You are here

The transsexual parade otherwise known as the Victoria’s Secret lingerie show: part 5 - Heidi Klum

Previous parts: 1, 2, 3 and 4.  This entry addresses Heidi Klum.

One person nominated this site for the “most bitter website” award because it describes Heidi Klum as masculine.  She was flabbergasted, like no doubt some other people are when they come across Heidi Klum being called masculine, which is likely not at a whole lot of places apart from this site.  This woman has undoubtedly encountered Heidi Klum being portrayed in an exalted/glamorous manner, as shown in the examples below.

Heidi Klum images (click for larger versions)
Heidi Klum Heidi Klum Heidi Klum

The image on the left is taken from a GQ magazine edition featuring a section on “Sex Goddesses”; note “...AND GOD CREATED HEIDI...” at the bottom.

Question related to middle image: What about the appearance of Heidi Klum is enviable?

The astounded woman likely did not encounter images of Heidi Klum, like the following, where she looks like a man in drag.  Notice that there is no way the drag queen look can be explained in terms of pose, hairstyle or make-up; Heidi’s face is unambiguously manly.  Readers who missed Heidi Klum’s manly face in the table above should look again carefully, especially the middle picture, and try to imagine her without breast implants.

Heidi Klum

Next, look at the following two pictures.

Heidi Klum

Candy from Mayfair magazine

Between the two women shown above, it is obvious who is more suitable as a lingerie model, but the more suitable woman is also the type that is very unlikely to be used by Victoria’s Secret Company!

Heidi Klum has been an active model in her late twenties and she even modeled for Victoria’s Secret in her early thirties, shortly after giving birth.  Therefore, it would help to compare her to a feminine woman with a physique leaning toward a mother’s.  The woman used for comparative purposes below is Dana Benn from Nadine Jansen’s website.

It should be obvious who has a more feminine face.

Heidi Klum, Dana Benn from Nadine Jansen's website

Heidi Klum, Dana Benn from Nadine Jansen's website

Heidi Klum, Dana Benn from Nadine Jansen's website

Notice Heidi Klum’s wide hips, but even the addition of breast implants does not give her an hourglass figure because of her broad rib cage.

Heidi Klum

Dana doesn’t have a narrow rib cage either, but do you hear heterosexual men complaining?

Dana Benn from Nadine Jansen's website

Heidi Klum, Dana Benn from Nadine Jansen's website

The width of Heidi Klum’s hips should not be mistaken to imply femininity since her backside is flattened.  Also note that her pelvis is vertically elongated, giving it a masculine appearance.

Heidi Klum

Inferring femininity from the pictures of Dana’s backside is a no brainer.

Dana Benn from Nadine Jansen's website

Dana Benn from Nadine Jansen's website

Some objections could be raised about the choice of Dana for comparative purposes.  For instance, her somewhat saggy breasts could be pointed out as undesirable.  However, in the context of mainstream lingerie modeling, she would not be posing nude and will be wearing a supportive bra.  The following pictures leave no doubt about the suitability of Dana’s physique for lingerie modeling as far as the general public is concerned.

Dana Benn from Nadine Jansen's website

Note: In the event that some find the abdominal adiposity of Dana in the right image objectionable, she could be made to lose some fat in this region, which would reduce her breast size, too, but still leave large breasts.  As a side note, Dana is obviously grotesquely obese from the perspective of gay fashion designers.

  Dana Benn from Nadine Jansen's website

Dana Benn from Nadine Jansen's website

Another objection could be that a model should not look like/approach the looks of a mother, and this means that an alternative model needs to be sought, which in our case will be Maria A. from Domai.

Heidi Klum, Maria A. from Domai

Maria A. from Domai

The following image shows a young Heidi Klum, before she got breast implants, and although the comparison doesn’t involve the same pose, a more overall manly appearance of Heidi Klum, including a broad rib cage and manly arms, can be easily made out.

Heidi Klum, Maria A. from Domai

The following image features Heidi Klum with breast implants, but once again note that even the presence of wide hips is unable to give her a feminine appearance because of her broad rib cage, robust skeletal frame, broad shoulders, manly face, etc.

Heidi Klum, Maria A. from Domai

More pictures of Heidi’s flattened backside.

Heidi Klum, Maria A. from Domai

Note: The middle picture is also of Heidi Klum.

Heidi Klum, Maria A. from Domai

Heidi Klum is no match for the feminine beauty of Maria.

Maria A. from Domai

Next, Heidi is compared to a woman who doesn’t happen to have a high level of femininity, but if someone with her looks is chosen as a lingerie model, one will not be getting a whole lot of complaints from lifetime-exclusive heterosexual men, though almost all such men [and also most women] aware of Heidi’s masculinization and fake femininity will consider Heidi to be unsuited for high-profile lingerie modeling.

The woman shown below is Renee from FTV girls.

Renee from FTV girls

Renee from FTV girls

Renee from FTV girls

Renee from FTV girls

Renee from FTV girls

Heidi Klum’s rise to major stardom resulted from her Victoria’s Secret and Sports Illustrated work.  Before this, she was not a big mainstream high-fashion model, presumably because she came to the attention of modeling agencies in her late teens, when her robust skeletal frame prevented her from approximating the looks of boys in their early adolescence, which likely did not make her very appealing to gay fashion designers, but add breast implants plus posing tricks, and an illusion of femininity can be achieved for the poorly informed masses, which works very well for the homosexuals that dominate the fashion business because they can avoid using feminine women when the job -- e.g., lingerie modeling, Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue -- requires them to do so.  Returning back to the woman who nominated this site for the “most bitter website” award because it describes Heidi Klum as masculine, the existence of people shocked by Heidi Klum being called masculine partly justifies the need for this site.


whewre isa the proo that heidi hs implants. her breasts look real. don't see it. secondly--- a lot of women from certain ethnicities have wide flat butts.

Kristin: Read carefully; a link to photographic evidence for Heidi Klum having breast implants has been posted above. Here is another picture of her showing oddly large breasts attached to a masculine frame with little body fat. Besides, Heidi Klum’s buttocks-hip proportions are not normal for white females; the woman is masculine from head to toe.

i am not trying to be blunt---but i have spotted so many northern european women with flat, wide rear ends, that i think she just may not have been as blessed as some other girls. her ribs are narrow in proporttion to her hips, and usually fake boobs have a weird space in the middle put in. german girls in particular tend to have broad flat hips--- slightly bigger boned in the heidi sort of way. and there are a good amt of women with low body fat and sizeable breasts... to some degree the boob stuff is all speculation. no proof.
her face a lil hard. i will admit that.

Kristin: I, too, have seen Northern European women with flattened backsides, but they are not normal. There is variation within any population, and one needs to consider the central tendency in a population in order to determine where a given individual lies on the trait distribution curve. The central tendency of backside protrusion among Northern/Central European women is nowhere as flattened as in Heidi Klum. Heidi Klum also has a much heavier bone structure than the norm among German women. Besides, Heidi Klum is probably a Northern-Central mix rather than a classic Northern European type. The appearance of fake breasts varies, but look at the two photos cited in the previous comment and you should see clear photographic evidence that Heidi has breast implants. One of the photos shows a masculine woman with little body fat except possibly a lot in her breasts, a highly unlikely outcome, but then her breasts are fake.

lastly all the pics where her breasts look very large are heavily airbrushed. they often add on a full cup size with shading.

the girl maria is really cute, but she looks like the 14 year old miley cyrus. you can't really compare a younger girl like her to heidi klum because they are like 20 years apart. as a woman gets older her face gets more masculine.

the woman at the very top with the enormous breats wearing the lingerie is not fit to model lingerie; her breasts can't even be fitted into what she's wearing. they look like two oversized, deformed water balloons. no one would even want to look at that in catalogues or posters (well except for you). that's just gross. i don't think any woman would want to look like that, so it's obviously a bad choice to choose her as a lingerie model.

Actually, given their measurements (hip/waist), both Heidi and Dana have a hip/waist ratio of .70 which is more than most european women ( see your own site - so your conclusions about Heidi's masculinity are off base, frankly. She should appear more feminine than average, with her hip to waist ratio.


agreed with morph. although heidi has a masculine face, her body isn't, and neither is alessandra's. her waist to hip ratio is around .7 as well, according to wikipedia (34-23-34)

actually, alessandra has a .67 ratio.

theey often lie about the measurements of models--point blank... ther eis jsut no way alesandar has measurements taht mimic monica belucci's bpdy that much--- c'mon. its liek when they said brigette bardot had a 19 inch waist---lies.

Kristin: There is no way airbrushing of the cited pictures is giving an illusion of breast implants.

Madeline: Lingerie models are supposed to be selected for looks that would please heterosexual men. Recall from a previous discussion that women buy lingerie to make themselves more pleasing to their male partners, and these will typically be lifetime-exclusive heterosexual. A young adult attractive non-overweight woman who has breast that are ready to burst out of her clothing is a sight for sore eyes as far as the typical heterosexual man is concerned...praise be to the Gods for creating such women...Amen! Anyway, the woman whom you find objectionable is only offered as a sharp contrast to Heidi’s image above it; she is not compared to Heidi as the other women are. It is curious why you did not comment on Heidi’s exposed image; she looks like a man with breasts/breast implants. Who is supposed to find this pleasing?

As far as what women would want to look like goes, if you are a heterosexual woman, you should realize that it is in the best interests of a heterosexual woman to have looks that greatly please the majority of heterosexual men since then she will be able to attract a lot of men and have her pick; the more the choice, the more selective one can be.

Maria is not 14; she is at least 18, which she has to be or else it would be illegal to show her nude. Maria also looks a lot more mature than 14-year-old Miley Cyrus and clearly has the body of an adult woman. All pictures comparing Heidi and Maria except the first one feature a young Heidi Klum, i.e., the age difference is a couple of years at most, which is not relevant. Note that Heidi’s pre-breast-implants picture, obviously from her early modeling days, clearly shows a much more manly physique than Maria’s. I do not know when Heidi’s picture in the first comparison with Maria was shot, but it is unlikely to be very recent, and may be a few years old.

On the other hand, even though women become more masculine as they age, a feminine woman in her early twenties does not turn into a masculine one in her early thirties. Look around; you will see middle aged women that look a lot more feminine than Heidi at any age in the 18-33 range.

Morph: You ignore clear photographic evidence of overall masculinization, and bring in waist-to-hip ratio to argue that Heidi is feminine. Remarkable! Read the last row of this table to understand why waist-to-hip ratios in the neighborhood of 0.70 in high-fashion models, if truthfully reported, do not imply femininity.

"I too have seen nothern european women with flattened backsides, but they are not normal'

i'd like to know exactly how you can discern what is 'NORMAL' in the female figure?

anything slight of clinically deformed or surgically advanced... is pretty 'normal'
genetics are differen't in different people.

its one thing to say that some one looks more masculine or feminine.. or better than someone else..

but nobody can say what is 'normal'
nobody is perfect.
and with 30extra lbs. Heidi Klum would have a bigger backside like your other models.

Ria: The notion of normality in my previous comment is one of central tendency in the population, as should be evident from the context. Medical considerations are not relevant since women with physical defects will not be used as models in a glamorous setting. Consider an analogy from height. A healthy and naturally tall 6-foot-5 German woman would be an outlier and not statistically normal but will be medically normal. Non-overweight and non-skinny Northern/Central European women do not typically have backsides as flattened as in Heidi Klum, which should be common observation.

If Heidi gains 30 pounds over the frame shown in the pictures, her backside will indeed be more protruding, but her waist will become a lot bigger, too, and she would look flabby and still remain less appealing from the perspective of feminine beauty. Note that both Maria and Renee are on the slender side but have a more prominent backside than a slender Heidi Klum.

"A young adult attractive non-overweight woman who has breast that are ready to burst out of her clothing is a sight for sore eyes as far as the typical heterosexual man is concerned...praise be to the Gods for creating such women...Amen!"

I'm getting the feeling that you created this site just because YOU want to see girls with huge boobs/butts strutting down the runways with hardly any clothing on. It seems like the women you call sexy need a tiny waist, big boobs, or/and a big booty. Since I don't possess any of those should I refrain from feeling sexy and confident about my body? Thanks a lot.

