Alot of what you have said about not having to have the exact same bust and hip measurments to have an hourglass figure i.e your example of how a woman of 5"6 with more unequal bust and hip measurments would have a more dramatic hourglass look to that of a woman with the same height but with exact bust and hip measurments clearly highlights how deceptive the whole issue of apperances is.
I gain alot of weight around my stomach, thighs and waist area would this likely change the shape of my body? can againing weight change the shape of your body?
Your reluctant to describe it as an hourglass figure because of the 27inch waist however at the same time however from the perspective of dress designers is hourglass and you say i should consider myself too have an hourglass figure but not in the context of high standards. How small does the waist have to be and on what basis to do you come to this conclusion?
Dave: There is no porn within this site; I am not a pornographer, and many of the referenced sites are not porn sites. No commission is being earned from the site referenced in this entry, which is not a porn site to start with. Identifying the source(s) of the images, if known, is a legal requirement since copyrighted images can only be displayed under the fair use provision or with explicit permission of the copyright holder, which is automatically granted to those who sign up as an affiliate. Therefore, it is almost a requirement to sign up as an affiliate in order to minimize the likelihood of legal problems over displaying copyrighted images. Additionally, the images displayed are usually not available to non-affiliates unless they join the site the images are taken from. Therefore, signing up as an affiliate is a necessity, regardless of the commission issue. Moreover, running this site requires money, and the readers are not paying to browse this site. The money has to come from somewhere, and if it comes from the sites providing the images, then it dovetails very nicely with the necessity of becoming an affiliate of these sites.
Speaking of an “absurdly veiled porn reference commission site,” why would I go through the trouble of spending hours looking up scientific literature and addressing it within this site when I could simply post, without using my actual name, more pictures of nude women, and uncensored ones at that, to earn a lot more in terms of commissions?
Dave: If you believe that this site is about ‘feminist “real beauty,”’ then it is obvious that you have little understanding of what feminism is about. “Religious anti-gay lunacy”? What religious arguments have you encountered here? What is anti-gay within this site? The implication of the gay factor, as mentioned above, is well-supported by evidence, which you have been unable to refute. You are the person displaying lunacy, judging by your comment, “some people are skinny, some are fat...no big deal. nothing to worry about, unless you have some problems of your own and cannot make your own decisions.” Of course some people are skinny and some fat. What does it have to do with our discussion?
i just realized this is the most absurdly veiled porn reference commission site on the net. i dunno how i didnt notice immediately. not that i have anything against porn or profiting from it. good luck. being a pornographer seems like a good idea if you want to make money on the web.
well, it appears that your agenda is driven by an odd combination of feminist "real beauty" BS, and religious anti-gay lunacy. you have the mind of a child.
some people are skinny, some are fat. some people are faggots, others are not. no big deal. nothing to worry about, unless you have some problems of your own and cannot make your own decisions.
Your measurements are inadequate with respect to judging masculinity-femininity, which, going by the context of this entry, is likely more important to you than what your basic face shape is. Your basic face shape appears to be squarish, but square faces and a strong jawline do not by themselves make a woman look masculine. For instance, check out Nikky Case here and here, a woman with a strong jawline and squared face, but she looks feminine. For a given set of very crude measurements, such as the ones that you have provided, one could fit both feminine and masculine faces onto them by making small changes here and there. Hence, I need to see your pictures to make a proper judgment.
Laurie: Nothing is wrong with a 27-inch waist on a 5-foot-3 frame. It is just that for a dramatic hourglass effect, the body in between the breasts and hips needs to be narrow, as in the example of Maria McBane above. Shapes such as triangles and ovals do not really apply to a description of the overall physique, and with same-circumference breasts and hips plus a narrower waist, your physique is closer to an hourglass rather than a pear- or apple-shaped body. As Kristin has already noted, your physique from the perspective of dress designers is an hourglass physique; after all, most dresses are not supposed to be skin tight. Your physique description is that of a curvaceous woman, and you should consider yourself to have an hourglass physique. My emphasis on having a narrow mid-section is in the context of high standards with respect to feminine beauty.
