Concerned: What is racist about this site and what is not supported? Read the introductory page and the FAQ page to understand what I am trying to do with this site. I am well aware of the fact that people are born different, but this site is not about how women should look; it is about aesthetics, and addresses models and beauty pageant contestants.
Most of your points seem to have racist leanings, and little support in general. What are you trying to do with this site? Not everyone is born with full breasts and wide hips. I have a "prominent nose" and chin, am 5'10" with small breasts and backside, and I'm offended by your site. There are as many women with your "masculine" characertistics as women with "feminine" ones. We don't need another voice pulling our perceived body image in yet another direction.
Virgil: This site is not about my personal definition of femininity and attractiveness or else why would you or anyone else care about its contents? Masculinity-femininity can be assessed objectively and applies across populations, and there is a lot that is objective about beauty, too, but whereas some correlates of beauty apply across populations, exacting aesthetic criteria are population specific. Therefore, the experiments will have to control for ethnicity.
Regarding airbrushing, this applies to skin blemishes, and is of little relevance to this site because the focus here is on shape as it results from skeletal structure, muscle structure and fat distribution. It is true that photos of glamour models also employ posing tricks, but the sources of these photographs typically provide a sufficiently large number of pictures from multiple angles, which allow an assessment of the body in three dimensions, and if the model is really good looking, then no posing tricks are necessary, and this is usually obvious. Similarly, one can often find enough photos of prominent fashion supermodels to reasonably assess their shape in three dimensions or resort to screen captures of fashion shows if necessary.
To answer your last question, when you look at professional cheerleaders or women in beer ads, some of them are feminine and attractive whereas others are not. Given the association of high fashion with high class, the looks of fashion models trickle down to other models in the mainstream media, but if I can help it, this will change. I am not aware of mainstream modeling in Russia, but chances are that the chief exporter of Western culture around the World, i.e., America, influences mainstream modeling there.
Hmm... you you'd have an experiment done, the likes of which would involve your personal definition of feminine and attractive women and would probably be unprecedented. If you or anyone else could come up with a purely scientific definition of "feminine attractiveness" that applies across races -- because some "lifetime heterosexual" men don't find white women in general attractive -- it may be possible. It could also possibly procure credits for me... but it would need funding. And we'd have to add pictures of the "attractive" women without their photographic bells and whistles as well. While the girls in both your "attractive" pictures and 50's cheese cake pinups definitely have more to work with -- for the latter, a lot more -- there's "crafty posing" and lighting employed there, as well. In modern shots of any model, you also have to worry about airbrushing and digital retouching. I've seen it done on my own studio photos before, so I'd assume that it's old hat when the image is counted on to generate profit. A blemish here, some celullite there, a deep line or furrow, peach fuzz on the top lip, a prominent old scar, stretchmarks -- all of these things can be concealed through technology, and they would make a big difference in the evaluation of any woman. Clear, full body photos of many supermodels that are untouched may not even exist.
What I will ask is, is there any industry that you are willing to concede that shapes -- no pun intended -- women's images that are dominated by heterosexual men? I've mentioned both softcore and hardcore pornography, "lad mags"... what about professional sports cheerleaders, or women in beer ads? What about in other countries, where homosexuals are almost universally shunned, like Russia (since you insist on a European origin)?
Virgil: I will be convinced that most heterosexual men are not deluded about the attractiveness of fashion supermodels if you proceed as follows. Find a few hundred lifetime-exclusive heterosexual men, picked at random, and ask them to name the best looking women they are aware of. Then tell me about all the fashion supermodels named and let me provide pictures of these women that are clear enough to show their masculinity-femininity and allow an evaluation of their attractiveness. I will also provide similar pictures of some feminine and attractive women. Then you have the men evaluate all the pictures and ask them how attractive do they still find the fashion supermodels.
After this, you find another randomly selected group of lifetime-exclusive heterosexual men and randomly assign them to two groups. Ask the first group to rate on a 1-100 scale the pictures of some prominent fashion supermodels [that I will provide]. Then have the first group rate pictures of feminine and attractive women that I will provide on a 1-100 scale. Reverse the presentation of these two groups of pictures for the second group.