Karen: Go through the attractive women section carefully; you will encounter plenty of women that do not have large breasts; some of them have small breasts and some are even slightly masculine. In this entry alone, Maria and Renee do not have large breasts, and Maria is no doubt very appealing to heterosexual men. Large breasts are neither necessary nor sufficient for attractiveness/sex appeal.

You should not let other people tell you what is sexy. If you like what you see in the mirror, you look good regardless of what others say. If you don’t like what you see, there are some things you could do to improve your looks and hopefully accept what you cannot change.

If you have an interest in what the general public and lifetime-exclusive heterosexual men in particular find appealing in the looks of women, then you will find lots of useful information here, but this site is not about, “look, this is what is sexy...” The major problem that this site is addressing is the lack of mainstream appreciation of feminine beauty, which is not to say that feminine models should be ubiquitous. There are scenarios where feminine beauty would not be appropriate. If one needed a female model for marketing an athletic product, an attractive woman who looks like an athlete would be the best choice, and I would not recommend, let alone insist that a curvaceous feminine woman be used. However, this series on Victoria’s Secret models is just one of many scenarios where feminine and attractive curvy women are required but one observes masculinized women instead. It is inappropriate to use manly women with fake breasts when feminine women with naturally prominent breasts are required and available in large numbers.

As far as my preferences go, lifetime-exclusive heterosexual men are born with a strong interest in feminine beauty and have a right to insist that there be some mainstream appreciation of it. It is shameful that heterosexual men have to turn to adult-oriented sites to find examples of feminine beauty. It should not be this way. Beauty pageants, lingerie catalogs, swimsuit magazines and at least some mainstream modeling agencies should provide examples of feminine beauty galore, but there is nothing close to this scenario. I’ll be damned if I am unable to do anything about this.

This site is about other issues, too. The high status of skinny high-fashion models has created problems other than those involving aesthetics, and these problems can be lessened by addressing the reasons behind why high-fashion models look the way they do and the promotion of feminine beauty.

There's only one problem with all that's written on this website, femininity isn't synonym of beauty. Just because a woman is less feminine than another doesn't mean she can't be more beautiful. Saying a woman isn't particularly beautiful (or not beautiful at all) simply because she's not particularly feminine is nothing but prejudice.

Marta: No one here is arguing that femininity is a synonym of beauty. This site addresses numerous correlates of beauty other than femininity, some examples of which include averageness, overall fluctuating asymmetry and placement of face shape along the overall ancestral-to-derived discriminant. There are correlates of beauty that this site has so far avoided addressing because they are of little to no relevance when it comes to comparing different kinds of models, e.g., skin blemishes.

On the other hand, femininity is a very powerful correlate of beauty in women. Heidi Klum and other manly fashion models do not have any physical defects, skin blemishes or other miscellanous conditions that detract from beauty; what these women lack is femininity, the most important correlate of beauty in women in the absence of physical defects. Therefore, the comparisons such as above almost exclusively focus on femininity, but this should not be construed as femininity being portrayed as synonymous with beauty.

Honestly, I never thought Heidi had a pretty body despite being as thin as she is. I give you that, and the woman she's compared to, Maria, does indeed have a very nice body. Perhaps because I'm a woman, I don't particularly find big, big breasts and the super hourglass figures very desirable, only to a certain degree and Maria fits that perfectly.

Only problem is that Maria's face has is not pretty nor does she exude any charisma. Heidi, on the other hand, does have a pretty face (albeit not beautiful) regardless of the masculinization. She is also full of charisma, which is something that separates her from the rest of the models pack and puts her in a position where she was able to transcend from the modeling industry and become a celebrity in her own right. These are perhaps the so called x-factors that detracts from the obvious subject of feminity at hand.

While I see your point in calling for true feminity in the mainstream media, looking through the attractive women section of your site, I don't particularly see any beautiful girls on there. Not to say that they're ugly, some are decent and cute, but overall they are of average looks. And none of them really have much photo appeal and charisma. But that may partially be due to the fact that they're also amateur shots.

This also isn't to say that models and that of Victoria's Secret in particular are beautiful. As a matter of fact, just looking at their faces, none can be considered beautiful. But they do possess nice bodies, especially those of Adriana Lima's, Marisa Miller, Alessandra Ambrosio etc. Maybe they are masculinized as you say, but for the many reasons that were brought forth to this website, these models market the products that appeal to women. And they are far curvier than most runway models.

Perhaps the only true way to bring forth more 'feminine' models into the limelight is if we can slap society's obsession with the super skinny. We live in a world of perfection, but to tell you the truth, I have never seen a woman who had such a beautiful body and face. It's always either they possess one and not the other or neither.

Megan: I am unable to comment on charisma since in not seeing this in the feminine women shown here, it seems that you are inferring charisma based on looks, but it is not clear what precisely about looks is charismatic to you. On the other hand, if the women in the attractive women section mostly look average to you, then please tell me where you live. Women in your city are probably a rich source of feminine and attractive women...I am just trying to imagine how the above average women look where you live; I need to head over there and recruit models.

On the other hand, women and men, on average, rate women’s attractiveness similarly; see point #5 here. Therefore, your point that the masculinized looks of the models can be understood in terms of their selling to women, not men, is not applicable. You are also grossly mistaken about society’s obsession with super-skinny looks; people overwhelmingly find super-skinny looks socially unacceptable. I suggest that you carefully read about why high-fashion models are typically very skinny.

Um, what is "fake femininity"? And in my opinion, all the women on this page are beautiful in their own ways. I love the variety: thin, curvy, thin and curvy, etc. I especially like Dana. :D But, please stop calling Heidi Klum "mannish." I have only seen ONE guy who has her body shape and he was like 17. Since most people wouldn't mistake her for male, she's not "mannish."

Mar: Fake femininity is an illusion of femininity achieved via breast implants or posing tricks. A woman does not have to be indistinguishable from a man in order to be called masculinized or manly. Heidi Klum's pictures leave no doubt as to how feminine she is.

I'm not sure about your assumptions here. You say that "the general public overwhelmingly and strongly aesthetically prefers above average femininity in the looks of women," and you cite some studies concerning this claim, but the studies themselves don't make specifications regarding the sample used. Thus, as a reader I have no idea what your "general public" is, since I know that ideas of beauty vary vastly between cultures as well as individuals within cultures.

"There are numerous correlates of beauty. It is common observation that people do not unanimously agree about the minutiae of what constitutes beauty. However, some people have defective eyesight/vision and/or a variety of brain abnormalities. Therefore, universal agreement cannot be expected, but one should still consider whether there is broad agreement and how mentally normal are those who deviate from the broad agreement."

Your conclusions in the above quote are ridiculous. You say that people who do not conform to your personal ideas of "male heterosexual" beauty preferences must be mentally or physiologically defective. Additionally, you make sweeping generalizations suggesting that your own preferences in women correspond with those of other heterosexual men, and that these opinions are the only ones worth including in your argument. I find it a glaring indication of personal bias that you fail to include the opinions of persons of varying sexuality, including homosexual or transgendered men and women.

"It is well known that what these gays find aesthetically appealing are looks approximating those of adolescent boys." This is not "well known;" you are again making generalizations that make your overall argument hard to swallow.

"The central tendency of backside protrusion among Northern/Central European women is nowhere as flattened as in Heidi Klum." You do not cite a study of the tendencies of backside protrusion among Northern/Central European women in relation to that of Heidi Klum.

"Women buy lingerie to make themselves more pleasing to their male partners, and these will typically be lifetime-exclusive heterosexual." Homosexual, bisexual, and transgendered women buy lingerie as well, not to mention men who enjoy wearing women's lingerie but are not necessarily homosexual. Also, there is no unified concept of beauty among heterosexual males.

"A young adult attractive non-overweight woman who has breast that are ready to burst out of her clothing is a sight for sore eyes as far as the typical heterosexual man is concerned." This is a personal opinion, and while there is nothing wrong with your preference in women, I disagree with the fact that you apply your own preferences to those of others', and that you attempt to give your argument more authority by citing scientific studies that are loosely applied to your personal opinions.

I can get behind your intention... fashion models are often way too thin and uphold unhealthy ideas of aesthetic beauty in women. My main concern is that you fail to address sexual preferences which are not your own, and assume that male heterosexuality (which is not a unified entity) is the dominant opinion within the "general public" that you don't clearly specify anyway.

Mel: The studies that I have cited “don’t make specifications regarding the sample used”? Have you bothered to look them up? All of them specify what participants were recruited, and the studies assessing the appeal of femininity come from different countries and cultures.

When I talked about some people having defective eyesight/vision and/or a variety of brain abnormalities in reference to the inability to obtain universal agreement, I surely did not imply that those who disagree with me have mental abnormalities. I am not making sweeping generalizations by extrapolating my preferences to heterosexual men in general, but have found my preferences to be generally in excellent agreement with heterosexual men in general, as evident from the studies cited. How have I failed to exclude the opinions of people of other sexualities? This entry itself and a great deal of this site contrasts the differing aesthetic preferences of heterosexual with nonheterosexual men. Besides, there are too few homosexual or transgendered individuals to affect the central tendency of aesthetic preferences in the population, which is what one observes in studies targeting the general population.

The response above is to your using quotes from elsewhere within this site, and you are mentioning them out of context. I do not know where you got the quote, “It is well known that what these gays find aesthetically appealing are looks approximating those of adolescent boys” from. Point out the context and I will respond. I have cited sufficient evidence within this site that high-fashion models tend to lean toward the looks of adolescent boys, which should be common observation for those that have observed enough of them, which in turn is explicable in terms of the gay domination of the fashion business, evidence for which has been documented within this site.

As far as backside protrusion is concerned, I am not going to bother looking up papers where this is documented to back up my assertion about Heidi Klum’s backside. I expect the readers to have observed the trivial items stated or to try to observe them. Ignore the statement if you wish. Heidi’s modeling agency, IMG models, lists her as a 5-foot-9.5 woman with 34-inch hips. Given her height and wide hips, what does her hip circumference, if correctly reported, tell us? The same thing that is seen in the pictures: namely, flattened buttocks, undoubtedly flatter than the average woman of her ancestry.

Homosexual/bisexual men and male-to-female transsexuals (and one could add male transvestites/transvestic fetishists in general) may buy lingerie, too, but Victoria’s Secret is not specifically targeting them. The overwhelmingly vast majority of their customers comprise of heterosexual women, i.e., there is no need for the preferences of the others to be taken into account. Besides, male transvestites and male-to-female transsexuals generally have a strong interest in looking feminine, and will probably appreciate feminine-looking lingerie models.

As far as the typical heterosexual man preferring women with well-endowed breasts goes, do you believe that I am extrapolating my own preferences to other heterosexual men? Ask around and see for yourself. I am not a big breasts fan, and knew as a kid that I was different from my heterosexual peers in that they were all into big breasts, whereas I was not much concerned about breasts but was very particular about a tiny waist and feminine hips and backside. Nowhere have I argued that all heterosexual men are 100% in agreement about female beauty, but the evidence clearly shows broad agreement.

This comment isn't relating specifically to this entry but to your general assumption that if a woman is thin with a masculine body and large breasts, then they must be implants. I have a high waist-to-hip ratio and an 'unfeminine backside' as you put it, but I wear a size 32E. It's completely possible and natural, if kind of unforunate.

Michelle: My assumption, and a reasonable one at that, is that a thin and masculinized woman is unlikely to have naturally large breasts, not that it is impossible for her to have naturally large breasts. You have said that you have a high WHR, an unfeminine backside and a 32E bust. This is certainly easily possible. But, are you thin as in this picture of Heidi Klum? There is photographic evidence, cited above, that Heidi Klum got breast implants at some point.

"As far as what women would want to look like goes, if you are a heterosexual woman, you should realize that it is in the best interests of a heterosexual woman to have looks that greatly please the majority of heterosexual men since then she will be able to attract a lot of men and have her pick; the more the choice, the more selective one can be."

Hear that women? You should make yourselves pleasing to men. Get on it!

Erik, can you evaluate this very real cultural phenomenon without being such a despicable sexist asshole?

Sure, you're taking the evolutionary perspective ("I'm helping you to have your pick of men!") but you're not understanding that these sexist notions of mutilating one's body to "please men" are demeaning and a cultural PROBLEM, not an inevitability. Men would be doing the same thing if they would only wear tight clothes, show some peen-cleavage, etc. They don't do this because it's not culturally imposed on them to the extent it is perpetuated for women. In fact, there are social pressures for men to do anything BUT what women are expected to do: spend hours upon hours, as much money as is available, and a lot of self-esteem worrying if they are showing enough skin, and in such a way that it shows off the elusive ideal shape they're chasing.