-R: What stereotypical analysis of lesbians are you talking about? When I talked about lesbians like Marguerite, I meant those like her rather than all lesbians being like her. The extent of preferred masculinization in a female partner varies among lesbians, even if you were to restrict yourself to the feminine ones or the masculine ones only.
Are high/prominent cheekbones globally sought after among women? Check out the cheekbones page and tell me if people in general would prefer the high/prominent ones to the normally regressed ones. It is the fashion industry, more specifically the gays it, with a liking for masculine/robust cheekbones among women, a preference shared with others who find masculinized women appealing.
I am not presenting round and/or flat faces here. Oval and non-broad faces are the norm among the women shown in the attractive women section of this site. So what is your point in mentioning make-up artists' and hairstylists’ opinion of round or flat faces?
what measurments have i not provided that this information is not adequate enough? my face length is 18cm and my forehead length at widest part is 15 cm. I have a strongish jawline. what face doe this appear to you to be from this information.
why what is wrong with the 27 inch measurment of my waist? it is 9 inches less than my breast size isnt thta what is require dto have an hourglass figure?
Since you have addressed other readers of this site, I thought it would be okay to leave a comment for you here as well.
Many of the points you make are valid and I agree wholeheartedly and in principle that all women have good and beautiful things about them, and that these attributes should be nurtured, celebrated and that no woman should be made to feel inferior by someone else's definition of what is/is not beautiful; whether that definition is purely subjective or wholly objective. We all know people who are truly beautiful from the inside - out..irrespective of their physical superficial looks and in the long run, that is of primary importance. Looking good INSIDE is what really counts.
Having said that however, I think that most women know where they fall on the attractiveness scale, cultural standards included, and have few illusions about how they appear to the outside world. For example, I know myself to be "pleasant to look at", possibily even "cute", but have never thought of myself as beautiful or even particularly sexy. I have a proportional but not hourglass shape and men, while not particulary knocked off their feet by me, still find me attractive. BUT, would I ever be featured on a site titled feminebeauty? No. The site would be less credible if I found myself on it...although I would be wonderfully flattered no doubt!
Likewise, if I were to start a site labeled Masculine-handsomeness.com or whatever, I would not feature or celebrate those men with beer bellies or thinning hair, even though the man in my life, whom I consider to be extremely attractive, has both. I would pick the most attractive men around and would be extremely selective in my criteria about who to feature: otherwise, why bother? There is no point in having a website about what constitutes male attractiveness if I am trying to make most men feel good about themselves; or featuring ordinary men. My website would be about the exceptional and the rare, not about the "everyman".
My point is this: There are things about this website that I DO disagree with and in terms of what does/does not constitute female beauty there is certainly some wiggle room, but the idea that beauty is somehow egalitarian and completely in the eye of the beholder, with no objective criteria, I feel is false.
So...while I have not been comletely converted by this website (sorry Erik!)..in terms of what I personally view as beautiful, I think that a website such as this one, as selective and non-inclusive as it is, should not offend most women, who already know all about their looks, and who (hopefully) celebrate their own individual beauty, wherever it lies. Just my opinion and I hope I made some sense.
Yet more stereotypical psychoanalysis of Lesbians. What else is new?
I've been told I run parallel to "Femme" Lesbianism. That stated, I, personally, find Gisele to be sexually enticing to the utmost in criterion; note, Tom Brady seems to concur. Gisele is nothing short of abysmally erotic. Ooooh, I'm getting tingles just mentioning her! In fact, I may as well concede the point she's my primary motive for religiously viewing the annual VS fashion shows.
I believe her sculpted, angular, facial bone-structure looks strikingly beautiful, stunning and exotic. From an artful stand point, it's much more preferable and becoming than a round, flat, non-sculpted bone-structure. Why do you suppose high/prominent cheekbones, for instances, are globally sought after and identified as highly favorable? Globally, a contoured facial appearance of both men AND women is alluring.
A plain ol' "round" or "flat" face is considered aesthetically inferior. Ask any professional, licensed make-up artist and hairstylist. In hair and make-up school, via a plethora of camouflaging methods, they teach how to make a prospective client's face (if "round," "diamond" or "heart-shaped") appear more oval, narrow and thin/angular at the midsection through the jaw-line. Why? Because that's what's considered beautiful, and, yes, even by straight women. Read a professional hairstylist and make-up teaching manual for more info; tons of them written, published and taught by STRAIGHT WOMEN, mind you.
