Allwomenrock: This entry/site is not about picking on flaws in women or attempting to make women feel bad about their shortcomings. You should read the FAQ to understand the site purpose. There are many scenarios where feminine models are required but masculinized ones are used instead. Something needs to be done about this, which is what this site is doing.
Kristin: I did not say that Aishwarya Rai is European; what I said is that her face shape is in between Europeans and East Asians, as evident from the picture cited. There is no way 25-33% of people in India have greenish eyes; the great majority there has dark brown eyes. Historically, people from different continents, including Europeans, have migrated toward India and subsequently mixed to some extent. Therefore, part-European ancestry, mostly not of recent origin, is expected in many Indians, including Aishwarya Rai.
I have seen recent informal/candid pictures of Alessandra Ambrosio where her breasts appear large and not attributable to push-up bras. How did her breasts get notably large without the rest of her gaining weight?
Kristin: Kant’s point that you have emphasized doesn’t apply to the specific advertising scenario considered here, as I have already explained. Besides, there is a trickle-down effect with respect to the looks of fashion models, given their high status. In other words, when there is a prominent mainstream outlet for feminine beauty appreciation, you will see more feminine women among top-ranked actresses.
i looked over the evidence in your analysis of facial femininity among various races, and while you commented on rubustness, you failed to see that ---some of the robust fsces were overly so for a woman, and men and women in these ethnicities tend to have a different shaped jawline and cheekbone. their noses differ a lot. deep set eyes area sign of masculinity in many places. african/ asian men tend to have wider, thinner mouths. the women tend to have fuller mouthes. does that make sense?the feminine bone structure in a good chunk of non white societies is the diamond shape. examples range from zhang ziyi, lucy liu, iman, and even alek wek. the jaw protrusion on some of the women was unfeminine. alek's is---the other black women would be less so. if you like, i can send you some photos of women to give you a better idea of some feminine non-western faces.
but as a side note--beyonce looked extremely feminine facially before the nose job. so did halle berry. note their eye shape (slightly larger, less round), small chin, and wide set cheekbones, shorter nose. while width connotes europeanness. length deals with masculinity.
eventually smart people learn to rely on themselves to parse out what is healthy and what isnt. if you continue to blame the fashion industry, you are the one furthering the idea that people are not responsible for their own health.
if you care about people's health, the ultimate lesson you should be teaching people is that they (and their families) are responsible for their own health. encouraging self-reliance is more healthy than encouraging the eradication of unhealthy imagery. if you discourage unhealthy imagery, you are teaching people that the problem is the imagery, when the actual problem is lack of critical thinking on the part of the people who are being influenced. a good critical thinker is immune to unhealthy imagery.
there is a market for man-faced models among gays and hetero women. so be it. beauty is subjective. it isnt your place to tell anyone what real beauty is.
I still don't find Giselle at all attractive, I can imagine her at times can be really bitchy, and she does look like a surfboard with a bra, arms and wig, in the pic above.
Erik, very good, I agree with your Jan 16 post.
I have tended to see that when a women is genuine in her attractiveness of character and personality, that it produces a physical attractiveness, the same goes for one who is "a real bitch" or one that has a grudge about the world or men, that it doesn't matter really what genetic beauty they happen to have received, they then also become less physically attractive. One can even see in the eyes and facial expressions if there is a stable, loving, outgoing, sexy, women within, one that doesn't have a low self esteem and a negative outlook on life.
Even if they are great at hiding their true self, it only takes time and at some stage it is exposed. I believe true beauty is a women who is physically attractive and at the same time humble about it, and has an attractive personage. Mix unattractive physical features with a big chip on the shoulder and you have a true Ugly woman.
its ridiculous you think aish. rai is european at all. first off roughhly 1/4 -1/3 of all indians have greenish eyes. secondly she never validates ANY claims she is mixed. her skin is brown , and her hair is NOTHING like a european. its plentiful, heavy, and waved. her build is typical of an indian. thy tend to have flatter bums and narrow arms/legs due to less muscle/bone density. she is somoewhat bradbacked---but sh is not mixed. india is a massive place, fullof genetic diversity. all europeans don't look the same. is that because the english or swedes are mixed? in africa there are many shades of colorinng in the sme country. thi is true in japan, china, korea. they rane from ice pale to honeyed browns.
also--don't you think they just irbrush in alessandra's breasts? cuz in non edited pictures she looks flatter.same with adriana.
why are you people arguing who is more feminine/masculine and what makes a woman more masculine/feminine? it's personal choice. every single woman in the world has physical flaws- and what might be a flaw to one person might be desirable to another. get over yourselves, and instead of looking to make this or that women feel terrible about their bodies and what they look like, why don't you men attempt instead to make all women know they are as beautiful as they are. that's all this woman has to say :)
i think kant touched on an important point. in hollywood, producers often find actresses who are pretty in non-threatening way--like cameron diaz, jennifer aniston, and nicole kidman, to attract female audiences.all of these women also show signs of masculinity. they inspire audience comradery vs. jealousy.
Ghengis Kant: If you are a woman that prefers masculinized female faces, then your preferences are at odds with the majority of women. Most men and most women judge female attractiveness similarly; see point #5 under objective correlates of beauty here. Therefore, the use of masculinized lingerie models cannot be justified by pointing out that they are selling to women, not men.
The great majority of the nude models shown here are not porn stars, and in proper dress there would be nothing dirty, vulgar or classless about their looks. Whereas the use of feminine and attractive women for lingerie modeling may make you jealous or catty, a basic principle of advertising is, “buy our product, look like this or obtain this characteristic,” which in the case of lingerie modeling would be “buy our lingerie, look like this sexy woman, arouse your male partner,” i.e., it naturally follows that the selection of lingerie models be based upon the preferences of heterosexual men, which also happen to be what most women find appealing in the looks of women. In other words, the use of feminine and attractive lingerie models will surely not diminish sales of lingerie.
I have not said that Adriana Lima is the most feminine of Victoria’s Secret Models or even that she is feminine; she just happens to be more feminine-looking than the VS models addressed in parts 1-5 of this series.