If the majority of men are not complying by chasing an exalted physical standard, that forces women to go on other factors for mate-selection, thereby forcing her to lower the value of looks in her process.

I don't agree with the exaltation of manly-women, but I also don't agree with this presumed compliance with the degrading status quo.

I take back the despicable sexist asshole comment. It is so mean, although called-for! Anyway, I have to agree with one of your last comments about how so many people are shocked to hear that Heidi or any VS girls are MASCULINE, even though it's scarily obvious, thereby proving the desperate need for this site and increased awareness of the issue. But why do you vehemently deny that people other than homosexual men have been socialized to embrace this new ideal when you're arguing with me about misogyny, though you keep seeing evidence to the contrary? You take that evidence you tell me doesn't exist, and then turn around to use it to justify your website's mission. It exists! It's real! And it's anti-woman!

One last thing, I promise: why does a vertically long pelvis imply masculinity, when that's actually a sexually dimorphic trait (skewing toward femininity)? I'm not arguing that Klum is feminine! We agree on that. But this one trait...

Look at the most virilized women, like Gisele, and her pelvis size from the back is tiny--more like a boy's. The female pelvis is wider AND longer to accommodate childbirth. Even women with exceptionally "accommodating" ones didn't make it out of childbirth alive approximately half the time before the advent of modern medicine. Perhaps her vertical elongation is outside the female norm, but not necessarily due to masculinization? Or is it that you see it as an indicator of masculinity because it emphasizes that her overall torso is large and long, like a male's?

Kimberly: Whereas regarding me as a “despicable a**hole” is a matter of personal opinion, the sexist part has to be justified, and in all your comments, you have yet to justify it. Description is not prescription. Describing what is in the best interests of women interested in heterosexual men is not to say that these women should do anything.

In selecting men, women are not forced to lower the value of looks because “the majority of men are not complying by chasing an exalted physical standard,” but because women tend to have high standards for a suitable partner, which involve multiple desirable traits, and in reality most men will not meet these standards, forcing women to compromise. The men who meet these high standards have a lot of women after them and will naturally choose the best looking ones, which explains the pressure on women to look good. In other words, women are primarily responsible for the pressure they feel to look good.

I do not accept “that people other than homosexual men have been socialized to embrace this new ideal” because, to repeat once again, controlled laboratory studies show that most people harbor a preference for above average femininity in women notwithstanding this alleged socialization, i.e., there is no such socialization in the first place. What you are looking at is not socialization, but the inability to see the extent of masculinization often seen in fashion models given the dearth of feminine beauty in the limelight and posing tricks, implants and airbrushing among models.

Whereas the female pelvis is wider, it is also vertically shorter, not vertically longer as you have assumed. A vertically longer pelvis is not helpful since it will increase transit time to the outside world. Your statistic about death during childbirth prior to the availability of modern medicine is undoubtedly grossly exaggerated for most human populations.

I'm the one who posits information without evidence to support it?! Sorry my childbirth generalization was off; again, I didn't realize you were the only one allowed to make sweeping generalizations, Mr. feminists are lesbians and feminine women don't fuck and homosexuals are mentally ill and their depression is not due to social factors because I say so and here's some circular reasoning to back it up.

I'm just mirroring the master, I guess.

"The sexist part has to be justified, and in all your comments, you have yet to justify it." Perhaps you could reread the comment? "Description is not prescription." So, trying to procure my pictures to tell me how I could make myself more attractive to men is not the definition of prescription? That agenda is a theme here, and backpedalling in the name of science doesn't fool any reader who has looked at this site with their eyes more than half open. You always contradict yourself when need be.

Visitors can read more about Erik's agendas and failures in scientific method/logic here:

Kimberly: The following insanity from you has never been argued by me:


feminists are lesbians and feminine women don’t fuck and homosexuals are mentally ill and their depression is not due to social factors because I say so and here’s some circular reasoning to back it up.

You accuse me of contradicting the “description is not prescription” statement by pointing out that I have tried to procure your pictures to tell you how you could make yourself more attractive to men (in a different entry). This is incorrect. Here is my statement:


With a 32DD-22-35 physique, you should not have a problem attracting plenty of male attention, and I could help you attract even more men if you send me your pictures.

Nowhere is it implied in the above statement that I could help you attract more men by telling you how to make yourself more attractive. Therefore, there is simply no contradiction at all. In case you haven’t figured out the most obvious manner in which I could help you, I had planned on doing it by posting your pictures, not by advising you about altering your looks.

Besides, the description vs. prescription issue was specifically that describing what is in the best interests of women interested in heterosexual men is not to say that these women should do anything. Additionally, if an individual woman were specifically interested in a prescription regarding how she could improve her looks and sought it from me, my advising her as an individual would not in any way be contradicting the assertion that the description in the specific entry you have referenced is in any way a prescription.

Don’t accuse me of harboring malicious agendas and failing in scientific methodology/logic without justifying it. Do not comment here unless you are willing to comply with the rules for a reasonable debate.

So central and northern

Euopean women are generally masculine in build? How are they different from

Eastern European and southern European women?

I'm of Swedish,German-Austrian,Norwegian descent. I'm built just

the opposite of Heidi Klum. I'm tall and big boned like
a Germanic woman. But in large femminine boned. Not in Heidi Klum's way at all. My bust is 341/12-35- waist is 251/2 my hips are 42. I see al ot of central northern

European woman built like me.

Here are osme women in my opinion who are also beautiful feminine all way. Brigitte Bardot

Hedy Lamarr

Grace Kelly

Audrey Hepburn

Elizabeth Taylor

Elisabeth: Who has said that central and northern European women are generally masculine in build? These regions are filled with plenty of feminine-looking women. Northern, eastern and central European women are closer to each other than they are to southern European women (except for North Italians who are disproportionately of northern and central European descent). Whereas women north of southern Europe tend to be taller and heavier boned, they also, on average, have finer facial features, larger breasts and a higher incidence of your awesome waist-to-hip ratio.

One of the points of this entry is that Heidi Klum is described as a German beauty, but this is a disgrace to German beauty as you should very well know.

most of the women you are tearing down do not have implants, and ironically almost ALL of the women you exalt have huge implants!! Are you not aware of this?? 'natural' figures I think not...

I think Heidi looks great! I am naturally thin, too--with large natural breasts--I don't look out of porportion! Heidi does not either! I am not against fatter models, but the ones you picked are just oridinary looking girls with implants (except the last one who has no breasts) that you got from some porn website!! EXPLOITING YOUNG GIRLS!! --people also do not want to see yellow teeth!

Saskia: I usually avoid women with breast implants. An advantage of using nude models is that you get to see them bare-breasted from multiple angles, and it is typically clear who has breast implants and who doesn’t. Dana Benn does not have breast implants and it does not appear that Maria above has them either.

Whereas slender women can have naturally large breasts, the odds are low if the woman also happens to be masculine. Once again, if you look at this picture of Heidi Klum, it is obvious that her breasts are out of proportion with the slenderness and masculinization elsewhere. Additionally, the pictures here leave no doubt that Heidi Klum got breast implants at some point.

None of the three women that are properly contrasted with Heidi Klum -- Dana Benn, Maria A., Renee -- have been taken from porn sites. Renee is taken from a site that displays women inserting artificial objects inside their private parts but nothing more may consider it to be porn, but the women are volunteering and not being exploited. As far as yellow teeth are concerned, this is an exaggeration, and you have to consider that the low-profile sites featuring nude models typically do not have the resources and couldn’t be bothered with getting a professional artist to airbrush sparkling white teeth on to the pictures.

"Renee is taken from a site that displays women inserting artificial objects inside their private parts"

..and that is not porn? wow, does the whole white power worship thing make you crazy and delusional? lolz.

pornography: any sexually explicit writing and/or picture intended to arouse sexual desire.


that site is totally rite. and u r totally wrong.

white powerz, yay neonazism,


8D: Your definition of pornography is so inadequate that regular Hollywood movies with sex scenes or pictures of bikini-clad women in provocative poses (some would consider it sexually explicit) will qualify as pornography. A proper definition must include “uncensored depiction of sexual behavior.” As far as artificial object insertions at the FTV girls site goes, this is fake sexual behavior and not readily classifiable as pornography, though some would consider it pornography.

Quit posting this “white power” stuff. I know that you have a morbid fascination with it, but this is not the place where you should be letting others know about it.

Is the beauty analysis site right because you say so? What are the reasons Marquardt is right and I am wrong? Marquardt’s mask is that of a masculinized woman, and it also has a problem with mandibular profile, nasion placement and earlobe proportions...the mask is simply invalid.

Wow, you seem reasonably intelligent and eloquent at times and totally nonsensical at others. Most of the time that you show a picture and say someone has "obvious augmentation", the image is very very far from convincing. A few facts you need to consider:
-ALL professional fashion photos are HEAVILY photoshopped, ESPECIALLY in the breast/cleavage area
-virtually ALL professional fashion photography involves HOURS of work using make-up, lighting, padding, tape, to sculpt the body to fit the popular image.
-women's breast sizes can change a great deal with age and weight, several cup sizes is not uncommon
-implants are generally pretty obvious to see: our medical skills at plastic surgery just aren't there yet, particularly in the area of breast implants. At "best" (ie most natural looking), you can get something like Dita von Teese. Implants can look somewhat natural when either fully clothed, or when fully nude (they have to be really good ones though, and photographed correctly). It's VERY difficult for fake breasts to look at all natural when in a bikini, as the tightness tends to push the implant against the skin on one side or another.

Just for starters, you posted two links to pics of heidi klum above. In one, theres an image of her with very small breasts on the left and larger ones on the right. It's not proof of anything. On the left, she's clearly 10 or even _15_ years younger than on the right (she's 34 now). On the left, she's wearing a rather simple unflattering bikini top, and on the right, its a very tight one, possibly even with padding. On the left, she's probably a lot thinner too (she was very thin in her early modeling days, much less so now). And maybe most importantly, do you not realize, genius, that she has had THREE CHILDREN and the picture on the right looks fairly recent, ie post-birth. The other heidi klum pic, well, I don't even know what to say. I just don't see a shred of a hint of implants in it. The left pic has definitely had the side of her breast photoshopped a bit to emphasive the curve, and the right pic is just completely normal.

In another section you posted "obvious nose job proof" of gisele bundchen. I'm not saying she hasnt had a nose job, she kinda looks like she might've, but the pic is the worst proof available for two reasons: the "before" pics are both at a more frontal angle, without make-up, and candid shots (ie probably without any/much photoshopping, notice they didn't even remove the freckles, which is usually the case). The "after" pics are BOTH from a more profile view (which will obviously diminish the width of the nose and emphasive the pointiness), BOTH with heavy make-up, and both professional fashion photos (ie definitely photoshopped).

Furthermore you post this gigantor chick, Dana for example, saying "oooh its ooobvious who is better suited as a lingerie model". Well, I've never seen a lingerie catalogue use a tubby EEE boob-sized model like Dana, while heidi klum and similar models are in every lingerie catalogue. That alone is proof enough that you are quite alone in your opinion. Dana looks pretty horrible in the lingerie pictures, while Klum makes me run to the lingerie store and spend $200 on presents for my wife. Dana simply cannot carry clothes at all, her body is just way too outta control. She would make a horrible lingerie model. Proven by the fact that people don't use women like her for lingerie catalogs.

You need to look into how fashion photography is done.

One of your dumbest mistakes and greatest proofs of your lack of having an eye for whats real and whats fake is the fact that the second large picture, of heidi klum baring her breasts, is a total FAKE, even a 15-year old pimply teenage boy can see that. It's even a quite BAD fake, look at the zipper area of the sweater and the shape of the breasts. If you can't even see that, geez, stop pretending to be the expert.

SEE how heidi klum goes from post-birth sagginess to perky supermodel! (Hover mouse over image to see the original):

TREMBLE at the power of photoshop!

Someone get this guy a clue, please.