If these experiments show that fashion supermodels are not seen as less attractive after exposure to feminine plus attractive women and remain well-appreciated by most of the lifetime-exclusive heterosexual men, then I will believe that most heterosexual men find fashion supermodels genuinely attractive.
Virgil: The fact that some people in the past believed the earth to be flat did not mean that the earth was indeed flat. Similarly, heterosexual men who are not aware of tricks of make-up and posing, and also not aware of the existence of many women that are much more feminine and attractive compared to fashion supermodels may find these supermodels attractive, but just as most people have been successfully educated about the true shape of the earth, this site can make most heterosexual men correctly rate the attractiveness of fashion supermodels.
Regarding the looks of pornstars, few women are willing to pose nude and even fewer still are willing to participate in hardcore pornography. Thus, a pornographer is limited by the number of women available and cannot be very selective. Additionally, whereas women who participate in hardcore pornography are typically non-prostitutes, they are similar to prostitutes with respect to inclination toward promiscuity.
Women inclined toward promiscuity tend to be more masculinized than less promiscuous women, which makes sense since testosterone is a well-documented correlate of libido. I have cited some research in this regard on the skinny fashion models page, and can extensively cite literature on this issue if you dispute this point. Therefore, pornstars would actually tend to be disproportionately masculine, and the rough rule is that women who are into the harder forms of hardcore pornography -- such as sadomasochism and some other disgusting sexual practices -- are, on average, more masculine than the pornstars or nude models who refuse to participate in the more extreme forms of pornography.
Therefore, heterosexual men interested in hardcore pornography get to see some of the more masculine women performers and pick the best looking ones as their favorites, but the best looking ones among these women are often not among the more feminine women in the general population because of the aforementioned reason.
There is also the case that an inclination toward unusual sexual interests is more pronounced among nonheterosexual men. Based on random, population-based samples, 15-20% of men in Western societies are not lifetime-exclusive heterosexuals, and men who are not lifetime-exclusive heterosexuals but at the same time not exclusively gay will disproportionately genuinely prefer somewhat masculinized looks in women as well as be disproportionately interested in pornography.
In a nutshell, when it comes to pornstars, the number and type of women available as performers limit a pornographer, feminine types are especially underrepresented due to unwillingness on the part of these women, and some portion of the variance in the high status of some masculinized female pornstars does not reflect the preferences of lifetime-exclusive heterosexual men. On the other hand, fashion modeling is much more respectable, which means that a large number of women will be willing to be fashion models, which in turn allows the possibility of selecting mostly feminine and extremely attractive women, but no such thing is seen in the fashion world, thanks to the gay domination of the fashion business.
If you concede that "many men" find them attractive, doesn't that make them attractive? And what about the prevalence of ultra-thin women in the porn industry? While their biggest star, Jenna Jameson, probably has what you'd call "feminine" facial features, her reputed measurements are 34D-23-34 at 5'6'. She has large breast implants and slender hips, and so do most other popular women within the porn industry. Given that the number of homosexual men working in heterosexual porn is probably statistically negligible, how do you explain the fact that the faces and figures of most popular American porn stars look similar to those of fashion models with the exception of huge, unnatural-looking fake breasts tacked on, and a diverse array of heights, skewed towards the more petite?