Men in general tend to have low partner standards when it comes to casual sex, but not low aesthetic standards, i.e., desired looks in a partner. With posing tricks and fake appeal (e.g., breast implants), a number of VS models do end up on a list of appealing women as far as a number of heterosexual men are concerned, but then there is no high-profile mainstream outlet for feminine beauty appreciation. When the latter is established, we shall see how many masculinized VS models/equivalent end up in lifetime-exclusive heterosexual men’s list of top-desirable women.
I do find this site very interesting and informative. As a straight woman, I agree completely with your analysis of what makes an attractive female body, but I cannot seem to find any of the faces you find attractive to be attractive. I think this is perhaps because I am attracted to masculine faces and therefore prefer women with masculine faces as well.
Most people say that Adriana lima is the most attractive out of the VS models. Interestingly, you point out that she is also the most feminine of them. I always think that Adriana is the least attractive of the VS models. I like Heidi and Alessandra. I also think Cindy Crawford has the prettiest face I have ever seen. I think that the reason I do not like Adriana may be because her face is too feminine or at least too babyfaced.
The thing is, VS models exist to sell lingerie to women, not men. It is very possible that fashion models and lingerie models are more successful in appealing to women when they look like men. It isnt just the gay men in the fashion industry. It is the consumer as well. As a straight woman, I can see that the porn stars you post are really sexy to hetero men, but none of them make me want to buy clothing. They make me jealous and catty. I see women like that in lingerie and I think "she is such a whore. I dont want anything to do with her". But I see women like Adriana or Alessandra and I like their sculpted lean physiques. No fat or shapliness to distract from the lingerie. They look like marble hangers. I do not care about their waist hip ratios. They can wear next to nothing without looking dirty or vulgar because their physiques are asexual and that makes me want to buy what is on them. Lingerie with class.
I think these women end up as sex symbols to men because most men are attracted to most women. They will jack off to anything with tits and a vagina. They see women in glossy photos in underwear and think hot before remembering that a good looking amateur porn star would actually be better to bang. Men have low standards when it comes to female beauty, but even then women like Adriana lima sell make up and lingerie- they sell to women. Models like Vida Guerra and Kelly Brook are the ones who appeal mainly to men.
I thought visiting this site again from time to time and viewing people's comments may be more interesting than the site itself. Sadly, Mr. Holland, you dismiss everything people say to you as pure nonsense. Just out of curioustiy Mr. Holland, if you do not mind me asking so, what line of work or in what subjects have you specialized in with which you have now deemed yourself as someone with expertise on the subject of "feminine beauty," seriously is there some wierd course being taught out there somewhere that the vast majority of us are missing out on. Please let us know.
You know, Mr. Holland, you continuously say that much of physical beauty is objective, irrespective of the fact that physical beauty is measured differently in different societies and I think one of the commentors somewhere on one your links said that a set of features may invoke a certain feeling or emotion that someone with another set of features such as the ones that you describe as feminine, may not invoke those emotions in the person who sees it and may thereby be more attracted to the former set of features. (However, I do recognize that the definition of physical attraction mentioned here is simply none other than sexual attraction to the most "seemingly fertile" looking woman between the ages of 16 to 25 for the purpose of enhanced sexual desire, no emotions involved.) For example, if the biological inclinations of men and women are the same on a universal level, then why is that at some point in Ancient Japan, a woman's beauty was measured by how long her hair was and how white her face was to the extent that Japanese noblewomen painted their faces white and painted their teeth black and grew their hair long down to their knees or feet to appear beautiful for the suitors who were selecting them as potential partners in life. Of course, this was Ancient Japan's subjective view on beauty and it was very important to them. The emphasis you place on the importance of bone structure and waist to hip ratio would not have been relevant to these people. This is why I had encouraged you to perhaps travel to different parts of the world and see if your view regarding men and women's biological inclinations really bear that much weight, which sadly you did not get and did not pay much attention to.
I want to be clear with you Mr. Holland about what beauty pageants are and why certain women are recognized in them versus others. I will agree that most of the women who are awarded the title of "Miss America" or "Miss Universe" or "Miss India", just as a few examples, are not always the most beautiful looking women in the world, even though they are relatively stunning. However, you should understand and accept that when a young woman is awarded the title of for example "Miss Puerto Rico" or "Miss Universe" it is not simply on account of the way she looks physically and the awarding of such a title is not done for the purpose of promoting this woman's look, but rather the entirety of who she is, her contributions to society, her hard work, education, and of course her dedication to being physically fit and well dressed all at a young age; these are what are being celebrated and recognized in beauty pageants versus simply the waist-hip ratio of Natalia Cruze by Penthouse Magazine and yourself. Many feminists may be against pageants for whatever reason, but I suppose they have their perspective. However, I do not consider them as degrading to women as many other current trends in the media. (Just a look at Miss Canada Nazanin Afshin Jam is enough reason for me to say that the celebrity status that contestants enjoy in beauty pageants can be geared towards a better cause.) I will not assume a label for myself here even though you may take the liberty of labeling me as something that I do not identify with as you labled the commentor designated as Heather a feminist based on a few set of comments she made about your views regarding feminine beauty as being as narrow and strict as that of the Nazi's views regarding Aryan beauty in addition to which he/she simply had some presumptions regarding your personal life. Lets just make it clear that the subject of beauty pageants is irrelevant to what you are trying to promote because the fact of the matter is that beauty pageant contestant are not selling their looks and implying to other women that they should look like them physically or to men that they are the most beautiful looking women in the world. It would be better for you to refrain from commenting on beauty pageant contestants, at least as far as I am concerned, anyone else who is reading this site and the comments made can choose to agree or to disagree with me.
Now, on to another subject, because it really interests me to know why someone would dedicate so much material and time to a website that promotes a cause known as "feminine beauty" while most people create these extensively detailed sites for political and religious causes. I am beginning to wonder if it is really just "feminine beauty" that you are trying to promote because sometimes I see you make several political statements about for example, gays and feminists and such in promoting what is on the surface such a trivial cause, "feminine beauty." However, I just wonder, I will not judge.