Ill get to Mr. Holland's response later, meanwhile I am looking for other commenters to get in touch with here with whom I can correspond and engage in discussions with about similar subjects regarding the concept of beauty because I feel that this site is not an adequate source in giving us the knowledge we are looking for about beauty, objective or subjective.
Anyone here who is interested in engaging in discussions or just getting to know another interesting person out there, let me know. My email is sahne_ghashang[at]yahoo.com.
Remember that we are all as beautiful as we believe we are, inside and out, and those who truly see us as beautiful are the ones that count and those who do not appreciate us in the first place are not important anyways and neither are their interests. Everyone has something physically that makes him/her attractive and the key thing is to recognize what our particular attractive features are and how to bring them out using whatever measure that we, ourselves, feel is appropriate be it cosmetics, plastic surgery, exercise, diet, etc etc and enjoy them for ourselves first, before concerning ourselves with the interests and tastes of others irrespective of height, weight, bone structure, whr, shoulder width, breast size, or what have you.
My advice to every woman who is struggling with a poor body image is to believe in your heart that you are beautiful and we do not have to cater to every interest that men have because if we give schauvenistic men an inch they will take a mile from us and control us and make us feel the way they want us to feel; they become spoiled and start thinking that their expectations are more important than our peace of mind and self confidence.
Heterosexual men are not as selective as Mr. Holland says they are, be they wealthy, afluent, or otherwise, they are at the mercy of independent women and cannot bring themselves to admit it and hide behind the veil of "I am visual/I am selective and that is the reason I a not with that many women." As an experiment, just be the first to dump one of these men and observe the results. Trust me, I am not wrong, it will not be long before they are perplexed and at your mercy. I have seen it only too often. Nothing intimidates them like a woman's confidence in herself and her submissive attitude towards his need to be controlling is his playground.
In today's world in which women are worth more than just their girlish looks, they choose which men they want and weed out the ones that they do not want. Remember that maybe men are the ones who should cater to the interests of successful, confident women and we are the ones who should be selective, first and foremost. If you really believe that being "the most feminine and pretty woman," whatever that really is is going to help you have better relationships, just observe the life of Marilyn Monroe and Anna Nicole Smith, who wanted to be the 2nd Marilyn Monroe.
Again, I am hoping to hear from at least one of you, if not, then my best wishes for all of you for a life of happiness, beauty, and self assurance.
Katie: It is true that supermodels don’t self-select themselves as such, but neither does the public. If you don’t believe me, just go through this entry, which starts with a discussion of the “Make me a supermodel” U.K. reality TV show. Look at the two top-ranked female contestants shown on top; the feminine one, though not very good looking, was the overwhelming choice of the viewers (general public) but she was criticized -- to the point of tears -- for having excess body fat by the fashion-industry representatives on the panel of judges, and these judges had praise for the skeletal and boyish-looking model next to her, whom the public overwhelmingly found to be unattractive and terribly skinny. The male homosexuals who dominate the fashion industry are responsible for the high status of masculinized models; they can get away with it because there is no heterosexual alternative. Read about the gay influence behind the looks of fashion models.
Bialia: The scientific studies cited here are taken from peer-reviewed journals, and the reviewers have found the research sound enough to publish it. Unless you tell me what is circular or nonsensical about the arguments, I cannot respond and will consider these to be baseless allegations. I have answered just about all questions asked of me, including why I came up with this site, and to slightly paraphrase an earlier response:
Quote:
A site like this has long been needed; read the FAQ for clarification. I didn’t see anyone come up with it, and since I could come up with it, I did. In addition, if the Gods ask me after my death, “We gave you knowledge; what did you do with it?”...what am I supposed to tell them...that I sat on the knowledge? Answering yes would get me a ticket to Hell. The problem of a dearth of feminine and attractive women among models and beauty pageant contestants, trivial as it is, is not being seriously addressed by others. Why shouldn’t I attempt to solve a challenging problem concerning something that I have been interested in since childhood?