Virgil: When it comes to naked supermodels, you have to see the issue in context. For instance, consider the case of Anna Kournikova. She is popular among men, not because of her Tennis skills, but because of her looks. Although Anna Kournikova is far from a feminine-looking woman in comparison to the feminine women that I have shown, she is more feminine and better looking than most other prominent female Tennis players. Therefore, among the more famous women out there, you would expect her to be among those who are more popular among men. If Anna Kournikova were a nobody and tried her luck with modeling, she would not get very far in terms of endearing herself to a large number of men. Similarly, fashion supermodels tend to be somewhat more feminine and often better looking than most high-fashion models, and it should not be surprising that their make-up enhanced and carefully posed physiques with [often] breast implants are comparatively seen as eye candy by several heterosexual men, especially those not well-versed with tricks of make-up and posing. Therefore, the possibility of seeing such supermodels naked will surely excite a number of heterosexual men and will translate to good sales. Less attractive nude celebrities will also sell well, but if the celebrities are widely seen as unattractive as in some of the examples you mention, then their nude photographs will not be appreciated, though plenty will still look at them. Playboy magazine has tried to maintained some class by not showing the extent of nudity as in Penthouse, Hustler and equivalent, and for it to maintain a classy image, it is unlikely that it would want to feature nude celebrities widely considered as unattractive, though the tabloids will show semi-nude celebrities, regardless of attractiveness, and this is one reason why tabloids sell.
In other words, I am aware that many heterosexual men find supermodels such as Heidi Klum attractive, but given the dearth of feminine and attractive women among prominent models and the relative lack of education concerning tricky posing and make-up on the part of many men, what do you expect? If I can help it, the likes of Heidi Klum will be seen as far less attractive than they are presently by heterosexual men; this will happen once people are better educated about feminine beauty. I will add that Heidi Klum is better looking than many women out there, but in the absence of gay [fashion designer] influence, there is no way she would have acquired her high status and would be almost a nobody in the world of modeling.
You are correct that only a small percentage (< 5%) of women suffer from either anorexia or bulimia, but sub-clinical eating disorder symptomatology characterizes a greater proportion of women, and this is a major reason why anorexia and bulimia get prominent attention. About 2-5% of people with anorexia commit suicide, and I do not know whether this qualifies as a high suicide rate among the mentally ill.
But naked celebrities that men find unattractive wouldn't... for instance, I heard threats to cancel subscriptions when the idea of putting Rosanne Barr in Playboy was bandied about -- probably as a rumor. I really don't think that Playboy would seriously consider having Whoopi Goldberg or Calista Flockhart model for them, celebrity status, or no. If the money that they pay the models wasn't going to be reflected in sales, they wouldn't pay them that much. Even as someone with a mother who did go on starvation diets, used caffeine pills and amphetamines, considered wiring her mouth shut and eventually turned to bulimia in a desperate pursuit to take 20 pounds off of her 145 lb., 5'5 frame, I know that she's an anomaly, and the amount of mentally and physically healthy women who do so are small. The real reasons that eating disorders have gained such prominence in the media are that 1. it's a sexy issue and 2. anorexics have a very high tendency to commit suicide (making the death rate from it higher than any mental condition, barring depression), not in that order. I'm a Psych major, and I was shocked by how small the percentages really were in comparison to the attention that it gets in the public eye. I'll ask you an additional question: what evidence would possibly convince you that heterosexual men are attracted to supermodels, if their obvious willingness to look at them naked in magazines that cater to them won't?
Virgil: For a woman to look more masculinized than another woman, she doesn’t have to look like a man; learn about the subtlety of masculinity-femininity by going through the data mentioned on the feminine vs. masculine page.
As to why Playboy would pay big bucks to the likes of Elle MacPherson and Rachel Hunter compared to more feminine non-celebrity nude models, naked celebrities sell and celebrities will not pose nude unless they are paid well. Naked celebrities primarily sell because of their celebrity status; their looks are secondary.
She's not very curvaceous, I'll give you that, and her breasts don't suit her frame... as a result they look obviously fake and porn star-esque. However, an hourglass figure isn't the only way a female can have a feminine body. A pear-shaped physique is also uniquely feminine, and so is a petite frame like Miss Toth has, sans implants. Just how many men do you see that look like that? What about when actual supermodels like Stephanie Seymour, Cindy Crawford, Naomi Campbell, Elle MacPherson, and Rachel Hunter have posed for Playboy? Did sales drop as a result, and were Playboy's offices flooded with calls, letters, and e-mails from indignant "lifetime heterosexual" males? If so, why does Playboy continue to feature actual fashion models and pay them much more than the average centerfold?