Continuing on with that, lets just say that all the peoples of the world accept that the criteria for feminine beauty are exactlty what you say they are on this website. Now, if the rest of the world agree with you, what is to be gained from our acceptance of your views regarding feminine beauty and that gays are to blame for the promotion of masculinity among women and for anorexia and for the lack of attention given to more attractive and feminine women from the fashion industry and show business. What is to be gained if feminine women became the emblems of beauty? Will world hunger end? Will wars no longer be fought? Will people be happier if men had the luxury of more feminine looking women or at least women who aspired towards looking more feminine? Anyways, what difference does it make what the "it" look is because as is quite evident scientifically, people cannot change their skeletal proportions unless they had a rib removed to make the waist line more narrow. The most a masculine looking women such as those high fashion models to make themselves more feminine is to get breast and butt implants, they cannot reduce their height or become less broadshouldered or to reduce the length of their arms. By the same token, a women whose skeletal proportions are feminine cannot do anything to become more masculine except at most getting a masculine looking haircut and getting her breasts and buttocks liposuctioned. So what difference does it make here what is considered as beautiful, in the end people are going to look pretty much the way they look.
From the looks of it, if the status quo is maintained and masculine women dominate the fashion industry, a lot of menfolk would be quite better off because there will be many more feminine looking women available to them in the real world among average people who will not get to enjoy celebrity status and will not realize that they are really more beautiful than all of the famous masculine looking women and will therefore, not be able to snob out most men on account of their lack of celebrity status, large bank accounts, excellent credit, good looks, fancy cars, etc etc. Were more feminine women to gain attention in the fashion world as emblems of beauty, their popularity would go up and they will thereby, be making the same amounts of money that masculine women in the fashion industry are making now and will, much like those masculine looking models are today, be snobbing out men in large numbers because of their lack of looks, money, fame, name recognition, etc etc. Sad to say, but masculine looking models such as Cindy Crawford and Kate Moss, as ugly as you say they are, Mr. Holland, only associate with the likes of Richard Gere and Johnny Depp. The promotion of feminine beauty in the fashion world would jeopardize a lot of men's opportunities to be with feminine and beautiful women. Sadly, many men (not all) do thrive on the fact that there are many beautiful women out there who do not realize that they are beautiful and who do not get to enjoy being recognized for being beautiful by the elites. At this point in time, feminine looking women are more attainable for men than they would be if they were recognized and appreciated more by the elites in society.
Lastly, although you claim that your objective is purely objective for making this site, I would like to know, if you kindly choose to answer me, what is to be gained on your end, Mr. Holland, if feminine beauty becomes the ideal towards which women aspired, which you claim will not be the case for a long time due to gay male domination of the fashion industry. I do believe that behind the most objective purpose there is an even greater subjective purpose, and I am interested in knowning what your subjective purpose is in devoting as much time and energy towards the promotion of feminine beauty.
maybe men are responding often to th reality that the average women is not smal waisted.. i have seen numerous article s on the subject. From Ezilon.com
Fashion Articles and News
The shape of things to wear: scientists identify how women's figures have changed in 50 years
By Helen McCormack
Nov 21, 2005, 09:55
(Independent News & Media) The fashion industry is ignoring the changing shapes of women's bodies, a study claims today. Designers and manufacturers still insist on making clothes that fit the traditional hourglass figure, when women's shapes are more likely to be top-heavy, rectangular or pear-shaped.
The research found that although only 8 per cent of women now had the sort of hourglass figure flaunted by curvaceous 1950s film stars such as Sophia Loren, designers and manufacturers continued to make clothes to fit a slim-line version of that figure.
Of the 6,000 women's body shapes analysed, 46 per cent were described as rectangular, with the waist less than nine inches smaller than the hips or bust. Just over 20 per cent of women were bottom-heavy "spoons", or pear shapes, with hips two inches larger than busts or more, while almost 14 per cent were "inverted triangles" - women whose busts were three or more inches bigger than their hips.
The study, by the North Carolina State University, was based on data from a two-year study of American body types, SizeUSA. It was commissioned by Alva Products, a manufacturer of designers' mannequins determined to force the industry to design clothes for the majority rather than the minority of women.
Janice Wang, the firm's chief executive, said: "The majority of retailers are designing clothes for people with an hourglass figure." She added that industry standards for size measurements were out of date. "That needs to change if the industry wants to serve the markets they currently aren't reaching."
The fashion house Liz Claiborne has taken note. David Baron, a vice-president, said it would introduce "gradual changes" to eventually provide "better-fitting" clothes.
Although the study concentrated on American women, its implications were relevant for British women, Ms Wang said, because eating habits and lifestyle meant the shapes of women in the two societies "mirrored each other".
The British fashion designer Katherine Hamnett agreed that women who did not conform to a svelte size 10 continued to be neglected by fashion.
"The fashion industry ignores the true size of women at its peril," she said. "As to why they do, stupidity is the only reason I can think of. It is the result of adhering unthinkingly to a tradition."
And the idea that larger women are not the ideal to design for is a myth. "I have measured film stars who have 42 inch hips, and are still getting a lot of work. It is not how fat you are, it is whether you are fit that matters. People can be beautiful when they are any shape or size."
Breast enhancements and other types of cosmetic surgery could influence the findings, Ms Hamnett said. With breast enhancements likely to create the "inverted triangle" body type, the popularity of cosmetic surgery means there are new shapes that are less likely to be affected by diet or exercise.
The findings concur with a similar study of British women, SizeUK, published late last year, which found that the average woman's waistline had expanded by six inches since the 1950s.
Carried out by University College London and the London College of Fashion, the study found that women and men had shot up and out, with today's woman taller, with a bigger bust and hips than her 1950s counterpart.
