your information.

It needs to be said: if Rebecca Romijn is the product of intelligent design, then the designer is one very sick and twisted individual. I'd rather accept evolution than believe in a God quite that demented.

Yes, I am judging God by my puny mortal standards. How else am I supposed to judge God? If God didn't want me to judge God so, why did God make me this way? I insist on my right to Judge God, and to do so by the standards with which I am endowed, supposedly by God.

Just letting you know, Marvel illustrators go so far as to draw the bone structure of the character before adding skin and other features, generally all their females follow a perfect female figure, with a very curvy physique and wide hips, and a decently large bust (for characters ages 20 and up anyway). To try and recreate that in a film, not easy, since most women are unique and don't follow such ridiculous standards. The other girl a better Mystique? You sir, are forgetting that ACTing isn't just about looks, its about ACTing. Yea, sure looking at that last picture where she has the costume on, I'd say her jaw might be a bit broader, and her shoulders too, but her bust and hip at least go with profile, and If you have watched the movie, she did a pretty damn good job with the role. Granted, all the roles were mixed up from the original plot and characters, so the director had the freedom to command the roles, but Rebecca Romijn acted second to none for that role.

OK Eric, I stand corrected, you do have a few more publications (2 or 3 in total) than I had found.

But, really, 'big deal'. Do not misunderstand me, there may be some merit in some of your views. But having one or two publications on the subject doesn't exactly make you an expert in the field. If you want your ideas to be taken seriously you have some more work to do, primarily allowing your data to be subject to the rigors of the normal peer-review process. Here is what you should do if you are serious about convincing the skeptics :

-Collect some data.
-Analyze you data in an appropriate way (to test the hypotheses you are interested in addressing)
-Write up your findings and submit them to a peer-reviewed journal (lots of interesting things on this site that have not been published as far as I can determine).
-If you data are analyzed correctly, and valid conclusions that follow from the analysis are made, your study will surely be accepted for publication, 'politically incorrect' (whatever that means) or not.

It looks to me like you have made a good start, with a small number of publications. But you have not demonstrated you expertise yet, by going through the normal academic channels. Becoming an 'expert' on a scientific subject like this does not happen quickly or easily. By attempting to bypass the usual route with this website you may actually be making it harder for the scientific community to take you seriously. I would suggest leaving the website until you have established a larger body of work. Just advice.

PS: While impact factors are not a direct indication of the quality of the work, this is largely how the work is judged. There are certainly journals in fields outside of aesthetics that would be suitable (psychology journals) that have larger impact factors than you have achieved so far. Why not cast a larger net to find your audience?

Rebecca Romijn IS attractive for all those reasons.You are right Richard.
so I'm gay for liking Rebecca Romijn? if thats what these others think,well then,HI FELLAS!Rebecca is as sexy, as women get.

There are many women who are considered extremely beautiful and feminine who have the two main features you 'criticize?' RR for exhibiting. I won't go into the square shoulder debate, but for square jaws, consider Carmen Electra, Salma Hayek, Cindy Crawford, Paula Abdul, Ava Gardner, Nicole Kidman, Ashley Judd (and her mom, Naomi.) Just a sampling. Perhaps a square jaw isn't as clearly a masculine characteristic as your article suggests, just as a cleft chin isn't: Lucy Liu, Jessica Simpson, Marilyn Monroe. Regarding RR's selection as Mystique: you left out, I think, perhaps her MOST masculine feature; she's almost 6' tall. In the movies, she has to kick some very bad guy/mutant haters boo-tays. Check the stills from the scene where she has giant manacles on when she's flying through the air attacking them or choking them. Were this a diminutive or less broad shouldered heroine, the fight scene would not work as well, especially the choking. Some prominent slender, 'feminine' women such as Cameron Diaz and Lucy Liu (in the Charlie's Angels films) have been depicted as fearsome warriors, but it always plays a little (or a lot) fake. Lucy has a little more credibility as a martial artist because she is Asian, but neither is credible taking or delivering a punch. The acrobatics, OK. The speed of their maneuvers, OK, but not the blows they receive and deliver. RR, as Mystique, does not suffer from this disbelief. Also, she has avoided the MOST masculine of traits we see in actresses and artists today: washboard abs and hard, cut muscles, such as Madonna exhibits. Also, Layla is not very pretty; she is an example a 'blank canvas upon which to create' type of face (and body, too.) You mention an observer needing other, feminine visual cues to determine if RR, or any other character, is indeed a woman. Bear in mind, in modeling, the cues are ALWAYS there: hair, breasts, legs, makeup, clothes, context, body and facial features other than height, shoulder bone structure, and jawline. It IS interesting to note that facial makeup for Mystique shadowed out much of the squareness of her jawline using darker pigment from ear to chin eliminating much of the rear of her jaw where the squareness is most pronounced.