Your logic is circular. Your "research" is nonsense, and regardless of how sesquipedalian you attempt to be, it is meaningless bunk, and the questions you are being asked continually go unanswered. In regards to why you do this (a question you are constantly asked) and you never address- I offer this. You objectify, you deconstruct, you dehumanize. It gives you a sense of power. Thanks for nothing.
You keep asking your readers "WHOSE IDEA OF A SEXY WOMAN IS THIS?" What you are forgetting is that these women don't proclaim themselves supermodels. We, the people of America, decide who becomes a supermodel or not. So, obviously, the supermodels you talk about are A LOT OF PEOPLE'S IDEA OF SEXY. Otherwise, they wouldn't be supermodels.
Bialia: This site is not portraying women as superior and inferior, and neither is it telling women about what looks standards they should meet. It is about models and beauty pageant contestants. There are many scenarios involving models and beauty pageant contestants where feminine women are required, but masculinized ones are used instead, often with posing tricks and fake breasts in order to make them look feminine. Why not use feminine women to start with? To point out the manliness of a number of top-ranked models and how posing tricks and breast implants are providing an illusion of femininity among them is to not slam them, but to educate the public about fake femininity and ask it to consider why are feminine women not being used? The answer to the latter is provided, too. This site is not the flip side of the coin.
What constitutes feminine vs. masculine variation is extensively discussed here and I am not sure how you have missed it. Don’t assume that beauty cannot be defined. There are many well-documented and often abstract correlates of beauty that you need to take some time going through; I recommend you read about various objective correlates of beauty.
As to what circumstances require the use of feminine and attractive women and why, the public strongly and overwhelmingly prefers feminine beauty (see previous link), and hence it is only appropriate that the contestants in beauty pageants catering to the general public, lingerie models, models in magazines catering to heterosexual men (e.g., Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue) and in a number of other scenarios be drawn from feminine and attractive women.
Kristin: I have my facts straight about Raquel Welch. She was born in the U.S. to an American mother of Irish ancestry and a father from Bolivia. How does this make her a Mexican? Judging by her face shape, her father probably had substantial European ancestry, though I haven’t seen his picture. I have heard that Raquel’s father was Jewish, i.e., someone possessing a notable Southern European element, which could be the factor making a sizable contribution to the olive complexion of Raquel. I doubt that Raquel has more than a small contribution from Native Americans in her or it would show in her face.
Halle Berry at about 5-foot-7 and looks like this and this is unlikely to have had a 21-inch waist. On the other hand, the magazine that you have mentioned cited a 26-inch waist when Raquel was 43-years-old. The waist size of a young-adult Raquel, prior to childbirth, needs to be considered, and it was easily in the neighborhood of 23 inches. Anyway, the reported measurements of these actresses vary; their pictures are more valuable for judgment, and the front-view waist-hip proportions of Raquel look more feminine than an age-matched Halle’s.
Sandy: I, too, find Angelina Valinurova overall more appealing than Marika and the Swedish beauty queen Caroline Zonath; in my view of the physiques of these women, Zonath’s slenderness counts against her and Marika’s [a little too much] muscle and bone mass counts against her.
Raymond: Your comment is the kind I get from pathetic homosexuals who are unable to refute anything within the site and resort to egregious ad hominem, instead. Heterosexual men appreciate this site, and for obvious reasons: they have an interest in feminine beauty but encounter few great examples of it in mainstream settings, and know that this site is an attempt toward changing the status quo. Portraying this site as one that critiques women’s anatomies is a ridiculous summary of it when the feminine configurations are praised and promoted. You expect heterosexual men to not appreciate this? Heterosexual men are under no obligation and neither are they able to find manly fashion models attractive. Get lost!
Erik I'm sorry to say this but you sound like a sad loser here. I bet you were a reject all of your life and cannot even get a woman to talk to you without giving her your credit card number, you probably got a small penis complex too, saying the things you do. For those of us who have no problem getting laid we can appreciate women as different as they all and what they have to offer us sexually or otherwise. Most real men really feel sorry for your type because you are probably one big social moron. You have nothing better to do but to look at pictures of teenage girls and touch yourself and wishing that everyone else would think you are a man for wanting to be with her. If you managed to get laid more you would think less about the physical differences between men and women and just be able to enjoy the company of a women instead of going out of your way to critique their anatomies.