Hourglass
Exemplified by the actress Sophia Loren, only 8 per cent of women tend to have equal hip and bust measurements with a narrow waist
The spoon
Just over 20 per cent of women, like Jennifer Lopez, have a pear-shaped figure, where the hip measurement is larger than the bust
Rectangular
Forty-six per cent of women fit this shape, where the waist is less than nine inches smaller than the hips or bust. Mel C is a good example
Inverted triangle
Another modern outline, where the bust is bigger than the hips. The swimmer Sharron Davies is one of the 14 per cent who fits this shape
Kristin - how can you possibly comment on the skintone/ethnicity of Adriana's parents? Adriana has only ever met her father once, so you couldn't possibly know what he looks like. I have also never been able to come up with a picture of Adriana's mother. If you look at runway pictures of Adriana circa 1999, she has incredibly fair skin. Since she is from Brazil, she tans very easily. Her natural hair is very curly, but it is not like course African hair. She has a small percentage of her that is black, but definitely not as much as 1/3.
I am sure that the models that you; Erik, label as ‘Transexuals’ are laughing all the way to the bank.
I am sure all the non famous women who look like the models you; Erik, label as ‘Transexual’ are resting easy as their particular form of feminine beauty gains popular acceptance and notoriety. Women do love outlaws and they certain love themselves. So this group is probably quite happy.
MAYBE, you, yourself are a ‘Transexual’ or a ‘Gay’ or maybe you have been ‘JILTED in love’ by a woman who has the characteristics of the women you describe as ‘Transexuals’.
If you have been jilted…you have my sympathy. It is the most hurtful experience to have been jilted by someone who is confused along the gender lines described. It leaves an emotional wound deeper that most and without recourse. Since there is little of no information about how to recover from said wounds…and it creates the kind of bitterness that you appear to have. It is the type of bitterness that drives one relentlessly to seek relief and to engage in the type of emotional triads you are adept at.
I think you need to determine: Why you are hurt and how the wound is directing your political and public positioning.
Once you have done that you will become more pluralistic in your acceptances of other’s sexual genotypes and phenotypes.
You will become happy and non-judgmental of other peoples’ genders and sexual expression of those genders.
Finally, your own love and sexual relationships will become genuine and truly fulfilling and or you will find the match to your particular gender genotype/phenotype.
Mindy: Thank you for your comment, but a slight correction is needed. Fashion models are used in many ways that are not consistent with their use as “clothes hangars” -- e.g., excessive hip swaying, deliberate exposure of breasts/nipples, bizarre make-up, etc. Therefore, it is not correct to assume that the looks of fashion models are selected to avoid people being distracted from focusing on the clothing. Additionally, if you consider fashion photography (applicable to fashion magazines), regardless of what kind of model is used to model clothing, people have all the time they need to examine the clothing in detail, i.e., being distracted by the looks of the model is not an issue. Fashion designers select models they find physically appealing.
Dan: Manipulating WHR by altering the waist but not the hips is quite common in such studies. Similar studies using line drawings as above (for a Chinese male sample) and manipulated photos of a woman (for a European male sample) have shown men most often preferring a WHR of 0.6 when WHR was varied as above; these studies have been addressed in adjacent entries. You are correct that sub-Saharan African women have a more protrusive backside, and it has been shown that sub-Saharan African men prefer lower side-view WHRs -- i.e., a more protrusive backside for a given waist size -- than European men; I have addressed this elsewhere. However, this study is not about side-view WHR or even actual WHR, but about two-dimensional WHR in rear view (the results would extrapolate to two-dimensional WHR in front view).
Charly: Any reasonable person would see emotions/histrionics in your comments, not my reply to you. I have made the site purpose clear, i.e., the promotion of feminine beauty; read the FAQ for further details. I do not harbor anger/conflicted emotions related to the nuances of male-female physical differences, but simply need to address them in some detail to avoid accusations of making subjective arguments.
Congratulations on creating a website that offers a fresh alternative to the stick-thin, boyish looking standard the world of high-fashion modeling has tried to push on us. I am a straight young woman, and I completely agree that the glamour models used as examples are much more aesthetically pleasing to look at. I understand that high-fashion models are thin and have plain faces in order to distract us from their appearance and cause us to pay more attention to the clothes they are advertising, but this doesn't mean they are more attractive than other women. In fact, quite to the contrary, I find women who have healthy curves and delicate or "girly" faces to be extremely pleasing to the eye, and these androgynous supermodels to be someowhat odd to look at (and my opinion is credible because of its objectivity, since I'm straight and a female...arousal isn't a factor here).
I have a few bi-sexual male friends who may find the androgynous look of supermodels appealing, but most all heterosexuals I know would prefer the glamour models anyday. I don't find these nude models degrading, because they are being photographed to display the beauty of the female body. Artists and painters do the same thing without being reprimanded, and they always use(d) soft, feminine women; never sickly-thin or manly-looking girls.
Too many people out there complain about the current state of what's considered beautiful in a woman without knowing the why's or how to change things. Your website offers intellectual insights and is very well put together. Thanks for exposing the truth!!
It looks like they only varied the size of the waist, making the curve only appear smooth in the .8 drawing. My theory is that beyond just a preference for a certain range of WHR, men prefer curves that appear to flow naturally. Also, for what it is worth, in my personal experience west african women tend to have "gluteal areas" that project backwards in comparison to sidways projection more than women of other ethnicities. This could render 2-dimensional rear view drawings inaccurate for predicting actual WHR preference.
You have quite an emotional charge behind your statements. Erik you have taken most innocent comments and turned them into fuel for your fires of passion. Your logic and process of argumentation is sophistry at its worst. That is changing the themes to suit your viewpoint and state a thus erroneous thread of illogical arguments. Hence, thinking which a self fulfilling process is.
If you were an honest...you would reveal your true bias as why you are making these arguments and presenting your point of view, "web site".
I was wrong about assuming that you are interested in pursing a civilized and intelligent discussion!
The real purpose of your web site is that you are bored, like to fight with people, and have a deep seated anger and conflict regarding the physical differences between men and women.
Allwomenrock: This entry/site is not about picking on flaws in women or attempting to make women feel bad about their shortcomings. You should read the FAQ to understand the site purpose. There are many scenarios where feminine models are required but masculinized ones are used instead. Something needs to be done about this, which is what this site is doing.