Discussing for a moment one of the secondary assertions you make in your article: (I hope I got this right) predominantly homosexual fashion designers strongly tend to choose models with masculine characteristics. This is unquestionably true. All the highest fashion houses design with sizes (00-02) that suggest young boys, devoid of breasts and buttocks. Height must be at least 5'10; this too is masculine. And woe be to the model who gains even a few pounds in feminine places; they are banished to modeling swimwear and lingerie, like RR. In fact, it is always a matter of wonderment and note when a model shows up on a runway with anything approaching a feminine figure. Africans are tolerated in this context because they introduce the exotic factor, some are even quite overbearingly masculine, Iman and Grace Jones, to a lesser extent Naomi Campbell and Tyra Banks. This last has actually created a whole series on TV based on models looking fierce, no, capitalize that, FIERCE. She constantly turns aways stunningly beautiful, extremely feminine contestants in favor of angular, small-breasted, thin, but FIERCE candidates.

Oh, and since my identity wasn't threatened by any of this, thanks to the poster who came up with the photos of Carol Lynley, one of my all-time favorites. By the way, Marilyn Monroe spent most of her career between sizes 14-18 and was actually a redhead. Look closely at the famous calendar poses that launched her career; you can still see traces of strawberry blonde in it. The blazing red backdrop tends to overwhelm it, but it's there.

Oh, in the square jaw department, consider another Sports Illustrated covergirl, Kathy Ireland. Somebody else already pointed out Elle McPherson. Interesting the confluence of this feature on a magazine devoted to sports other than girl watching. Hmmmmm.

To further reinforce your argument about jawline, notice how most of the photographers hide that feature with a swoop of hair, angle of camera or other device.

My final post, for today, anyway. Please do not avoid nudity on this site, particularly since you used it almost exclusively to illustrate your thesis.

The sun just came up a little bit, so it's a new day. Another great beauty with lots of jawbone is Kristy Swanson, shoulders to the max, too. I read in RR's bio that RR was referred to as the 'Jolly Blonde Giant' in school, so maybe even then, her classmates were picking up a little of that masculine vibe, since giantism is generally considered masculine, too.

Tia Carrera, jaw and shoulders maxing out. Not a model, though.

One poster wanted to throw Venus and Serena Williams into this discussion somewhere, but probably female professional athletes don't really enter into your thesis at all. Besides, there is increasing evidence that their linebacker-like physiques quite possibly were steroid induced.

Oh my can you compare a Hollywood goddess to a cheap pornstar?

>Oh my can you compare a Hollywood goddess to a cheap pornstar?
Exactly. You can't compare someone who is attractive in (in some cases) a decent, delicate way and thus showing he/she respects himself/herself and others and is a decent person TO someone who has big boobs and hips and dresses in a sexual way in public and is, to me, not presenting any own standards of decent behaviour thereby responding only to other people's will to satisfy their sexual tension.
Thereby you promote moral relativism, and state that there is no such thing as principles of coexistence in a society.

I have been meaning to say this but what do you think of your "real life observation" coming true? :D
Its so hilarious! Rebecca actually plays a transexual on Ugly Betty....Don't even tell me that didn't put a smile on your face? Wonder who is next Gisele? hehe
When ever i see that show i think of you Erik...i mean this site :P

I am not going to be drawn ino the scientiffic side of the argument here but i am instead going to post comment purely on the side of her role as playing Mystique as Mark S made comment. Yes although some of the depictions of her throughout the years in the comics is usually that of the attractive feminine type, in reality on a purely gymnastic and practical side, in order for her to do some of the gymnastic or indeed martial art moves she is portayed as doing in both the comics and the films she needs the more masculine shoulders as the more normal feminine depictions, as in your example pictures, is not physically able to pull them off. take a look at the builds of most female stunt performers for example, not heavily built but well built upper and lower body muscle groups, as they are needed for them to actuall do their job, which involves fighting climbing and gymnastic work.

Now the other girl you post here or indeed the rawn depictions of Mystique, while to some they might look like the better visial appearance for Mystique, they wouln't actually be a beter Mystique purely on the lack of ability to perform due to the fact that it is not a comic artists job to draw the characters in a way that they would be able to do the stuff they draw them to do, their job is to just draw something that looks good, varyign from just slightly toned to the almost gymansticly toned but still retaining the large boobs which would A infact not be physally there due to the muscle and B would proove a hinderance in excecuting moves, and are an almost open target in a fight.

I post this based purely on the fact that in my 20 years of martial art and gymnastic instruction I have never seen someone built like, and staying like this Layla perform overly well, they are the types who can usually just pass gradings and stay just on the level of what is required but they never over achieve in it because, as they usualyl tend to not train often enough to gain more build and strength yet retan flexibility and chose instead to turn up for the minimum hours neede to pass yet to still look the same way they do. Now while they can learn and perform most techniques to a decent degree, if you took two peopel one of Layla's build and compared her to someone of Rebecca's build over a fixed period of martial and gymnatic training the subect with Rebecca's build would perform better because of the build, and the fact taht they have the ability to put more into a punch and a kick due to it.