Erik,
Alot of what you have said about not having to have the exact same bust and hip measurments to have an hourglass figure i.e your example of how a woman of 5"6 with more unequal bust and hip measurments would have a more dramatic hourglass look to that of a woman with the same height but with exact bust and hip measurments clearly highlights how deceptive the whole issue of apperances is.
Erike,
I gain alot of weight around my stomach, thighs and waist area would this likely change the shape of my body? can againing weight change the shape of your body?
Your reluctant to describe it as an hourglass figure because of the 27inch waist however at the same time however from the perspective of dress designers is hourglass and you say i should consider myself too have an hourglass figure but not in the context of high standards. How small does the waist have to be and on what basis to do you come to this conclusion?
Erik,
She may look feminine but she has a masucline face i.e her facial structure on its own is masucline
Dave: There is no porn within this site; I am not a pornographer, and many of the referenced sites are not porn sites. No commission is being earned from the site referenced in this entry, which is not a porn site to start with. Identifying the source(s) of the images, if known, is a legal requirement since copyrighted images can only be displayed under the fair use provision or with explicit permission of the copyright holder, which is automatically granted to those who sign up as an affiliate. Therefore, it is almost a requirement to sign up as an affiliate in order to minimize the likelihood of legal problems over displaying copyrighted images. Additionally, the images displayed are usually not available to non-affiliates unless they join the site the images are taken from. Therefore, signing up as an affiliate is a necessity, regardless of the commission issue. Moreover, running this site requires money, and the readers are not paying to browse this site. The money has to come from somewhere, and if it comes from the sites providing the images, then it dovetails very nicely with the necessity of becoming an affiliate of these sites.
Speaking of an “absurdly veiled porn reference commission site,” why would I go through the trouble of spending hours looking up scientific literature and addressing it within this site when I could simply post, without using my actual name, more pictures of nude women, and uncensored ones at that, to earn a lot more in terms of commissions?
Dave: If you believe that this site is about ‘feminist “real beauty,”’ then it is obvious that you have little understanding of what feminism is about. “Religious anti-gay lunacy”? What religious arguments have you encountered here? What is anti-gay within this site? The implication of the gay factor, as mentioned above, is well-supported by evidence, which you have been unable to refute. You are the person displaying lunacy, judging by your comment, “some people are skinny, some are fat...no big deal. nothing to worry about, unless you have some problems of your own and cannot make your own decisions.” Of course some people are skinny and some fat. What does it have to do with our discussion?
i just realized this is the most absurdly veiled porn reference commission site on the net. i dunno how i didnt notice immediately. not that i have anything against porn or profiting from it. good luck. being a pornographer seems like a good idea if you want to make money on the web.
well, it appears that your agenda is driven by an odd combination of feminist "real beauty" BS, and religious anti-gay lunacy. you have the mind of a child.
some people are skinny, some are fat. some people are faggots, others are not. no big deal. nothing to worry about, unless you have some problems of your own and cannot make your own decisions.
good luck with your bullshit agenda.
Your measurements are inadequate with respect to judging masculinity-femininity, which, going by the context of this entry, is likely more important to you than what your basic face shape is. Your basic face shape appears to be squarish, but square faces and a strong jawline do not by themselves make a woman look masculine. For instance, check out Nikky Case here and here, a woman with a strong jawline and squared face, but she looks feminine. For a given set of very crude measurements, such as the ones that you have provided, one could fit both feminine and masculine faces onto them by making small changes here and there. Hence, I need to see your pictures to make a proper judgment.
Laurie: Nothing is wrong with a 27-inch waist on a 5-foot-3 frame. It is just that for a dramatic hourglass effect, the body in between the breasts and hips needs to be narrow, as in the example of Maria McBane above. Shapes such as triangles and ovals do not really apply to a description of the overall physique, and with same-circumference breasts and hips plus a narrower waist, your physique is closer to an hourglass rather than a pear- or apple-shaped body. As Kristin has already noted, your physique from the perspective of dress designers is an hourglass physique; after all, most dresses are not supposed to be skin tight. Your physique description is that of a curvaceous woman, and you should consider yourself to have an hourglass physique. My emphasis on having a narrow mid-section is in the context of high standards with respect to feminine beauty.