Kristin: I did not say that Aishwarya Rai is European; what I said is that her face shape is in between Europeans and East Asians, as evident from the picture cited. There is no way 25-33% of people in India have greenish eyes; the great majority there has dark brown eyes. Historically, people from different continents, including Europeans, have migrated toward India and subsequently mixed to some extent. Therefore, part-European ancestry, mostly not of recent origin, is expected in many Indians, including Aishwarya Rai.
I have seen recent informal/candid pictures of Alessandra Ambrosio where her breasts appear large and not attributable to push-up bras. How did her breasts get notably large without the rest of her gaining weight?
Kristin: Kant’s point that you have emphasized doesn’t apply to the specific advertising scenario considered here, as I have already explained. Besides, there is a trickle-down effect with respect to the looks of fashion models, given their high status. In other words, when there is a prominent mainstream outlet for feminine beauty appreciation, you will see more feminine women among top-ranked actresses.
I've always thought Elle looked like a man. Thanks for confirming I'm not crazy.
i looked over the evidence in your analysis of facial femininity among various races, and while you commented on rubustness, you failed to see that ---some of the robust fsces were overly so for a woman, and men and women in these ethnicities tend to have a different shaped jawline and cheekbone. their noses differ a lot. deep set eyes area sign of masculinity in many places. african/ asian men tend to have wider, thinner mouths. the women tend to have fuller mouthes. does that make sense?the feminine bone structure in a good chunk of non white societies is the diamond shape. examples range from zhang ziyi, lucy liu, iman, and even alek wek. the jaw protrusion on some of the women was unfeminine. alek's is---the other black women would be less so. if you like, i can send you some photos of women to give you a better idea of some feminine non-western faces.
but as a side note--beyonce looked extremely feminine facially before the nose job. so did halle berry. note their eye shape (slightly larger, less round), small chin, and wide set cheekbones, shorter nose. while width connotes europeanness. length deals with masculinity.
She isn't pretty, it will be interestingto see what becomes of her.
eventually smart people learn to rely on themselves to parse out what is healthy and what isnt. if you continue to blame the fashion industry, you are the one furthering the idea that people are not responsible for their own health.
if you care about people's health, the ultimate lesson you should be teaching people is that they (and their families) are responsible for their own health. encouraging self-reliance is more healthy than encouraging the eradication of unhealthy imagery. if you discourage unhealthy imagery, you are teaching people that the problem is the imagery, when the actual problem is lack of critical thinking on the part of the people who are being influenced. a good critical thinker is immune to unhealthy imagery.
there is a market for man-faced models among gays and hetero women. so be it. beauty is subjective. it isnt your place to tell anyone what real beauty is.
I still don't find Giselle at all attractive, I can imagine her at times can be really bitchy, and she does look like a surfboard with a bra, arms and wig, in the pic above.
Erik, very good, I agree with your Jan 16 post.
I have tended to see that when a women is genuine in her attractiveness of character and personality, that it produces a physical attractiveness, the same goes for one who is "a real bitch" or one that has a grudge about the world or men, that it doesn't matter really what genetic beauty they happen to have received, they then also become less physically attractive. One can even see in the eyes and facial expressions if there is a stable, loving, outgoing, sexy, women within, one that doesn't have a low self esteem and a negative outlook on life.
Even if they are great at hiding their true self, it only takes time and at some stage it is exposed. I believe true beauty is a women who is physically attractive and at the same time humble about it, and has an attractive personage. Mix unattractive physical features with a big chip on the shoulder and you have a true Ugly woman.
its ridiculous you think aish. rai is european at all. first off roughhly 1/4 -1/3 of all indians have greenish eyes. secondly she never validates ANY claims she is mixed. her skin is brown , and her hair is NOTHING like a european. its plentiful, heavy, and waved. her build is typical of an indian. thy tend to have flatter bums and narrow arms/legs due to less muscle/bone density. she is somoewhat bradbacked---but sh is not mixed. india is a massive place, fullof genetic diversity. all europeans don't look the same. is that because the english or swedes are mixed? in africa there are many shades of colorinng in the sme country. thi is true in japan, china, korea. they rane from ice pale to honeyed browns.
also--don't you think they just irbrush in alessandra's breasts? cuz in non edited pictures she looks flatter.same with adriana.
why are you people arguing who is more feminine/masculine and what makes a woman more masculine/feminine? it's personal choice. every single woman in the world has physical flaws- and what might be a flaw to one person might be desirable to another. get over yourselves, and instead of looking to make this or that women feel terrible about their bodies and what they look like, why don't you men attempt instead to make all women know they are as beautiful as they are. that's all this woman has to say :)
i think kant touched on an important point. in hollywood, producers often find actresses who are pretty in non-threatening way--like cameron diaz, jennifer aniston, and nicole kidman, to attract female audiences.all of these women also show signs of masculinity. they inspire audience comradery vs. jealousy.
Ghengis Kant: If you are a woman that prefers masculinized female faces, then your preferences are at odds with the majority of women. Most men and most women judge female attractiveness similarly; see point #5 under objective correlates of beauty here. Therefore, the use of masculinized lingerie models cannot be justified by pointing out that they are selling to women, not men.
The great majority of the nude models shown here are not porn stars, and in proper dress there would be nothing dirty, vulgar or classless about their looks. Whereas the use of feminine and attractive women for lingerie modeling may make you jealous or catty, a basic principle of advertising is, “buy our product, look like this or obtain this characteristic,” which in the case of lingerie modeling would be “buy our lingerie, look like this sexy woman, arouse your male partner,” i.e., it naturally follows that the selection of lingerie models be based upon the preferences of heterosexual men, which also happen to be what most women find appealing in the looks of women. In other words, the use of feminine and attractive lingerie models will surely not diminish sales of lingerie.
I have not said that Adriana Lima is the most feminine of Victoria’s Secret Models or even that she is feminine; she just happens to be more feminine-looking than the VS models addressed in parts 1-5 of this series.