Oh yeah and get over this "masculine/feminine" topic. What is your point with all that anyway? These days, slight masculinity is considered sexy and attractive, for the simple reason that men these days do like independent, stronger women. The wimpy housewife cooking in the kitchen and rearing the children just isn't considered hot anymore.
All you're proving with that whole topic, which you seem to be obsessed with (are you a closet homophobe?), is that masculinity in women is more popular these days than straight, pure femininity.
Just like slight femininity is popular in men.

Snafu: All professional fashion photos are not heavily airbrushed. Many fashion photographs comprise of pictures of models on the runway, taken by professional photographers. Do you believe they are airbrushing them all? Still photography aimed toward marketing campaigns/ads are most likely to be photoshopped, but many fashion shoots clearly reveal near-flat-chested women (and this is how they are in their candids, too). So what exactly about their breasts/cleavage has been photoshopped?

Agreed that still fashion photography usually involves laborious work, and that women’s breast size can change with age and weight, and that breast implants are usually easy to spot, but these points have nothing to do with your comment.

Let us go over the pictures suggesting that Heidi Klum has had breast implants at some point.


The comparison here shows a difference in age not approaching 15 years. The body weights are not very different; the full picture of the younger Heidi Klum (left) is shown above. The bra she is wearing on the right is small and no model/designer would be foolish enough to squeeze breasts so hard by using an ill-fitting bra such that the breasts end up looking squished and odd, especially if a woman has a decent bosom, and breasts naturally as big as shown on the right qualify as decent. The alternative is the use of padded bras, but there is only so much padding you can add to the small top she is wearing. Her breasts look so odd in the right picture that there are two reasonable possibilities: implants or digital editing, but why would an artist do such a lame job at image editing? The picture on the left is a runway picture and the one on the right seems to a backstage picture or equivalent, i.e., neither picture has probably been airbrushed. The picture on the right is not recent. The page cited was posted on Nov. 5, 2004, and Heidi Klum had given birth to her first child on May of this year. In recent years her breasts have looked more natural than on the right picture, and it is safe to assume that the right picture predates her getting pregnant with her first child.

Another picture of note is this, which features a slender and masculine Heidi, in two poses, with large breasts (that do not look natural). The odds of this combination are low. If we were to assume that the breasts in this picture are natural, then the woman would have the genetics of preferentially depositing a great deal of her fat reserves in her breasts, and if such a woman were to gain weight, her breasts would become much more massive, but you don’t see these massive breasts in her heavier pictures. If we again assume photoshopping, then why didn’t the digital artist render the breasts more naturally?

In short, the assertion that Heidi Klum got breast implants at some point is well supported.

I also linked to evidence that Gisele Bundchen has had a nose job. The angles are not the same, but the pictures in conjunction with numerous others that I have shown plus candids that you could find on the internet show that her nose is more refined compared to her earlier self. If the candids and her professional photos, taken close to each other, consistently showed a nose shape difference, it could be assumed that her professional pictures typically show a digitally reduced nose, but this is not true. The first comparison at the link shows freckles in both pictures, though less on the right. I probably have larger versions of some of these pictures, and her picture on the lower right is likely a backstage picture.

You have failed to realize the context of posting Dana Benn’s pictures. The context is that Heidi Klum modeled for Victoria’s Secret in her early thirties, even shortly after giving birth. Therefore, one comparison involves a woman (Dana) with a mother’s looks, and Dana is better suited for lingerie modeling than mommy Heidi/older Heidi by virtue of being more feminine and curvaceous.

You ignored Maria A., who has the right physique for lingerie modeling. Using someone like Maria would be most appropriate, but masculinized women are often seen as lingerie models, and this reflects the influence of the homosexuals who dominate the fashion business, not what most people find appealing.

I didn’t comment on the breasts of Heidi Klum where she is shown bare breasted. I commented on her face. The fake-looking breasts do not suggest that the picture is a fake because there is evidence that Heidi has had breast implants, and competent artists would make the breasts look natural or substitute natural breasts. Do you have evidence that her face has been photoshopped to make it look more masculine? Note also that I usually censor the nipples because the educational message being imparted should not be sidelined by prurient desires, but didn’t bother doing this for this picture. Why? Obviously because the vast majority of people would not find the picture sexually appealing. This was the point of the picture, and it wouldn’t change even if the breasts looked natural.

Your example of post-birth sagginess to supermodel transformation is not relevant because I have not been using Heidi’s recent pictures or pictures from a very elaborate set up where a digital artist would be expected to come up with natural-looking breasts.

Read the intro and FAQ to understand the point of this website. What this site has shown is that masculinized women are popular with the dominant influences in the fashion world, not the general public. There are plenty of heterosexual men who like independent, strong women, but you only need to look at video game female characters to realize how heterosexual men would prefer them to look like.

I don't agree with your opinion on who is suited as a better lingerie model, I mean, these supermodels are promoting the product, not their bodies! if you use glamour models, everybody would be so distracted with their abnormally large boobs and crave over them rather than pay attention to the product which is why they spent millions for just a fashion show of it.
if they use supermodels like Heidi Klum, which, unlike that girl, who hasn't abnormally large boobs, they would be more alert on the product rather than her chest! ofcourse they would be distracted by the face in which "HEIDI KLUM!" is written all over it, but they would be more gladly buying the product!
plus, a high cheekbone means sophistication and beauty, if your face is just like some other girls, puffy, round and stuff, you'd just be normal, and, doesn't have much people to pay attention with (not that I'm saying other kinds of faces are ugly) but prominent high cheekbones, is just..... well, kind of nice isn't it? Angelina Jolie has high cheekbones, yet she doesn't look manly at all to me, Keira Knightely has, but she is just as femme as every girl.
lets just accept the taste of the one who picks.

Pwnee: The supermodels are supposed to be using their bodies to promote the products, but they don’t have the requisite bodies. I don’t believe that Dana Benn is anywhere close to an ideal choice for lingerie modeling, but I wanted to contrast older/mommy Heidi with a woman with maternal but more feminine looks. Something like Maria’s physique would be a good choice.

I agree that somewhat defined cheekbones help in the attractiveness department, but just compare Heidi to Maria overall and ask yourself who’s looks are better suited to a lingerie model? Both Angelina Jolie and Keira Knightley have a masculine element to their face, but Heidi beats them both and ends up as a high-profile lingerie model!


I believe your theory--that homosexual men are drivers behind the female modeling industry, and because of their innate attraction for men tend to prefer women with like masculine features--has only reached halfway to completeness, and is flawed without a full analysis. Also, you do not offer any quantitative evidence or numerical survey that female modeling industrry is driven by and dominated by homosexual men; I will presume that is true (for your benefit).

The other half of a complete theory is its inverse and would be to analyze male models and their similarities to female features. Arguably, the average man does not look like a (top) male model, likewise, the average woman does not look like a (top) female model. Below is Mathias Lauridsen, who apparently is the #1 current male model. Next to the image is Alessandra Ambrosio. Their faces are strikingly similar in shape, angles and feature placement "...With high cheekbones, facial narrowing, low-set brows and an angular jawline..." As a student of plastic surgery, "facial" beauty in general is defined in those aformentioned qualities (you defined, It is incorrect to say that these features pertain to male-only attributes and if females have those attributes then they are "...unambiguously masculinized." Vice-versa with female-only attributes (less anatomic features: breasts, pectorals, etc.). These female models who have chosen to compare ahve qualities what society has deemed as beautiful. Likewise, it is the same qualites that deem male models as beautiful. Irregardless of the claim that the modeling industry is driven by homosexual men.

AnalyzeThis: There is an article that mentions many of the biggest labels in the fashion business, and they were established by homosexual men. The aforementioned article took a lot of the information from a special issue of The Advocate, which is a major publication catering to the GLBT community, and this special issue proudly acknowledged the gay domination of the fashion business. I also cited an NY times article on the gay domination of the fashion business.

Male high-fashion models tend to have faces that are normal to masculine with respect to masculinity-femininity, but their physiques often lean toward those of boys in their late adolescence. So you see the influence of male homosexuals there, too, but the homosexuals obviously cannot get away with using males that look like boys in their early adolescence.

Whereas cheekbone placement, face width, eyebrow position and jawline contour are relevant to beauty, “high cheekbones, facial narrowing, low-set brows and an angular jawline” are not the elements of facial beauty in women as far as most people are concerned, and whereas any of these features by themselves will not make a face look masculine, their combination, as in Alessandra, will.

If your claim is true, your sweeping generalization is false. The 8 of the 9 guys behind me watching college football--who are all heterosexual men--prefer the looks of the "masculinized" female lingerie models you chose to compare. A second poll was taken and 9 of the 9 guys stated that if they worked in the modeling industry--replacing homosexual men that currently dominate it--they would choose the exact same women the homosexual men did--there is no difference here..based purely on sexual orientation (homo/bi or hetero). If you can offer a larger panel (than my 9) with contradicting evidence, then please do so. And if you do find something (unlikely), then I suppose we're all unaware of our homosexuality.

Go USC!!!

oh, and along with the female masculinized lingerie models we'd like to get with are these fine ladies...


This article completely disproves your entire site on what is deemed attractive to heterosexual males. As a true scientific researcher, I advise that you shouldn't make starkingly broad generalizations without scientific studies or evidence to back you up. Also, it's not a good idea to refer to yourself as a reference--that's just hearsay in the scientific world. Although, you make a convincing attempt at it with supporting references, it's nearly laughable.

The real psychology is that it's hard for you to come to grips with the truth of the fallacy of your site because you have obviously devoted a lot of time to this theory. And I expect that you will continue to do so. Just as the stubborn as the 2004 Bush voters who maintain their support for him. The misconception of your site results from clearly incorrect reasoning. Credit must be given, however, for bringing up a rather interesting, yet false, hypothesis. Thanks for stimulating my mind for a moment.

Eyes Can't Resist Beautiful People
The study is detailed in the September issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

Whether we’re looking for someone to date or sizing up a potential rival, our eyes irresistibly lock on to good-looking people, a new study finds.

Participants, all heterosexual men and women, fixated on highly attractive people within the first half-second of seeing them. Single folks ogled the opposite sex, of course. But those in committed relationships more often eyed beautiful people of the same sex.

“If we’re interested in finding a mate, our attention gets quickly and automatically stuck on attractive members of the opposite sex,” explained study leader Jon Maner of Florida State University. “If we’re jealous and worried about our partner cheating on us, attention gets quickly and automatically stuck on attractive people of our own sex because they are our competitors.”

Maner's research is based on the idea that evolution has primed our brains to subconsciously latch on to signs of physical attractiveness in others, both to find a mate and to guard him or her from potential competitors.

But this evolutionary trick is not without potential romantic peril. Even some people in committed relationships had trouble tearing their eyes away from attractive members of the opposite sex. On the other hand, fixating on attractive people of the same sex as rivals could contribute to feelings of insecurity.

Maner found that men prone to jealousy kept a close eye on attractive potential rivals.

“When it comes to concerns about infidelity, men are very attentive to highly attractive guys because presumably their wives or girlfriends may be too,” he said.

Maner's experiments, which flashed pictures of attractive men and women and average-looking men and women in front of participants and measured the time it took to shift their attention away from the image, surprisingly showed little difference between the sexes.

“Women paid just as much attention to men as men did to women,” Maner said.

Support article below, implies "masculinized" characteristics based on their simplicities compared to feminized characteristics (which in the plastic surgery world are more complex) are preferred among most people.

Beauty Boils Down to a Simple Average
By Sara Goudarzi, LiveScience Staff Writer
posted: 28 September 2006 08:35 am ET

Johnny Depp may be easy on the eyes, but in reality he is just easy on the mind, a new study suggests.

While eyes are the vehicles for receiving visual images, the brain decides how attractive those images are. Attractiveness appears to be related to how easy you can wrap your brain around a face.

"A stimulus becomes attractive if it falls into the average of what you've seen and is therefore simple for your brain to process," said study author Piotr Winkielman, of the University of California, San Diego. "In our experiments, we show that we can make an arbitrary pattern likeable just by preparing the mind to recognize it quickly."

The average effect
Often times, we are shocked when someone who appears quite average is deemed beautiful by society. This phenomenon, known as the beauty-in-averageness effect, was illustrated by previous research in which a composite of 16 faces—essentially an average of all those faces—was deemed more favorable than any of those faces individually.

Prototypes are easy for the brain to process as measured by the speed with which people are able to characterize what they're looking at, the researchers suggest in the current issue of the journal Psychological Science.