-R: What stereotypical analysis of lesbians are you talking about? When I talked about lesbians like Marguerite, I meant those like her rather than all lesbians being like her. The extent of preferred masculinization in a female partner varies among lesbians, even if you were to restrict yourself to the feminine ones or the masculine ones only.
Are high/prominent cheekbones globally sought after among women? Check out the cheekbones page and tell me if people in general would prefer the high/prominent ones to the normally regressed ones. It is the fashion industry, more specifically the gays it, with a liking for masculine/robust cheekbones among women, a preference shared with others who find masculinized women appealing.
I am not presenting round and/or flat faces here. Oval and non-broad faces are the norm among the women shown in the attractive women section of this site. So what is your point in mentioning make-up artists' and hairstylists’ opinion of round or flat faces?
what measurments have i not provided that this information is not adequate enough? my face length is 18cm and my forehead length at widest part is 15 cm. I have a strongish jawline. what face doe this appear to you to be from this information.
Erik,
what would you describe my physique as? am i a triangle? oval? what shape is my body?
Erik,
why what is wrong with the 27 inch measurment of my waist? it is 9 inches less than my breast size isnt thta what is require dto have an hourglass figure?
Hi Aileen:
Since you have addressed other readers of this site, I thought it would be okay to leave a comment for you here as well.
Many of the points you make are valid and I agree wholeheartedly and in principle that all women have good and beautiful things about them, and that these attributes should be nurtured, celebrated and that no woman should be made to feel inferior by someone else's definition of what is/is not beautiful; whether that definition is purely subjective or wholly objective. We all know people who are truly beautiful from the inside - out..irrespective of their physical superficial looks and in the long run, that is of primary importance. Looking good INSIDE is what really counts.
Having said that however, I think that most women know where they fall on the attractiveness scale, cultural standards included, and have few illusions about how they appear to the outside world. For example, I know myself to be "pleasant to look at", possibily even "cute", but have never thought of myself as beautiful or even particularly sexy. I have a proportional but not hourglass shape and men, while not particulary knocked off their feet by me, still find me attractive. BUT, would I ever be featured on a site titled feminebeauty? No. The site would be less credible if I found myself on it...although I would be wonderfully flattered no doubt!
Likewise, if I were to start a site labeled Masculine-handsomeness.com or whatever, I would not feature or celebrate those men with beer bellies or thinning hair, even though the man in my life, whom I consider to be extremely attractive, has both. I would pick the most attractive men around and would be extremely selective in my criteria about who to feature: otherwise, why bother? There is no point in having a website about what constitutes male attractiveness if I am trying to make most men feel good about themselves; or featuring ordinary men. My website would be about the exceptional and the rare, not about the "everyman".
My point is this: There are things about this website that I DO disagree with and in terms of what does/does not constitute female beauty there is certainly some wiggle room, but the idea that beauty is somehow egalitarian and completely in the eye of the beholder, with no objective criteria, I feel is false.
So...while I have not been comletely converted by this website (sorry Erik!)..in terms of what I personally view as beautiful, I think that a website such as this one, as selective and non-inclusive as it is, should not offend most women, who already know all about their looks, and who (hopefully) celebrate their own individual beauty, wherever it lies. Just my opinion and I hope I made some sense.
Yet more stereotypical psychoanalysis of Lesbians. What else is new?
I've been told I run parallel to "Femme" Lesbianism. That stated, I, personally, find Gisele to be sexually enticing to the utmost in criterion; note, Tom Brady seems to concur. Gisele is nothing short of abysmally erotic. Ooooh, I'm getting tingles just mentioning her! In fact, I may as well concede the point she's my primary motive for religiously viewing the annual VS fashion shows.
I believe her sculpted, angular, facial bone-structure looks strikingly beautiful, stunning and exotic. From an artful stand point, it's much more preferable and becoming than a round, flat, non-sculpted bone-structure. Why do you suppose high/prominent cheekbones, for instances, are globally sought after and identified as highly favorable? Globally, a contoured facial appearance of both men AND women is alluring.