Men in general tend to have low partner standards when it comes to casual sex, but not low aesthetic standards, i.e., desired looks in a partner. With posing tricks and fake appeal (e.g., breast implants), a number of VS models do end up on a list of appealing women as far as a number of heterosexual men are concerned, but then there is no high-profile mainstream outlet for feminine beauty appreciation. When the latter is established, we shall see how many masculinized VS models/equivalent end up in lifetime-exclusive heterosexual men’s list of top-desirable women.
I do find this site very interesting and informative. As a straight woman, I agree completely with your analysis of what makes an attractive female body, but I cannot seem to find any of the faces you find attractive to be attractive. I think this is perhaps because I am attracted to masculine faces and therefore prefer women with masculine faces as well.
Most people say that Adriana lima is the most attractive out of the VS models. Interestingly, you point out that she is also the most feminine of them. I always think that Adriana is the least attractive of the VS models. I like Heidi and Alessandra. I also think Cindy Crawford has the prettiest face I have ever seen. I think that the reason I do not like Adriana may be because her face is too feminine or at least too babyfaced.
The thing is, VS models exist to sell lingerie to women, not men. It is very possible that fashion models and lingerie models are more successful in appealing to women when they look like men. It isnt just the gay men in the fashion industry. It is the consumer as well. As a straight woman, I can see that the porn stars you post are really sexy to hetero men, but none of them make me want to buy clothing. They make me jealous and catty. I see women like that in lingerie and I think "she is such a whore. I dont want anything to do with her". But I see women like Adriana or Alessandra and I like their sculpted lean physiques. No fat or shapliness to distract from the lingerie. They look like marble hangers. I do not care about their waist hip ratios. They can wear next to nothing without looking dirty or vulgar because their physiques are asexual and that makes me want to buy what is on them. Lingerie with class.
I think these women end up as sex symbols to men because most men are attracted to most women. They will jack off to anything with tits and a vagina. They see women in glossy photos in underwear and think hot before remembering that a good looking amateur porn star would actually be better to bang. Men have low standards when it comes to female beauty, but even then women like Adriana lima sell make up and lingerie- they sell to women. Models like Vida Guerra and Kelly Brook are the ones who appeal mainly to men.
I thought visiting this site again from time to time and viewing people's comments may be more interesting than the site itself. Sadly, Mr. Holland, you dismiss everything people say to you as pure nonsense. Just out of curioustiy Mr. Holland, if you do not mind me asking so, what line of work or in what subjects have you specialized in with which you have now deemed yourself as someone with expertise on the subject of "feminine beauty," seriously is there some wierd course being taught out there somewhere that the vast majority of us are missing out on. Please let us know.
You know, Mr. Holland, you continuously say that much of physical beauty is objective, irrespective of the fact that physical beauty is measured differently in different societies and I think one of the commentors somewhere on one your links said that a set of features may invoke a certain feeling or emotion that someone with another set of features such as the ones that you describe as feminine, may not invoke those emotions in the person who sees it and may thereby be more attracted to the former set of features. (However, I do recognize that the definition of physical attraction mentioned here is simply none other than sexual attraction to the most "seemingly fertile" looking woman between the ages of 16 to 25 for the purpose of enhanced sexual desire, no emotions involved.) For example, if the biological inclinations of men and women are the same on a universal level, then why is that at some point in Ancient Japan, a woman's beauty was measured by how long her hair was and how white her face was to the extent that Japanese noblewomen painted their faces white and painted their teeth black and grew their hair long down to their knees or feet to appear beautiful for the suitors who were selecting them as potential partners in life. Of course, this was Ancient Japan's subjective view on beauty and it was very important to them. The emphasis you place on the importance of bone structure and waist to hip ratio would not have been relevant to these people. This is why I had encouraged you to perhaps travel to different parts of the world and see if your view regarding men and women's biological inclinations really bear that much weight, which sadly you did not get and did not pay much attention to.
I want to be clear with you Mr. Holland about what beauty pageants are and why certain women are recognized in them versus others. I will agree that most of the women who are awarded the title of "Miss America" or "Miss Universe" or "Miss India", just as a few examples, are not always the most beautiful looking women in the world, even though they are relatively stunning. However, you should understand and accept that when a young woman is awarded the title of for example "Miss Puerto Rico" or "Miss Universe" it is not simply on account of the way she looks physically and the awarding of such a title is not done for the purpose of promoting this woman's look, but rather the entirety of who she is, her contributions to society, her hard work, education, and of course her dedication to being physically fit and well dressed all at a young age; these are what are being celebrated and recognized in beauty pageants versus simply the waist-hip ratio of Natalia Cruze by Penthouse Magazine and yourself. Many feminists may be against pageants for whatever reason, but I suppose they have their perspective. However, I do not consider them as degrading to women as many other current trends in the media. (Just a look at Miss Canada Nazanin Afshin Jam is enough reason for me to say that the celebrity status that contestants enjoy in beauty pageants can be geared towards a better cause.) I will not assume a label for myself here even though you may take the liberty of labeling me as something that I do not identify with as you labled the commentor designated as Heather a feminist based on a few set of comments she made about your views regarding feminine beauty as being as narrow and strict as that of the Nazi's views regarding Aryan beauty in addition to which he/she simply had some presumptions regarding your personal life. Lets just make it clear that the subject of beauty pageants is irrelevant to what you are trying to promote because the fact of the matter is that beauty pageant contestant are not selling their looks and implying to other women that they should look like them physically or to men that they are the most beautiful looking women in the world. It would be better for you to refrain from commenting on beauty pageant contestants, at least as far as I am concerned, anyone else who is reading this site and the comments made can choose to agree or to disagree with me.
Now, on to another subject, because it really interests me to know why someone would dedicate so much material and time to a website that promotes a cause known as "feminine beauty" while most people create these extensively detailed sites for political and religious causes. I am beginning to wonder if it is really just "feminine beauty" that you are trying to promote because sometimes I see you make several political statements about for example, gays and feminists and such in promoting what is on the surface such a trivial cause, "feminine beauty." However, I just wonder, I will not judge.