"What you like is a function of what your mind has been trained on," Winkielman said.

Why the typical rule
An explanation behind why the average beauty gets a second look is that averageness is a sign of health and fitness—a quality that attracts the opposite sex for successful breeding. Unusually protuberant eyes might be a clue to disease, for example—and so is a kind of shorthand for the value of a potential mate, the researchers said.

But this explanation fails when it comes to inanimate objects or animals of other species that provide no mating potential for humans.

Winkielman and colleagues set up an experiment in which they used objects free of reproductive benefits: dots and geometric patterns. They prepared each participant's brain by getting them used to a prototype and then asked them to rate variations of the same pattern.

"As predicted, participants categorized patterns more quickly and judged them as more attractive when the patterns were closer to their respective prototypes," the researchers write. "Critically, the less time it took participants to classify a pattern, the more attractive they judged it."

The researchers repeated the experiment but this time hooked up electrodes to the faces of the participants to detect if they smiled or frowned when they saw the images. Once again, images that were similar to the prototypes induced a more positive response.

"The mental mechanism appears to be extremely simple: facilitate processing of certain objects and they ring a louder bell," Winkielman said. "This parsimonious explanation accounts for cultural differences in beauty—and historical differences in beauty as well—because beauty basically depends on what you've been exposed to and what is therefore easy on your mind."

Tom and Crew: The proper comparison in the article above is Heidi Klum vs. Maria. There is no way most heterosexual men are going to prefer the looks of Heidi Klum to Maria’s, and the evidence for this can be found in numerous journal citations (featuring a panel of judges >> 9) within this site.

Your USC ladies will all be rejected by the homosexual designers for being too fat, among other things.

Analyze This: I don’t see how your referenced articles refute my arguments. The article titled “Eyes Can’t Resist Beautiful People” cites evidence for quick judgment of beauty. I haven’t said that it takes a long time to judge someone’s attractiveness. Your next article, “Beauty Boils Down to a Simple Average,” cites evidence that averageness is a correlate of beauty, which does not translate to your misinterpretation that masculinization is a correlate of beauty given that in the plastic surgery world it is less complex than feminization.

A long time before you left your comment, I cited a meta-analysis (analysis of multiple studies) that reported averageness being a correlate of beauty. This meta-analysis also showed that as far as most people are concerned, the extent of femininity is a much more powerful correlate of beauty than having average features, and most people strongly prefer above average femininity in women (not masculinization). Your interpretation is clearly incorrect.

It is obvious that there is a conflict between both averageness being a correlate of beauty and some forms of deviation from the average being a correlate of beauty, but this simply means that there are bounds to the extent of deviation from the average that will remain beautiful.

The interpretation of averageness in the second article is naïve. Whereas easier processing can partly explain a preference for averageness, there are other reasons such as avoidance of outbreeding depression, and as the meta-analysis shows, beauty does not boil down to a simple average. There is yet another major correlate of facial beauty that you will encounter within the section that addresses aesthetics in international beauty pageants, namely placement along the ancestral-to-derived discriminant, which again is about deviating from the average on multiple counts.

What do you mean by referring to myself? If there is an argument that others have not made or one doesn’t know that others have made it, then it is acceptable to cite one’s own previous arguments on the topic.

haha holy shit, is this a joke?

posting softcorn porn of fat trashy hookers, saying they're beautiful?

.. what the fuck? ahahahahha google serves me well

Gretta: It looks like a joke to you? Ignore Dana Benn; she is just there to provide a maternal-looking comparison. Does Maria, the woman used for the main comparison, look fat? Maria and the other two women are nude models, not “hookers.”

Heidi Klum is far from masculine, in the *one* picture you have to say she looks drag queenish it's pretty obviously the, well, dragish makeup. The eyebrows are too dark and go out too far and the false eyelashes just add to that.

Her face/body is much more attractive than all of your porn girl examples. "Dana" is almost laughable for the fact you believe she is better suited for lingerie modeling than Heidi Klum.

Bored surfer: Heidi's make-up is making her look more feminine than she is. The masculine look is the result of her face shape. Regarding Dana, if one had to use a mother/a woman who looks like a mother for lingerie modeling, then Dana is more suitable than mommy Heidi. In reality, a woman like Maria would be the right choice. I mostly avoid porn girls. Maria, Dana and Renee are nude models.

Yeah... the second photo is a fake.

heidi klum is so hot
she makes me masturbate

Erik......You really find that melone boobs hookers are pretty?? lol

Just to offer some support for the guy who wrote this article - I too find Dana Benn FAR more attractive than Heidi Klum. And I feel mildly offended when people claim that nobody would want to look at or look like Dana Benn, or even that she looks gross(!). She's clearly a more than average attractive girl, if it's at all possible to say anything objective about such a thing. I can understand that she's not to everyone's taste, but people should realize that that's just their subjective view, and that it would not be unnatural to find her very beautiful and sexy.

As for the rest of the claims made made in the text... *shrug*. I didn't really read it that closely, and I have no opinion about the fashion industry. (Except that it's obviously homo.)

What I do not like that is this site ridicule and make the embrassment of the fashion models. erik, u have your right to do anything to preserve white people but why should u do like this by ridicule the other people?
such as heidi klum and Giselle, how can u say that they do not have the typical classic european face? they are not european then? well, u can not judge that they look bad like other race and do not fit european beauty? This not fair when any women are notlook the same way u like u said they are not classical european beauty? and then which look the same way u like then u say they have classic european face??

all nations have their positive side and negative side.

many people find fashion models are attactive and prettier than your glamour models because the fashion models look more like the active and intelligent women,take care of themselves well,and exersize their body, eat the nutrition food.
the body like heidi klum is not what every girls can effort to have.

Erik, I think it's a kind of biase to say aishwarya rai and heifa is overweight? why don't u use the word to mention them as curveous then? whenever, your model, Dana Benn seems to look very much fatter than aish and heifa don't u see?

I Think Heidi is attractive and Alessandra too...only too thin, wich makes their face look more masculin (you can see their bones trough their skin). I agree with your opinion about Giselle and Kate. But I don't understand whats masculin about Adriana Lima's face...(maybe her body is that). In summary I didnt get to know what makes you think somebody is feminine...the ideals were always different in every generation. Just watch some paintings from the you think Mona Lisa's face is feminine? Or Rubens paintings...fat, small breasted women...

I strongly agree about your points about feminine beauty- I'm a hetero female, and I find hourglass figures VERY appealing, if I saw a woman on the beach with a small waist and genrous round hips I would be appreciative of the aesthetic appeal it has, more than a bony girl with a large waist.

But after reading a while from this site, it makes me even more self-conscious. I will never have a small waist or small rib cage. The problem is with men. They should learn to look past that- women are not to blame if they are born larger than others, they still want to feel attractive and loved, or they will go through their lives miserable, thinking they are unfairly missing out because of their genes. And yes, I feel miserable sometimes, but lets stop rubbing it in, eh?

I would have to say that most of the negativity I've see in this page has been from women towards women. Some women have wider ribcages than others. Some have less fat. Some get breast implants. Get over it! There is no definitive "attractive" benchmark and everyone is different. Obviously Heidi Klum must be doing something right, she's still working isn't she?

Ok... so i've been following this article for quite some time. For the record, I am a young straight man. Quite frankly, the women on here that are posting to knock down other women, GET OVER IT... don't be jealous just because they make their living looking good... I mean, what's the point in bashing down victoria secret models? Does it make you feel better about yourself when you're rudely mocking the profession of some of the most revered women in the world? Like i said, get over the fact that YOU didn't get to do this... As for the women on this site who are ridiculing men for idolizing these beautiful women, again, stop being jealous! Not all men are so shallow as to expect ONLY this for a women when they get married. I'm not going to lie, it's a nice dream, but dreams are only called dreams because they aren't reality. So if you are a woman who thinks that a man won't love you because you don't look like this, YOU are wrong. YOU Are the ones who are at fault, not the men because YOU are the ones lying to yourselves... In my life I have learned to look past the superficial beauty of women who think they NEED to be beautiful, and instead I look for NATURAL beauty. If I am one man who can look for this, I know there are probably MORE men who DO look for this. So women, stop giving up so easily and stop disrespecting these models and their profession. I would love to go head to head with any stubborn woman who disagrees with me on anything I've said, because I am up for the challenge to prove to you that not all men are looking for carbon copies of the women on these pages.

Thanks for your time,

P.S. men on this site... I know what you're doing... go get a real girlfriend... >.>

Heidi looks like a man end of story.

like omg you are truly disturbed!

I see you just have a different taste than the majority of ppl in this world, that is all!

you are putting up pictures of Heidi and girls who cannot even compare in beauty to her! while I don't think heidi is the most beautiful, she definitely is not manly! this is crazy.

you are putting Heidi up next to some real "beauties" lemme tell ya! haha my eyes first automatically go straight to Heidi's face before these averaged faced looking girls!

in fact, hieidi;s features may not be the best but her bone structure is out of this world amazing! that is what I love about her face. she has very beautiful bone structure. so when did it become beatiful to have a face like playdo, just put together fast. sculpted faces look like a work or art and that God spent a little more time on their faces (thus why these women become supermodels and every man wants to date them and every girl wants to look like them!

you cannot even become a model unless you have bone structure and abnormally high cheekbones, thats what sets models apart from the rest of the average girls in this world, they actually have faces that look so sculpted and beautiful and so perfectly well put.

your point is not proven bc I think most people coming on here are going to think Heidi is a 10 while these other girls you are posting look like Heidis poop

those women you picked to compare heidi ith are just gross , the first one especially , i would never turn my head for such a 'woman' and she actually looks like a man - like a drunk rednosed , fat man with hair yuck... heidi looks much more feminine , a real woman should be fragile , not a fat assed and cow-titted whore looking creature.

feminine beauty comes in a range of body types. the broad shoulders, ribcage, wider frame etc is not always seen to be masculine, just typical of the mesomorph body type. throw on pair of 36c's, cute bum, flat stomach, and toned limbs. you'll find something very curvy and sexy indeed. i had the best body in town growing up. not to say that the women you chose are unattractive, but the untoned look doesn't appeal to everyone.

Hm... I can see why Heidi is manly. That jaw...

Well, now, the lingerie model debate. Dana would be a fine choice if she had smaller breasts, OR a great choice if she was selling bras in special sizes. The average cup size is between a B and C. Most common sizes are A B C. Most women would like to see themselves represented, or else they won't buy the lingerie.

I agree that someone like Maria would be a great model for lingerie. Maybe even a bit chubbier. Again, most women like to see themselves reflected in the models, and most women are a bit fatter than Maria. If you put a woman of average weight, with wide hips, medium/small breasts, small waist and gorgeous face wearing gorgeous lingerie and make her look sexy, then women are going to buy it. I would. It'd be more realistic.

Um...Why in the hell are people calling Dana fat? Her tummy isn't even big. It's soft and naturally rounded. The female tummy normally is. I personally have never found the flat tummy look appealing AND it builds the muscles in that area up causing the waist to be large. I've got a body like Dana's. No one ever calls me fat these days. I think some of you need to stop watching the TV. It's rotting your brain.

And really...Heidi's bones are sticking out in almost every picture. That's just disgusting.

This is ridiculous. You are comparing Heidi to women who have more FAT in their bodies, not necessarily that are more feminine. Having large breasts is also an indication of higher FAT levels, because estrogen encorages FAT deposition in this areas, like hips and breasts. If Heidi gained 20 pounds of FAT, I'm sure she would look very feminine as well because FAT will also feminize her face.

No, it won't make her look more feminine. You need to understand fat distribution. Tt is not universal in women, it is dictated by skeletal structure and hormones (and medical condition or age to a lesser extent). Heidi has to stay super thin because the fat in her body causes her fluff up all over, not just in one area, this is due to the fact she is rectangular in shape. Rectangular meaning she's straight up, straight down with the very flat washboard middle. If she gets overly large her waist will get larger. Compare this to a spoon, hourglass or triangle frame. When these women gain weight one area will always be larger then the other (or in the cases of the hourglass two area will be larger than one). Gaining weight does not feminize one's face because, again, like the body skeletal structure and hormones are going to dictate where the fat goes, nor can fat truly change the basic structure of the face. Witness how many very obese women look like men. I think the main reason i dislike Heidi's look (and those of more model's in general) is simply because i am expected to like that look. If you expect me to like something i will hate it. If everyone else likes something for the most part I'm going to hate it. It's my nature for good or ill.

this is horrible. scrutinizing a glamorous woman is just as bad as scrutinizing a woman that you see down the street... and what is it that you are trying to achieve here? to make ordinary women feel better about themselves? by saying how a swimsuit model's butt doesn't look good?? this is the most awful site i have ever come across on the internet. you can't justify what you are doing and yes, this is a BITTER site.