A plain ol' "round" or "flat" face is considered aesthetically inferior. Ask any professional, licensed make-up artist and hairstylist. In hair and make-up school, via a plethora of camouflaging methods, they teach how to make a prospective client's face (if "round," "diamond" or "heart-shaped") appear more oval, narrow and thin/angular at the midsection through the jaw-line. Why? Because that's what's considered beautiful, and, yes, even by straight women. Read a professional hairstylist and make-up teaching manual for more info; tons of them written, published and taught by STRAIGHT WOMEN, mind you.
Ill get to Mr. Holland's response later, meanwhile I am looking for other commenters to get in touch with here with whom I can correspond and engage in discussions with about similar subjects regarding the concept of beauty because I feel that this site is not an adequate source in giving us the knowledge we are looking for about beauty, objective or subjective.
Anyone here who is interested in engaging in discussions or just getting to know another interesting person out there, let me know. My email is sahne_ghashang[at]yahoo.com.
Remember that we are all as beautiful as we believe we are, inside and out, and those who truly see us as beautiful are the ones that count and those who do not appreciate us in the first place are not important anyways and neither are their interests. Everyone has something physically that makes him/her attractive and the key thing is to recognize what our particular attractive features are and how to bring them out using whatever measure that we, ourselves, feel is appropriate be it cosmetics, plastic surgery, exercise, diet, etc etc and enjoy them for ourselves first, before concerning ourselves with the interests and tastes of others irrespective of height, weight, bone structure, whr, shoulder width, breast size, or what have you.
My advice to every woman who is struggling with a poor body image is to believe in your heart that you are beautiful and we do not have to cater to every interest that men have because if we give schauvenistic men an inch they will take a mile from us and control us and make us feel the way they want us to feel; they become spoiled and start thinking that their expectations are more important than our peace of mind and self confidence.
Heterosexual men are not as selective as Mr. Holland says they are, be they wealthy, afluent, or otherwise, they are at the mercy of independent women and cannot bring themselves to admit it and hide behind the veil of "I am visual/I am selective and that is the reason I a not with that many women." As an experiment, just be the first to dump one of these men and observe the results. Trust me, I am not wrong, it will not be long before they are perplexed and at your mercy. I have seen it only too often. Nothing intimidates them like a woman's confidence in herself and her submissive attitude towards his need to be controlling is his playground.
In today's world in which women are worth more than just their girlish looks, they choose which men they want and weed out the ones that they do not want. Remember that maybe men are the ones who should cater to the interests of successful, confident women and we are the ones who should be selective, first and foremost. If you really believe that being "the most feminine and pretty woman," whatever that really is is going to help you have better relationships, just observe the life of Marilyn Monroe and Anna Nicole Smith, who wanted to be the 2nd Marilyn Monroe.
Again, I am hoping to hear from at least one of you, if not, then my best wishes for all of you for a life of happiness, beauty, and self assurance.
Personally speaking, I find woman # 1 to be the most sexually and aesthetically appealing with reference towards both her body and face alike.
Katie: It is true that supermodels don’t self-select themselves as such, but neither does the public. If you don’t believe me, just go through this entry, which starts with a discussion of the “Make me a supermodel” U.K. reality TV show. Look at the two top-ranked female contestants shown on top; the feminine one, though not very good looking, was the overwhelming choice of the viewers (general public) but she was criticized -- to the point of tears -- for having excess body fat by the fashion-industry representatives on the panel of judges, and these judges had praise for the skeletal and boyish-looking model next to her, whom the public overwhelmingly found to be unattractive and terribly skinny. The male homosexuals who dominate the fashion industry are responsible for the high status of masculinized models; they can get away with it because there is no heterosexual alternative. Read about the gay influence behind the looks of fashion models.
Bialia: The scientific studies cited here are taken from peer-reviewed journals, and the reviewers have found the research sound enough to publish it. Unless you tell me what is circular or nonsensical about the arguments, I cannot respond and will consider these to be baseless allegations. I have answered just about all questions asked of me, including why I came up with this site, and to slightly paraphrase an earlier response:
Quote:
Your logic is circular. Your "research" is nonsense, and regardless of how sesquipedalian you attempt to be, it is meaningless bunk, and the questions you are being asked continually go unanswered. In regards to why you do this (a question you are constantly asked) and you never address- I offer this. You objectify, you deconstruct, you dehumanize. It gives you a sense of power. Thanks for nothing.