You've GOT to be kidding me. Bodies aside, and this "Layla" who is probably only known in her hometown has a manly face, if we go by your masculine/feminine game. To my understanding, Mystique is tall and long-legged-- a perfect fit for the gorgeous Rebecca Romijn.

Honestly, I think You should give up...
How many have posted ANYTHING that states they agree with Your view?
And how many have posted the opposite?
No, gay men do NOT rule the fashion industry...
If they did, all we'd see would be loads of naked MALES and not naked females on the catwalk... But the men are mostly what? Fully covered yes, and the females? More than semi-nude much of the time, yes...

Go get another hobby.....
Trying to make people anti-gay this way won't work...
And, I don't give a rats arse what the FAQ says abt this site, Ofc You wouldn't admit to try and spread anti-gay propaganda doh!

Rebecca Romijn-Stamos is very feminine...
Some features would be CALLED *wrongly so though* masculine by some laymen because she has a few angular features aswell as wide cheekbones...
That is in no way anywhere stated as being masculine though...
Either link to where that fact is stated or shurt up about it... Hard is it?

Well, This was fun and all, but I have to go back to real life now... I have one unlike some... ;)

Came across this page while I was looking for Rebecca Romijn measurements. Sounds like a bunch of short fat gals poking fun at supermodels. Funny stuff!!!!

Unless there is something figure shaping about the makeup she puts on as Mystique, it really is absurd to describe her figure as "mannish" because her hips are relatively narrow in proportion to her height and shoulder width. She has such a small waist that her hips appear shapely rather than narrow. This small waist made her breasts look larger to the eye, to the extent that from some angles she her figure appears somewhat hourglass in shape. Even the site creator would have to admit that an hour glass figure is the epitome of femininity.

Rebecca Romjin has what is best described as an atheletic or tubular torso. A great many woman are built this way, and one
of the miricls of modern fashion are brassiers, panty hose and certain clothing lines that make such figures look more
hour-glass-like to an observer. Only someone complete obsessed with bottom roundness and shoulder width would pronounce these tubular shapes "masculine"

AS for her face: the site creator is dead on. I like her personality and acting style so much that I normally do not note that without makeup there is nothing delicate about her features either in profile or straight on. She has nice skin, and when acting she skillfully uses make up to "feminize" her features.

RR apparently also has a realistic assessment of her own strengths and weaknesses: she took on the role of the transexual oldest "son" in Ugly Betty

This sounds like jealousy, why would anyone compare a well known model, actress and smart women to a porn star??. Sounds to me like an ex-Romijn hater frienemy.

Women come in all shapes and sizes: Apple, pear, hourglass, banana. Whatever the shape it does NOT make you less of a women!! Girls like you are the reason why women our soo insecure!! So they go out and get plastic surgery to look more like the "ideal beauty". I'm proud of Rebecca!!

She is natural and beautiful and smart!! She has a lovely slim hourglass (the ideal for swimsuit models), naturally pouty lips, strong shoulders, long legs, a tiny waist,a defined jawline and gorgeous eyes. She is uniquely beautiful, and not all may see that but a real secure women or man will!

When I saw her in Femme fatal, I thought she was unique and gorgeous. I envied her but not in the way you do Layla. Cause OBVIOUSLY THIS BLOG IS WRITTEN BY LAYLA LOL.

Layla if anyone judged you the way you judged and compared yourself to Rebecca it would sound something like this:

Why would Layla be more womanly than Rebecca? Layla has no butt, a thicker waist, Banana figure with boobs (not the ideal swimsuit model body) Average features with frizzy hair, no class, skanky red lingerie. NO MYSTERY (Key to a real women) and lifeless eyes.

Harsh eh?? Double edged sword. If you wanna be recognized Layla... then go get a real job where your talent and brains are appreciated! Not your bush and nipples.

A real women has class! I'm sure you would be beautiful and womanly in your OWN WAY! Because we all are. If you stopped wasting time hating on others and covered up and got a real job.

DON'T compare yourself to NO ONE that's the most obvious sign on insecurity and the most unattractive attribute. Confidence being number 1.

P.S You wont bring attention to your porn pics by posting yourself next to Rebecca! Nice try. In 10 min ill forget...Layla who??

I agree that Rebecca is very beautiful. She may have stronger shoulders than average, but that is not uncommon on women who are taller than average. Taller women do typically have larger feet and hands that are actually proportional to their overall size. She has a very nice waistline too. Her breasts may be small, but she possess all the attributes that would make a woman attractive universally.

Romijn may have masculinised face but physique? Please.
With choosing bad photos of Rebecca and "sexy" ones of "sexy" Layla which is not even shown with full silhouette I'm starting to think this site is very subjective
There is a chance that Rebecca's body is a lot more feminine than Layla's because Photos of Layla doesn't show the lenght of the legs and waist-hips ratio which can make influence on proportions of her body.

Click here to post a new comment