Maria is by miles more feminine and desirable sexually than Heidy,I agree.
That Dana woman...Id fuck her...but theres no way Im taking that freak out in public LOLZ ,Id rather take out a woman like Heidy...even if Dana would make me wanna squeeze the milk out of her monster boobs...
A woman like Heidy might not be as fun to poke in bed, but at least shes attractive and looks presentable, that Dana woman is a freak that would make me look like a freak.
Im a freak...but I dont need anyone to know in public LOLZ.

it seems you base your choices on who will you be with on peer pressure and what other people will say and think.

I feel sorry for you.

I personally wouldn't give a damn if people like who I am with or not.

Dana is far more attractive in every single sense than any Victoria Secret model past an present.

I don't have anythign against Dana's figure. Women come in all different sizes and shapes. But please! Don't say that she is more attractvive than any Victoria Secret model, because it is not true.

I disagree, while Dana does not have a tiny ribcage I don't believe she has a wide ribcage either. I think that the extra fat on her bones makes her ribcage look a lot wider. If you look at her ribcage in comparison to her shoulders and breasts, it is small. I think she has a gorgeous body, a body that I believe would be more gorgeous if she lost 15-20 pounds. I admire that her body looks the way it does when she is overweight. Once I reach a certain weight my body seems to become a bit more masculinized, even though I gain weight in all the right places after a certain point it just doesn't work, so its really interesting to see someone who can look good while clearly overweight.

I see your point with Heidi Klum. Heidi is not "the body". Her body is clearly mascunilized and although I believe that sometimes a slightly masculinized body can still look good, hers just doesn't. Similarly her face is very coarse, yes. Her cheekbones are high and too prominent, her eyes are sunken in, and her jaw is strong. However, to me she still posesses attractive features and believe it or not I think she has some cute qualities. Yes, oddly enough I do believe that Heidi Klum has a cute face. I can't tell you what makes her face cute. To a certain extent I do think it is her face width, her nose shape, her forehead.It is definitley in the bone structure. It looks like a cute but mascunilized face. Anybody else agree or understand what I am talking about? Does anyone else think that Heidi Klum's face exihibits "cuteness"? I can't explain it.

Are you a medical doctor? You have no way of knowing Dana is overweight.

The pictures of "other girls" that you post to compare to heidi klum are plain/average and just dog ugly. What the f is your problem? Are you totally blind? Jesus christ. Heidi Klum is not perfect or ugly but the girls you posted are very average looking, you obviously have very poor tastes. And that girl "Dana benn" looks like she ate one too many donuts, I almost threw up in my mouth. I'd rather look at Heidi's wide ribs and wide pelvis than those bags of donuts any day.

Oh wow, check your vitriol kid. You realize you insult anyone who looks like those women by saying that? I do disagree with Erik on many issues ,but there's no need to insult wide swaths of women to make a point. I happen to think they are all quite attractive. (and yes i think Erik is an asshole for referring to certian women as trannies. It's tasteless and unintelligent) Sad thing here is you probably know and love quite a few women who look similar to the women you just insulted. Ever hear of community responsibility? It's the reason I do not insult myself anymore. You want to play ball you better learn the game otherwise shut up and sit down before you end up insulting your mother too.

That's called being fit and athletic you dimwit.

It seems like no matter what anybody says to you, the authors of this site, you already have made up your minds. You have spent time on this issue and back it up with research.
This is why I believe some of the dumbest people are university educated types who think they know it all. If you’re not open minded you can’t be intelligent.

No matter how much research you come up with, the whole thing is still based on opinion. Sometimes common sense is better than any research.
You have listed some of the most attractive women in the world, and you're arguing that they are masculine. If anybody thinks they are attractive it's due to media influence.

I know whom I find attractive and whom I don’t. I do not need research, science or media telling me otherwise. I will argue about it forever, and I will always win, because it is a matter of taste and not reasoning. Other people have different tastes, but it doesn’t change mine.

I think you are so stuck on your theories that you don't see how ridiculous you sound. Though some of your arguments have merit, you just can't argue that Victoria Secret models are all masculine; it just doesn't hold. Now a lot of fashion models are not that attractive, I'll give you that, but V.S. models are among the most feminine and attractive in the modeling world. Just list a few women you think are more attractive then we'll compare the results, because I can't think of many.

I also would like to mention that I believe that some races ARE more appealing than others. This probably bothers many people especially women who are not considered appealing.
If general population tends to like some more than others, you just can't argue with that. It’s a fact of life, no matter how painful. Maybe one race IS better looking. To be politically correct, or not to be considered racist, a lot of people stay away from this argument. I'll say it again; it's a matter of taste and can't be reasoned with.

I am a Middle Eastern man, and I will always prefere Caucasian women over Asian or African or even Middle Eastern ones. This is my taste and is not influenced by media, no matter how much you like to believe it.

Now that I got that off my chest, I'd like to say I appreciate what you have done. Your site is truly insightful. I wouldn't bother sending this message if I thought it would fall on deaf ears. I hope that you would reconsider your argument and make some adjustments.

The concept of beauty is effecting our lives to a worrisome extend. People could really use sites like yours to get a healthier perspective on this matter.

Feel free to respond via email.

am I the only one who thinks heidi looks feminine in those pics?

"I am a Middle Eastern man, and I will always prefere Caucasian women over Asian or African or even Middle Eastern ones. This is my taste and is not influenced by media, no matter how much you like to believe it."

Adam, I'm guessing that by "Caucasian" women, you meant "White" women, since Middle Eastern peoples are also largely Caucasian in regards to cranial structure, even though they certainly aren't White. You seem like a reasonable man, as evident by your readiness to acknowledge the fact that racial differences do exist, for better or worse. Which brings me to what I feel I really need to bring to your attention: if you really do admire White women, the best thing you can do is to stick with your own racial women (Middle Easterns). Due to leftist, anti-white policies which allow for massive amounts of non-white immigration, low White birth rates, and miscegenation, White people are going to become a minority in their own countries around the middle of this century if White Nationalists don't succeed in our endeavors. Once White people become minorities, the next step will be, well, extinction. So, if you see a White woman you find attractive, the best thing you can do for her (for her race), is to hold back from romancing her and instead push her toward a White guy.


All women look different. I idolize Heidi Klum because she makes ME feel beautiful. I too have a broad back and wide ribcage and am always self-conscious of it. We large-framed girls are never seen as beautiful and Heidi changed that. And you know what, my boyfriend loves my strong back and, in his words, sexy shoulders. He also loves that he doesn't feel like he's going to break me and that I can hold my own in sports. Not all women should be frail damsels in distress who get blown over by the slightest gust of wind. I say go Heidi!!! She represents all the strong women out there, both in body and soul!

Heidi Klum may not be the most feminine looking woman out there, but she is definitely better looking than the average woman. Most women, as long as they have a little bit of shapeliness to them, the presence of some breasts and their waist is at most 75% of their hip width, whatever their size or skeletal mass may be, are to a good degree, feminine. Some women are more feminine than others, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are more attractive because they may not have good skin or hair or other facial features or their hips maybe full of cellulite and their breasts may be sagging. Having good skin, large eyes, a small nose, and nice lips help a woman's face to look appealing and a body that is intact is much more of an asset to any woman, especially as they get older. Well, this is my opinion of course.

Erik, don't be disheartened i think you have hit a nerve that everyone else is afraid to talk about, because they have been so heavily brainwashed into accepting these manly looking women as what is beautiful. Ironically i always thought heidi klum was one of the more attractive of the bunch, but that you have lifted the hood I now realise that she too is manly! I've always believed so many of these so called runway models are quiet hideously manly looking but i thought at least the VS models aren't as manly. I guess i was wrong. But i noticed their face so much more than their bodies, i guess because i'm female, i do like In my mind i thought it was common knowledge that this was due to homosexual males running the fashion industry, i had no idea there were so many people who would disagree with this obvious fact.

I have to make a point though, although i am a hetro female, i've always found effeminate boys far more appealing and find men that are too 'rugged' or 'masculine' to be unappealing. Now that i'm a bit older i can understand the appeal in rugged men but i'm still not really attracted to it. I'm 100% straight, however i think that i do have masculinsation, not in my face but it's clear from my broad shoulders and narrow hips. Perhaps this has something to do with it, i don't know. Or maybe it's because i'm young and i'm attracted to youth not someone that looks like he could already be a dad, you know? I'd be interested to know what your theory is from a scientific stand point.

nelie : I happen to be middle eastern and white, you ignorant fool.

I happen to be 100% middle eastern syrian with white skin, light hair and eyes. It so happens that it is from where i live that the fair skin mutation spread to your previous nomadic area. Your race is nothing but a mutation caused by your climate, so is mine, just give it a few generations and your race will always exist as new mutations will always spring up to fill your climate. Just look at australians, already after only three generations, the angloskin is starting to darken due to the climate in which they live.

So according to you, femininity is defined by huge hips and huge boobs (since every model that you compare the high fashion models obviously have curves). So wait a minute - Gisele, who was BORN the way she was (less curves, not a lot in the backside) is not feminine? Who are you to judge?
I myself was BORN on the shorter side, not very curvy, smaller behind, but alright in the front and according to this site, I am not feminine and men won't find me sexy.
This site was called bitter not because you called Gisele masculine but because obviously you have SOMETHING against women who are built like Gisele.
You indeed sound bitter.

Erik is not bitter.

You should familiarize yourself with this website and its purpose. More feminine women tend to be more curvaceous. This is not reflected in models. Meaning they should not be considered the ideal of feminine beauty.

Who dominates the fashion industry? Homosexual men with pederastic tendencies. This is reflected in the less feminine women they choose as models (they can pass for 14 year old boys). "Adrogynous" is a term that is used regularly in the fashion world. It is not a compliment to a woman (but it is a euphemism reflecting what the gay dominated fashion industry finds attractive).

That's all.

If you are less feminine by nature (physically), this does not mean you are less of a person (morally, intellectually, emotionally, etc).

Thank you for the time you put into this website. I have referred many, many people to it as it describes the embarrassment of what is considered to be modern femininity far better than I ever could! Well done!!

I hope this site stays up forever!!

I have come across this site a few times, and actually am relieved that some people are finally starting to see what I see....this past century or so, how the media has warped and distorted feminine beauty and litearlly brainwashed the masses as to what is beautiful, when really what they are saying is beautiful is really not. Now I am not here to bash anyone, I actually like Heidi Klum. But as far as feminine beauty is concerned, she does not have that. I think many posters here are missing the point of this site. He is not bashing women, he is not trying to tell everyone who to think is beautiful. He is pointing out that sometime within the past 20, 30 maybe even 40 years, what was always considered feminine beauty, more rounded belly, rounded face, rounded features, is now considered fat, not striking, abdormal, etc. So many people here are getting defensive saying, Oh how can you say some of these nude models are pretty, they are average, and so on. He is not trying to say these models are prettier per say, but that the aesthetics of their features are more feminine. As a heterosexual woman who loves fashion, i find it despicable that the fashion world completely eliminates women with curves and rounded features and when they do show a woman who has breasts, 9 times out of 10 they are implants, or lip injections, or cheek injections. it's disgusting. Check out a website called Judgement of Paris. It's geared towaard plus size modeling, but their board topics and discussions are enlightening. All periods of history, Greek and Roman art, antiquity through baroque period through the early 20th century, considered voluptuous women the ideal. not FAT people, but rounded women, heavier or thinner. you can be thin with small breasts and still be feminine and heavier with beautiful porportions. I myself am Greek, and Greek women tend to have bigger breasts and butt and a rounded tummy and I wouldn't trade that for any of the VS models body types.