Continuing on with that, lets just say that all the peoples of the world accept that the criteria for feminine beauty are exactlty what you say they are on this website. Now, if the rest of the world agree with you, what is to be gained from our acceptance of your views regarding feminine beauty and that gays are to blame for the promotion of masculinity among women and for anorexia and for the lack of attention given to more attractive and feminine women from the fashion industry and show business. What is to be gained if feminine women became the emblems of beauty? Will world hunger end? Will wars no longer be fought? Will people be happier if men had the luxury of more feminine looking women or at least women who aspired towards looking more feminine? Anyways, what difference does it make what the "it" look is because as is quite evident scientifically, people cannot change their skeletal proportions unless they had a rib removed to make the waist line more narrow. The most a masculine looking women such as those high fashion models to make themselves more feminine is to get breast and butt implants, they cannot reduce their height or become less broadshouldered or to reduce the length of their arms. By the same token, a women whose skeletal proportions are feminine cannot do anything to become more masculine except at most getting a masculine looking haircut and getting her breasts and buttocks liposuctioned. So what difference does it make here what is considered as beautiful, in the end people are going to look pretty much the way they look.
From the looks of it, if the status quo is maintained and masculine women dominate the fashion industry, a lot of menfolk would be quite better off because there will be many more feminine looking women available to them in the real world among average people who will not get to enjoy celebrity status and will not realize that they are really more beautiful than all of the famous masculine looking women and will therefore, not be able to snob out most men on account of their lack of celebrity status, large bank accounts, excellent credit, good looks, fancy cars, etc etc. Were more feminine women to gain attention in the fashion world as emblems of beauty, their popularity would go up and they will thereby, be making the same amounts of money that masculine women in the fashion industry are making now and will, much like those masculine looking models are today, be snobbing out men in large numbers because of their lack of looks, money, fame, name recognition, etc etc. Sad to say, but masculine looking models such as Cindy Crawford and Kate Moss, as ugly as you say they are, Mr. Holland, only associate with the likes of Richard Gere and Johnny Depp. The promotion of feminine beauty in the fashion world would jeopardize a lot of men's opportunities to be with feminine and beautiful women. Sadly, many men (not all) do thrive on the fact that there are many beautiful women out there who do not realize that they are beautiful and who do not get to enjoy being recognized for being beautiful by the elites. At this point in time, feminine looking women are more attainable for men than they would be if they were recognized and appreciated more by the elites in society.
Lastly, although you claim that your objective is purely objective for making this site, I would like to know, if you kindly choose to answer me, what is to be gained on your end, Mr. Holland, if feminine beauty becomes the ideal towards which women aspired, which you claim will not be the case for a long time due to gay male domination of the fashion industry. I do believe that behind the most objective purpose there is an even greater subjective purpose, and I am interested in knowning what your subjective purpose is in devoting as much time and energy towards the promotion of feminine beauty.
no offense but she's not very pretty.
send me Guinevere's sex pictures
maybe men are responding often to th reality that the average women is not smal waisted.. i have seen numerous article s on the subject. From Ezilon.com
Fashion Articles and News
The shape of things to wear: scientists identify how women's figures have changed in 50 years
By Helen McCormack
Nov 21, 2005, 09:55
(Independent News & Media) The fashion industry is ignoring the changing shapes of women's bodies, a study claims today. Designers and manufacturers still insist on making clothes that fit the traditional hourglass figure, when women's shapes are more likely to be top-heavy, rectangular or pear-shaped.
The research found that although only 8 per cent of women now had the sort of hourglass figure flaunted by curvaceous 1950s film stars such as Sophia Loren, designers and manufacturers continued to make clothes to fit a slim-line version of that figure.
Of the 6,000 women's body shapes analysed, 46 per cent were described as rectangular, with the waist less than nine inches smaller than the hips or bust. Just over 20 per cent of women were bottom-heavy "spoons", or pear shapes, with hips two inches larger than busts or more, while almost 14 per cent were "inverted triangles" - women whose busts were three or more inches bigger than their hips.
The study, by the North Carolina State University, was based on data from a two-year study of American body types, SizeUSA. It was commissioned by Alva Products, a manufacturer of designers' mannequins determined to force the industry to design clothes for the majority rather than the minority of women.
Janice Wang, the firm's chief executive, said: "The majority of retailers are designing clothes for people with an hourglass figure." She added that industry standards for size measurements were out of date. "That needs to change if the industry wants to serve the markets they currently aren't reaching."
The fashion house Liz Claiborne has taken note. David Baron, a vice-president, said it would introduce "gradual changes" to eventually provide "better-fitting" clothes.
Although the study concentrated on American women, its implications were relevant for British women, Ms Wang said, because eating habits and lifestyle meant the shapes of women in the two societies "mirrored each other".
The British fashion designer Katherine Hamnett agreed that women who did not conform to a svelte size 10 continued to be neglected by fashion.
"The fashion industry ignores the true size of women at its peril," she said. "As to why they do, stupidity is the only reason I can think of. It is the result of adhering unthinkingly to a tradition."
And the idea that larger women are not the ideal to design for is a myth. "I have measured film stars who have 42 inch hips, and are still getting a lot of work. It is not how fat you are, it is whether you are fit that matters. People can be beautiful when they are any shape or size."
Breast enhancements and other types of cosmetic surgery could influence the findings, Ms Hamnett said. With breast enhancements likely to create the "inverted triangle" body type, the popularity of cosmetic surgery means there are new shapes that are less likely to be affected by diet or exercise.
The findings concur with a similar study of British women, SizeUK, published late last year, which found that the average woman's waistline had expanded by six inches since the 1950s.
Carried out by University College London and the London College of Fashion, the study found that women and men had shot up and out, with today's woman taller, with a bigger bust and hips than her 1950s counterpart.