You keep asking your readers "WHOSE IDEA OF A SEXY WOMAN IS THIS?" What you are forgetting is that these women don't proclaim themselves supermodels. We, the people of America, decide who becomes a supermodel or not. So, obviously, the supermodels you talk about are A LOT OF PEOPLE'S IDEA OF SEXY. Otherwise, they wouldn't be supermodels.
Bialia: This site is not portraying women as superior and inferior, and neither is it telling women about what looks standards they should meet. It is about models and beauty pageant contestants. There are many scenarios involving models and beauty pageant contestants where feminine women are required, but masculinized ones are used instead, often with posing tricks and fake breasts in order to make them look feminine. Why not use feminine women to start with? To point out the manliness of a number of top-ranked models and how posing tricks and breast implants are providing an illusion of femininity among them is to not slam them, but to educate the public about fake femininity and ask it to consider why are feminine women not being used? The answer to the latter is provided, too. This site is not the flip side of the coin.
What constitutes feminine vs. masculine variation is extensively discussed here and I am not sure how you have missed it. Don’t assume that beauty cannot be defined. There are many well-documented and often abstract correlates of beauty that you need to take some time going through; I recommend you read about various objective correlates of beauty.
As to what circumstances require the use of feminine and attractive women and why, the public strongly and overwhelmingly prefers feminine beauty (see previous link), and hence it is only appropriate that the contestants in beauty pageants catering to the general public, lingerie models, models in magazines catering to heterosexual men (e.g., Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue) and in a number of other scenarios be drawn from feminine and attractive women.
Kristin: I have my facts straight about Raquel Welch. She was born in the U.S. to an American mother of Irish ancestry and a father from Bolivia. How does this make her a Mexican? Judging by her face shape, her father probably had substantial European ancestry, though I haven’t seen his picture. I have heard that Raquel’s father was Jewish, i.e., someone possessing a notable Southern European element, which could be the factor making a sizable contribution to the olive complexion of Raquel. I doubt that Raquel has more than a small contribution from Native Americans in her or it would show in her face.
Halle Berry at about 5-foot-7 and looks like this and this is unlikely to have had a 21-inch waist. On the other hand, the magazine that you have mentioned cited a 26-inch waist when Raquel was 43-years-old. The waist size of a young-adult Raquel, prior to childbirth, needs to be considered, and it was easily in the neighborhood of 23 inches. Anyway, the reported measurements of these actresses vary; their pictures are more valuable for judgment, and the front-view waist-hip proportions of Raquel look more feminine than an age-matched Halle’s.
Sandy: I, too, find Angelina Valinurova overall more appealing than Marika and the Swedish beauty queen Caroline Zonath; in my view of the physiques of these women, Zonath’s slenderness counts against her and Marika’s [a little too much] muscle and bone mass counts against her.
Raymond: Your comment is the kind I get from pathetic homosexuals who are unable to refute anything within the site and resort to egregious ad hominem, instead. Heterosexual men appreciate this site, and for obvious reasons: they have an interest in feminine beauty but encounter few great examples of it in mainstream settings, and know that this site is an attempt toward changing the status quo. Portraying this site as one that critiques women’s anatomies is a ridiculous summary of it when the feminine configurations are praised and promoted. You expect heterosexual men to not appreciate this? Heterosexual men are under no obligation and neither are they able to find manly fashion models attractive. Get lost!
Erik I'm sorry to say this but you sound like a sad loser here. I bet you were a reject all of your life and cannot even get a woman to talk to you without giving her your credit card number, you probably got a small penis complex too, saying the things you do. For those of us who have no problem getting laid we can appreciate women as different as they all and what they have to offer us sexually or otherwise. Most real men really feel sorry for your type because you are probably one big social moron. You have nothing better to do but to look at pictures of teenage girls and touch yourself and wishing that everyone else would think you are a man for wanting to be with her. If you managed to get laid more you would think less about the physical differences between men and women and just be able to enjoy the company of a women instead of going out of your way to critique their anatomies.
Pages