Also, I think you smaller girls need to get a grip. You are all getting offended thinking that this site is indicating if you are small with small hips and breasts this means you are ugly and not feminine. you are not reading this site correctly and it's intent. You can be small with smaller features and still be feminine. you can be tall and thin and still be feminine. it just so happens the tall thin women picked for high fashion modeling are 99% of the time more on the masculine side, which I completely agree is because of the gay male domination in the field. What is sad is that women buy into this. they buy into this because lets face it, most women don't complete with men, they compete with other women. They want to fit in, so if the fasion industry is selling a concept and it's cool and glamorous to be part of the group, women will buy into the concept. the media has made women feel ugly, not good enough, which is evident with the plastic surgery craze, multiple articles in fashion magazine saying, "how to improve your looks" "how to be thinner" "how to shake off those extra 10 pounds" We are constantly being bombarded and then we are "sold" the extreme of what is considered beautiful by a select few. It's actually quiet disfunctional. And for women who may not have rounded features, do not fear, you an still be attractive. THink Sophia Loren. She was (and is) 100 times more beautiful and sexy than any of these VS models, but she has a somewhat angular jaw line and a bit of a sharper nose. however her shapliness and overall appearance of natural womanhood gave her so much more appeal than a Heidi Klum or Alessandra Ambrosio.

last point. i actually think the fashion world should include women of all types of appearance, body shape and height. it's much more healthy and lets face it, i think the designers would reap the rewards in the end in higher profits. Many are missing a total market by excluding and alienating complete sects of different groups of women. I will not buy certain designer brands for the mere fact that they will not design for women over a certain size. I also refuse to shop anymore at VS. Most of that has to do with the fact they they have switched their target market to the Tweens and Teens with their stupid Pink Line. BAck in the day VS used to market towards grown women, now it's all garbage and glitter crap for 15 years olds who shouldn't be wearing thongs to begin with (ok that is getting on a completely different topic)

To Maria: Good for you, you are one of the few ppl who actually GET THE POINT of this site, I am a straight woman and totally AGREE with what you say.

To those who like to criticize the site wITHOUT first understanding what it's about:

Women or men who keep criticizing the site and author either don't get the point of the site (which is about providing a feminine alternative in the fashion industry for women for their benefit and that of hetro men, rather than sickly thin models who ARE masculine and look like teen boys to please the asthetic look most gay designers prefer and end up dying) So most ppl who oppose the site either totally MISunderstand the idea of the site and think it's meant to tell women what beauty is and how to look which it's not- it's talking about what's suitable for fashion models in the industry and what's appealing to the genral public OR it's ppl wanting to be PC and 'cool' by defending the gay community - when the irony this site is NOT about attacking gays; it only talks about the negative impact of gays being the ONLY ones to dominate the fashion industry which is TRUE even if it's not 'PC" and let's fact it: It is unhealthy AND abnormal 1st for women: as some models have literally died after eating disorders for being too thin to please some nutty gay designer's dream as to what looks good on a woman i.e. being sickly scary thin and dying as opposed to being normal healthy thin, and creates eating disorders for women who ARE NOT models but feel pressured by the media to be stick thin to please this dumb 'ideal' the media and industry put forth because they don't know any better!

Great post Maria, totally agree with you! And good luck Eric, great, and realistic site backed up by research even if it offends ppl who are too much into PC and don't have the brains to realize something can be true even if it's not politically correct. Or is criticized by some women who think they have to be a certain ideal or men thinking they have to defend the ideal of what they want!

Wake up ppl it's not about that! Get a grip!

It's about the fasion industry being dominated by gay designers who asthetically prefer a boyish dying skinny unhealthy look that has pushed many models literally to death! Eric is doing women a favour with this website, and while many of us may not agree that all the women he finds attractive are so to everyone he never said they had to be! It's just that most of them ARE more feminine than the average fashion model - like it or not! And that IS the point!

At least the notion of feminine beauty promoted on THIS SITE is FAR more HEALTHY REALISTIC AND ATTAINABLE TO MANY that the skinny thin literally dying mannish model look!

Finally no one's saying that because the fashion models are masculine it makes them ugly, Eric never said that. However in their profession it makes sense that their is a more FEMININE alternative availabe for men and women from the general public who favour that, having that alternative would also REDUCE DANGEROUS EATING DISORDERS IN WOMEN IN GENERAL AND MODELS IN PARTICULAR!


The fact that many of us DID think many models attractive just goes to show how much airbrushing on a model can make her look more attractive and deceiving to the eye! Hell I used to think Cindy Crawford was reasonably attractive but when I saw her pics here she looks like a man! There is NO way Eric can get her to look like that to prove a point; on a bad day a bad photo will make her look LESS ATTRACTIVE SURE BUT NOT LESS FEMININE!

So if you're only reason for coming here is to fight with the author or try to feel more attractive and defend yr looks or yr here to be PC and take offense at anything you don't like this site isn't for you, the site is only for ppl interested in beauty, fashion, femininity from a scientific viewpoint even if it's not PC - AND actually have a valid counterargument to counter the author's argument with IF they disagree- rather than childish character attacks, which luckily Eric has NOT stooped to in response.

It's an interesting site and his theory on WHY the fashion industry is SO SCREWED UP is fascinating; take off your "PC blinders" and "need to validate my looks feeling" and you might actually LEARN something new!

And rememeber that if the site was talking about STRAIGHT designers - yes there are some like Eli Saab and Ralph Lauren to name a few- trying to push their asthetic ideal on women and THEIR VIEWS, most ppl would understand that it's not acceptable. But because the site discusses that its GAY DESIGNERS committing this offense some ppl not all automatically put on their "PC blinders" and feel the need to be "cool" and automatically assume the argment is just an attack on gay ppl which it's NOT- and then end up being argumentative and bashing the author WITHOUT EVEN really understanding what the site is about in the first place!

It's fine that some things make some ppl uncomfortable as they're not PC- but that's NOT science - and this site is ABOUT SCIENTIC RESEARCH and NOT about what's PC or not; it's refreshing for the open minded as we've all been brainwashed by the media to having to be PC about everything and about having to agree with what the media or industry says it's beautiful when it DAMN WELL ISN'T

Good luck Eric and admire you for putting up with crap from some ppl, GREAT post Maria, agree with everything you said - and with the arguments of the site.

Wake up and smell the coffee!

I think you are an idiot! :)

I'm sorry but what is the problem with the VS models!? I'm transsexual myself and I find it so inspiring for women like them to exist, and they are by far more gorgeous than all these chubby and plain girls you've posted. Beauty is beauty, feminine or not.

Of course you find these women are confirming the author's point: high fashion models are not feminine and should not be held up as a standard for feminine beauty.

I suspect these girls look more like you than do feminine women.

YOU are the idiot, Anna, if you come to the site and have nothing else to say for yourself, the author is very intelligent and FAR from being an idiot, and neither are the commentators. This site is insightful and thought provoking for anyone interested in a rational discussion of the subject matter at hand, feminine beauty and the reason why it's lacking in the fashion world, etc.

Some more interesting articles on the fashion world

For those interested check out the article and the disturbing photo

Another interesting article, Eric, that mentions your site also as a reference in a favourable light, talks about how gay fashion designers with their emphasis on wanting a stick unhealthy thin figure have created an unfortunate influence on society as a whole and many girls "puking themselves to death" - author's words- sometimes to create that unhealthy emaciated look without any curves which isn't how many women look like anyway and is unhealty and unnatainable for many vs healthy slim, here's the link:

Here's a quote from an editor writing a piece on the fashion industry and the reason the fashion models are emaciated/too thin, etc. In her words:

"Most of the clothing that makes up high-fashion are “outrageously-priced items worn by stick-thin, boobless models with boyish figures who have landed the job because their aesthetics appealed to some gay man somewhere who has no physical use for a woman other than as a walking hanger.” At least that’s the way Tracey Egan, editor of, feels about the subject as quoted in her recent Vice magazine write up on why she hates fashion.

"And again to quote the article
Last time I checked size two is not the normal woman. Gay designers don’t care about your weight issues, your insecurities, and your self destructive desire to fit their mold. Why else would so many gay male designers be opposed to the idea of enlisting a weight requirement on the runway? If they actually cared about women, wouldn’t they be the first to jump at the chance to properly represent them in their work? Why don’t they care?

Cause gays are men. And men are idiots."

Sorry, Eric, about the last line): Obviously I DON'T agree that all men are idiots, because some men like you are obviously very intelligent to have the time and trouble to come up with this site, kudos to you, it's a great site and very informative, hope one day it makes a difference and changes the way fashion is run to a healthy alternative where no model has to die to keep her career (there was a 3rd death reported lately online which I read on some blog, but sadly it's becoming common place according to the author and hardly anybody's bothered, so they don't report it elsewhere.) It would also be great to have better appreciation of feminine beauty available in a mainstream outlet to please the general public, men and women.

Here's the link to the article from which the above quote is taken it may interest you and some of your readers especially Brenda, Apollyn, and Hugh Ristik to mention just a few of the very intelligent and insightful readers here who I respect for their objective comments on the subject:

Um if you're gay and do nothing but check out men till you start to see women as men, maybe? Lol, queero.

NO U "visitor".

You're definitely mad 'cause of a simple statement, thus proving that she is correct and you hate it. Go jack off to chubby, ugly girls who look as feminine as a hairy set of balls, pig.

The point is quite obviously to anyone with a half decent pair of eyes is to tear these women down because the author hates himself and couldn't get with ANY women, "masculine" and "boyish" or not. I shames me deeply that women with strong or unusual beauty like Heidi or Gisele are condemned for not having plastic, cookie cutter "beauty". We get it: you guys like ugly and plain chubby girls with saggy tits because they are easier for the insecure, fat, desperate males to chase and easier for the insecure, more than likely fat females who hate their bodies to relate to and feel good about themselves. You guys are hateful and quite disgusting. I'd love to see any of you explain all this to the women IRL.

My dad is the definition of "straight male" and he finds Heidi quite hot, as he does Keira Knightley, Natalie Portman, Scarlett Johansson (bleh), Selma Blair, Audrey Hepburn, Emma Watson, Lindsay Lohan, Jaime Pressley, the blonde from "Garfunkel and Oates"... I could go on. Go tell him he likes "mannish" women.

Oh, and by the way, guys... if you're checking out other men SO MUCH that you start to see "boyish" traits in obviously female persons, you need help. Or at least, you need to come out from way back there in the closet. Grow a pair, then maybe you'll find someone to use them with.

Well, that sure explains the sheep-like submission and HEAVILY brainwashed thing.

I think YOU are the idiot Jo): More than Anna, all things considered): The remark to Anna was from me, I forgot to write my name, since she chose to be disrespectful; you may disagree with someone's opinion, but you can provide a counter argument- without resorting to name calling, but in your case I'll make an exception, since you jump to BIG assumptions, assuming I was a man coming here to attack people who in your view are pro "thin" and anti "fat". ): Going by your definitions of said words of course):

I'm not angry more amused actually, but I think we could and SHOULD address each other with respect. Just my opinion which I hope you WILL respect): And since I'm a straight female I have no intention of following your other crude suggestion -since none of the girls posted here I would consider except as a sister): And each one is entitled to their opinion, and each one of us needs to respect the opinion of the other without name calling or resorting to crude insults that are uncalled for.

There's nothing to "prove" she's right and that the author's wrong. Some of us see are convinced of his arguments/ theory and some are not; each person is entitled to their opinion. As for your dad he's also entitled to his. This site is NOT an attack on either gay people or the designers; it simply explains why there is a death of feminine beauty in the fashion world nowadays- and the reason for that in a logical scientific manner. Which I assume we are allowed to agree or disagee with , stating our reasons in a respectful and rational or logical manner.

There is also a BIG difference between being "fat" or "overweight" and coming here to attack thin or underweight people for the hell of it which would be foolish and pointless, and between some of us who it may surprise you to know -are FAR from being fat, are healthy slim and fit as opposed to "anorexic thin" and may believe that having a healthy slim figure such as a UK 8 or 10 or 12 or 14 (US 4 or 6 or 8 or 10) as an example or whatever is FAR prefrable to being a UK 4 or US 0 which is unhealthy or underweight and not attainable for many women nor should it be- it can also be medically anorexic. THIS is the look that fashion designers are trying to promote, and Eric has explained the reasons why- in much detail I may add. Whether or not you agree with him is not a valid reason to come here and attack people on the site simply for having an opinion that differs from your own. It's not a fat vs thin or straight vs gay issue. It's simply an insight into the world of fashion and why it operates the way it does. It may offend you and others because it's not politically correct; that doesn't however make it incorrect or untrue.