Hourglass
Exemplified by the actress Sophia Loren, only 8 per cent of women tend to have equal hip and bust measurements with a narrow waist
The spoon
Just over 20 per cent of women, like Jennifer Lopez, have a pear-shaped figure, where the hip measurement is larger than the bust
Rectangular
Forty-six per cent of women fit this shape, where the waist is less than nine inches smaller than the hips or bust. Mel C is a good example
Inverted triangle
Another modern outline, where the bust is bigger than the hips. The swimmer Sharron Davies is one of the 14 per cent who fits this shape
http://www.ezilon.com/information/article_13954.shtml
Kristin - how can you possibly comment on the skintone/ethnicity of Adriana's parents? Adriana has only ever met her father once, so you couldn't possibly know what he looks like. I have also never been able to come up with a picture of Adriana's mother. If you look at runway pictures of Adriana circa 1999, she has incredibly fair skin. Since she is from Brazil, she tans very easily. Her natural hair is very curly, but it is not like course African hair. She has a small percentage of her that is black, but definitely not as much as 1/3.
I am sure that the models that you; Erik, label as ‘Transexuals’ are laughing all the way to the bank.
I am sure all the non famous women who look like the models you; Erik, label as ‘Transexual’ are resting easy as their particular form of feminine beauty gains popular acceptance and notoriety. Women do love outlaws and they certain love themselves. So this group is probably quite happy.
MAYBE, you, yourself are a ‘Transexual’ or a ‘Gay’ or maybe you have been ‘JILTED in love’ by a woman who has the characteristics of the women you describe as ‘Transexuals’.
If you have been jilted…you have my sympathy. It is the most hurtful experience to have been jilted by someone who is confused along the gender lines described. It leaves an emotional wound deeper that most and without recourse. Since there is little of no information about how to recover from said wounds…and it creates the kind of bitterness that you appear to have. It is the type of bitterness that drives one relentlessly to seek relief and to engage in the type of emotional triads you are adept at.
I think you need to determine: Why you are hurt and how the wound is directing your political and public positioning.
Once you have done that you will become more pluralistic in your acceptances of other’s sexual genotypes and phenotypes.
You will become happy and non-judgmental of other peoples’ genders and sexual expression of those genders.
Finally, your own love and sexual relationships will become genuine and truly fulfilling and or you will find the match to your particular gender genotype/phenotype.
Best of Luck to you Erik.
Mindy: Thank you for your comment, but a slight correction is needed. Fashion models are used in many ways that are not consistent with their use as “clothes hangars” -- e.g., excessive hip swaying, deliberate exposure of breasts/nipples, bizarre make-up, etc. Therefore, it is not correct to assume that the looks of fashion models are selected to avoid people being distracted from focusing on the clothing. Additionally, if you consider fashion photography (applicable to fashion magazines), regardless of what kind of model is used to model clothing, people have all the time they need to examine the clothing in detail, i.e., being distracted by the looks of the model is not an issue. Fashion designers select models they find physically appealing.
CT: I finally addressed the Dove campaign for real beauty in the context of body-image/esteem problems among women.
Dan: Manipulating WHR by altering the waist but not the hips is quite common in such studies. Similar studies using line drawings as above (for a Chinese male sample) and manipulated photos of a woman (for a European male sample) have shown men most often preferring a WHR of 0.6 when WHR was varied as above; these studies have been addressed in adjacent entries. You are correct that sub-Saharan African women have a more protrusive backside, and it has been shown that sub-Saharan African men prefer lower side-view WHRs -- i.e., a more protrusive backside for a given waist size -- than European men; I have addressed this elsewhere. However, this study is not about side-view WHR or even actual WHR, but about two-dimensional WHR in rear view (the results would extrapolate to two-dimensional WHR in front view).
Charly: Any reasonable person would see emotions/histrionics in your comments, not my reply to you. I have made the site purpose clear, i.e., the promotion of feminine beauty; read the FAQ for further details. I do not harbor anger/conflicted emotions related to the nuances of male-female physical differences, but simply need to address them in some detail to avoid accusations of making subjective arguments.
Congratulations on creating a website that offers a fresh alternative to the stick-thin, boyish looking standard the world of high-fashion modeling has tried to push on us. I am a straight young woman, and I completely agree that the glamour models used as examples are much more aesthetically pleasing to look at. I understand that high-fashion models are thin and have plain faces in order to distract us from their appearance and cause us to pay more attention to the clothes they are advertising, but this doesn't mean they are more attractive than other women. In fact, quite to the contrary, I find women who have healthy curves and delicate or "girly" faces to be extremely pleasing to the eye, and these androgynous supermodels to be someowhat odd to look at (and my opinion is credible because of its objectivity, since I'm straight and a female...arousal isn't a factor here).
I have a few bi-sexual male friends who may find the androgynous look of supermodels appealing, but most all heterosexuals I know would prefer the glamour models anyday. I don't find these nude models degrading, because they are being photographed to display the beauty of the female body. Artists and painters do the same thing without being reprimanded, and they always use(d) soft, feminine women; never sickly-thin or manly-looking girls.
Too many people out there complain about the current state of what's considered beautiful in a woman without knowing the why's or how to change things. Your website offers intellectual insights and is very well put together. Thanks for exposing the truth!!
It looks like they only varied the size of the waist, making the curve only appear smooth in the .8 drawing. My theory is that beyond just a preference for a certain range of WHR, men prefer curves that appear to flow naturally. Also, for what it is worth, in my personal experience west african women tend to have "gluteal areas" that project backwards in comparison to sidways projection more than women of other ethnicities. This could render 2-dimensional rear view drawings inaccurate for predicting actual WHR preference.
Erik:
You have quite an emotional charge behind your statements. Erik you have taken most innocent comments and turned them into fuel for your fires of passion. Your logic and process of argumentation is sophistry at its worst. That is changing the themes to suit your viewpoint and state a thus erroneous thread of illogical arguments. Hence, thinking which a self fulfilling process is.
If you were an honest...you would reveal your true bias as why you are making these arguments and presenting your point of view, "web site".
I was wrong about assuming that you are interested in pursing a civilized and intelligent discussion!
The real purpose of your web site is that you are bored, like to fight with people, and have a deep seated anger and conflict regarding the physical differences between men and women.
Have a nice time with your childish rampage.
Pages