Even a VERY thin 00 size - who isn't naturally that way but for starvation diets- or masculine in some ways woman IS a woman; some masculinization can make her look more attractive. Nobody said otherwise, certainly not the author himself. However, EXTREME thinness - unless it's natural and healthy NOT forced- with ribs sticking out does not look attractive, nor is it healthy. There is a limit to the extent that thinnes that can be acceptable looking and or attractive/ feminine/ healthy etc.

If a woman is NATURALLY thin that is great and she will look good as it's natural. But many models -according to what's reported directly by them- are MADE, forced to starve diet, some literally to death, which is not acceptable, and in that case being TOO thin (same as being too fat) does not look good or natural- since it just isn't.

I'm all for thin AS LONG AS IT'S NATURAL): ONLY then is it healthy and looks good/ feminine etc.

Your argument is basically an "emotional" belief-without scientific backup or proof- that people are either "fat" or "thin", without realizing there is a healthy medium, and then you assume without any reasonable explanation that any person preferring healthy slim to VERY and unhealty thin must actually be here just to oppose thin girls to feel better if she's a woman, or that it's a man coming here to do get excited sexually by more curvaceaous woman, no doubt you assume that "curvy" is also a code word for fat, which it is NOT): Sigh.

You will find many rational men and women with no personal agenda on the site with healthy slim body weights and outlooks, coming here to (surprise): simply to:

1- Discuss the lack of beauty in the fashion world and underweight women (underweight to some of us is just as unattractive as overweight and actually very unhealty, if you doubt that you can read some of the articles I pasted in some of the comments above, or do your own research into the world of modelling and anorexia, and yes I know anorexia is a mental condition- but it would be naive to assume the fashion world bears no responsibility in pressuring some girls who may be poor from other countries and must lose the weight to support their families or girls too young and fragile to fight the new notion of "anorexic thin")

2- Even though we have no agenda, some of us may (I can only speak for myself) have compassion for models who are starving/ dying to keep their jobs, just because they are human beings- and truly not for any other agenda -whatever you may like to believe.

3- And some of us have a natural desire to learn and research more about issues to do with the fashion industry and models and changing trends in society, just because it's an interesting subject/theme to some to discuss, nothing more or less. Sigh.

One noted designer was reported telling the models (we don't want you to BE anorexic just LOOK anorexic) Not many can pull that one off):

If you have a couterargument for why having to be TOO thin (to the point of death and anorexia for some models) has now become a requirement for some models based on the designers' request, rather than healthy slim: i.e. why being a US zero or double 00 or maximum 2 is suddenly the ONLY acceptable weight for the models and anything over is considered "fat" then please write a respectful counterargument, without resorting to strawmen or name calling or making it personal.

Not everyone believes in the "coat hanger" theory, surprise ): since 1- we're buying the clothes for us , the women not the coathangers 2- There was a time even 20 years ago or so when the models WHERE allowed to be healthy slim vs anorexic thin (ie US 4 or UK 8 vs nowadays vs. US 0 or UK 4) Not even going as far back as the days of Marilyn Monroe who would now be called "fat" in this weird industry):. This is also mentioned by some models on the net and easily verified, nowadays perfectly thin girls US 4 are told to lose more weight even if it hurts them or lose their job. If you have a good rational reason for that other than changing trends, coathangers, yada yada I'd be interested to hear it): Sure many of us would.

You may believe that everyone has an agenda, that's up to you. But the reality is everyone has a differen opinion based on their experience in the world, this is life, it's just having an opinion): You may not like it, that's your perogative, but you need to respect it. If something is politically incorrect or offensive to some that does NOT automatically render it untrue.

Personally -like the author- I would simply love to see more appreciation of more feminine beauty and discuss it in a rational respectful manner, without attacking or being attacked, but I can see that isn't going to happen on the site, with the exception of some very intelligent people, men and women here, who are willing to discuss things in a logical manner, and counter attack the argument- if they disagree with it- rather than the person, and don't result to insults, crude suggestions based on who they perceive the gender of the write to be, often turning out to be wrong): or strawmen or just plain disrespect.

It doesn't matter if people disagree or have different opinions that is life, it just matters that we deal with those differing opinions with respect. Is that so hard to do? Can't people just agree to disagree?

By the way the sizes I mentioned as healthy and attractive were just my personal opinion -and others are free to disagree with that, and if others prefers smaller or bigger sizes that is their opinion and needs to be respected, and I do respect it): The sizes I mentioned were more or less just examples of healthy/ slim sizes IMHO to show that life isn't just about being very fat or very thin; that there are healthy and trim slim or average weights in between that many can and DO find attractive (men and women)- without women being either overweight or underweight.

And I realize that some women/ ppl/ models are naturally thin and that looks beautiful (natural thin I mean)- but not as many as we'd like to believe- according to indsiders in the fashion industry. Especially after a certain age when metabolism starts slowing down for some women. I'm just against forcing people/ women to be UNnaturally thin and hurt themselves, sometimes to the point of death, just to hold their jobs, when the playing field isn't equal and there's no real "choice" and that's just my opinion; nobody has to agree with it, many do though, nor should I be attacked for it.

The whole point is we need to respect that people may have an opinion, which is valid and deserves respect as we can and should respect theirs, even if we disagree with it, without assuming everyone has an agenda.

And btw, Joe, the women you mentioned your dad likes some people will find attractive also for many reasons: some are attractive due to the element of masculinization - if not overdone- giving them an attractive look, like Keira Knightly whose face I feel has something attractive, many disagree, many agree, that's fine. Some women can look more attractive due to airbrushing, there are many elements. If you took the time to browse the site before your rant): you'd know more about what makes people look attractive, there's also the celebrity status thing, not having other very feminine women in very big numbers in the celebrity/ fashion world to compare them to, etc, any number of reasons worth considering before going into attack mode, maybe unnecessarily, with a bunch of strangers on the net- most of whom you can presume to know nothing or very little about; other that that their viewpoint may - or may not- differ from your own for what to them are valid reasons, like I presume your arguments make valid sense to you? Why is that so hard for you to understand and respect? If it wasn't you'd come on, state your opinion and reasons, without personal attacks. That way others may even be more inclined to think about your viewpoint.

Also you mentioned some very well known actresses/ models but if you studied the site you will understand that some of them are more feminie than others by the standards of feminity; i.e. Scarlett Johansen is more feminine than some of the others mentioned like Keira, and bear in mind that "feminine" is different than "attractive", though "feminine" plays an important part in what's attractive as long as it's not too feminine; everything in balance looks best. As the author explained, there's a point where too feminine or too masculine becomes unappealing.

Anyway, that's my opinion and you're free to yours. Forgive any spelling mistakes as it's late and I'm tired): I will post any other interesting articles I find on the subjects mentioned in your site, Eric, and thanks for the fascinating site. If anyone wants to discuss anything further they can post their email or ask for mine. Otherwise will just come here to paste any articles that may be of interest to you and some of your readers, since I don't have time to debate the points further.

That's my two cents): Peace.

Re previous comment:

"....and don't result to insults, crude suggestions based on who they perceive the gender of the write to be, often turning out to be wrong): or strawmen or just plain disrespect."

I'm sorry, that shoud read:

" ... and don't RESORT to insults."

And when I mentioned the standards of "feminine beauty" I meant, of course, the standards of feminine beauty as mentioned/ explained scientifically by the author of this site in detail and given proof for etc., not mine- as I'm not at allqualified to decide the scientific view of what's feminine/ masculine, etc. The author is.

Also I hope you come back soon to the site to post more interesting articles, Eric, so that interest in this fascinating site doesn't die out when no new info is posted, unless you're preparing another site as I thought you once mentioned you might. Good luck.

Interesting articles on the negative effects of fashion industry and changes in the fashion world for whoever's interested: › Beauty & Fashion‏

"Those Photoshopped models are celebs are creating a bad image for todays girls. .... The fashion industry feeds an elitist attitude" quote, unquote.


Another model falling victim to anorexia and dying of it aged 28 only& the pressure the fashion industry puts on them to remain emaciated according to the article, check out the link:

Vogue uses three plus-size models for cover in bid to 'battle against anorexia'


Model and actress against pro anorexia sites:

"Her looks are deeply embedded in Italian imagery: model and actress Carol Alt is definitely one of the most authoritative voices concerning beauty. Alt too, like many other stars, has signed our petition against pro-anorexia websites and gives us her opinion on the subject." Quote Unquote

"Anorexia takes you about as far from beauty as one can get. It drains your energy, your spirit and ultimately your life. Food is the gas in your car, the oil in your burner, the wind in your sails. Don't trade food to be thin. Thin is not beauty it is unhealthy. Only a healthy body exudes beauty." Quote unquote.


And Miss England who is a size UK 8, or US 4 was told she's too "large" to model, here's the link for those interested:

Are you serious? It's obvious by your choice of pictures of women you used to compare her, that you like chunky women. As a fashion photographer I can say that I would prefer Heidi over any of the other girls any time day or night. Not only is she beautiful, but she is an amazing model. The problem with people like you is that you think with the head bellow your waist too much. It takes more than just physical beauty to be a great model. Not even pretty girl can be a top model. I've worked with many beautiful women that cracked under the pressure in the middle of a shoot. Modeling is more than just skin deep, even though ignorant people like you can't see past the skin surface.

Heidi obviously is very masculine. Her face has a very masculinized jaw and eyebrows. Her bone structure is also closer to a man's than a woman's. She has broad hip bones, broad ribcage, broad shoulders, short torso, and long arms. It's a very awful look. Her WHR is definitely above 0.7.

She is not modeling material, not even close. It is unfair to so many impressionable young girls that male-like women are being promoted as beautiful. Feminine women should be exalted, not masculine women.

Whoever it is that wrote these comparisons, I like them to the point that I'm temped to send pictures of myself to get analyzed:) Not nude ones though.

From a fashion photographers point of view, bottom line is (although I know many people won't want to hear this) WOMEN may look better with curves, but CLOTHES look better on a frame - a frame of a body (which Heidi Klum has). I definitely don't think this means starved individuals with no meat on them at all, but it does often mean someone without huge tits and a round ass. This is because the catwalk is essentially an exhibition of art, the clothes are not necessarily made for the everyday woman to wear to the shops, they are a branding mechanism used by designers to show their creativity and give a general overview of what their style is about, therefore they want a want a walking frame that draws attention to their 'art' and not the cleavage revealed. Furthermore I would like to add that I often find it insulting when I hear people say 'ugh thats not a woman, women have breast and hips and shape' because I myself have never been blessed with much shape! I am not at all a size zero, nor am I six ft tall and breathtaking beautiful. I am a petite, slim, 'boobless' WOMAN! I am so sick and tired of hearing 'Marilyn Monroe stands for beauty, her hourglass figure is what we should aspire to bla bla' - Yes, der, she was incredible.. but there is a reason she is one of the most famous sex symbols in modern history - because not everyone can be that blessed! Just like not everyone can be tall thin and shapeless.. but those that are, well good.. they can go do modelling and leave 'sexy real women' to flaunt their shit proudly down the street as opposed to the catwalk.

I'd like to point out also that I am not saying curvy or 'plus size models' are have no place in the fashion world, I just simply took the defensive stance and did not want to agree with your clear bias towards this type of figure. I have worked with some incredibly beautiful and talented women that are curvy and larger than your average catwalk model. I have seen people close to me suffering from eating disorders and I definitely do not think that people should be basing their weight goals on super skinny models- but I think you need to look at the bigger picture and not just attack someone for being slim. I also believe that Heidi Klum would be one of the healthier top models out there and that some people are just born that way! I recently worked with an african model who probably ate more than I did (and I'm no dieter!) and she was tiny, but clearly naturally so (and it didn't look disgusting because of this). I think what society should be doing is focussing on DIFFERENT body shapes and celebrating all of them and not putting down skinny girls, some can be just as self conscious as bigger girls. I was bullied in my early to mid teens for looking like a '10 year old' with 'chicken legs' and I would have killed for hips and boobs!! KILLED FOR THEM! I could rant on forever, I just don't like reading these kind of things on the internet and hearing that despite my often junk food diet, I will apparently never be an attractive, sexy woman (I only get a gut when I put on weight... sexy? no). That's all!

Click here to post a new comment