Virgil: The central tendency of Playboy playmates has shifted toward the masculine over the years, but there is still variation in looks, and some of them are feminine. I will provide an example of how some level of increased masculinization doesn’t notably hurt Playboy’s appeal to heterosexual men, especially given the ignorance of several of them that I have mentioned previously, but first I will answer your other questions.
Evidence regarding the underreported weight of Playboy centerfolds is mentioned on the eating disorders page. I do not recall where I read about the female readership of Playboy.
Yes, excessive exercise and unnecessary dieting on the part of some women with a medically normal body fat level are problem issues of significance; see the eating disorders page.
There is a lot that is objective about beauty. In an entry titled the importance of femininity to beauty in women, you will find a table showing criteria such as averageness, low overall fluctuating asymmetry and femininity as well-documented correlates of beauty, all of which can be objectively assessed. There is a lot more that I haven’t yet gotten around to addressing. You should go through the entire site before asking questions.
Gracilization is merely one component of beauty. More gracile does not necessarily mean more attractive.
A combination of femininity and youth (late teens to early-mid twenties) make some of the women appear to have what you call childlike facial features, but most of them look like they are in their twenties, and I have not claimed that they have ideal looks; the women shown will be seen as more feminine and attractive on average than fashion models by the public at-large. The aforementioned link cites evidence that femininity is the most powerful correlate of beauty in women in the absence of physical defects, which supports my selection of attractive women.
Now, to answer your first question. Consider the following four pictures of Tiffany Toth, who is the March 2006 Playboy Cybergirl of the month. Does she look like a feminine woman except for breast implants? Does she have a feminine waist and hip region?
Now look at the following three pictures and see how feminine her rib cage, waist, hips and face are.
Tiffany Toth is clearly not among the more feminine women out there, but crafty posing, make-up and breast implants can make her look more feminine than she is. In any case, she is better looking than many women, and if Playboy shifts toward more masculinized women such as Tiffany Toth compared to the women that it featured in its early years, its sales are not going to drop notably for this reason.
Playboy's becoming a real part of the fashion industry by selling bunny t-shirts... additionally, they're willing to sacrifice the reputation that sells the shirts in the first place by hiring less sexually desirable centerfolds? How do you know that the weights of Playboy centerfolds are underreported? And "many" female readers is probably a stretch... are there any surveys to back that up? Given the obesity levels of the average American woman, do you really believe that excessive exercise and unnecessary dieting among healthy women are prominent issues? And is beauty indeed objective? The very criteria that you use to define beauty seems to be subjective, placing Northern European -- and by approximation European in general -- women at the top of the facial beauty category by virtue of the higher prevalence of gracialization among them. Many of the women in your "attractive women" category look not just youthful, but childlike (in the facial area), and I'm not sure if that's exactly what most men and women see as ideal. Perhaps you could find a survey of sorts that proves that the majority that you claim finds these women -- or women that look similar to them -- attractive and ideal.
Virgil: The reason that people in general need to have their aesthetic sense honed is that this will help promote feminine beauty among female models in general and beauty pageant contestants. People with a more sophisticated aesthetic sense will be less open to being swayed by what they see promoted as good looks unless they recognize -- using objective criteria -- that the looks are indeed good; they will also mostly demand female models who are good examples of feminine beauty.
There is not a whole lot that can be done about the looks of high-fashion models, but high-fashion models can be made to occupy their own niche, i.e., fashion shows and fashion magazines, and have less of an impact on society.
Yes, gracilization is another word for fineness.
Regarding Playboy Inc., it had a headstart in terms of being a pioneering publication, but it would have been poor marketing on its part if it had stuck to publishing a men’s magazine only. Thus, Playboy Inc. has diversified itself, and using its models to sell clothing or other fashion merchandize makes good business sense. In this regard, Playboy magazine would need to be within or close to the norms in the fashion world. Additionally, among female models, high-fashion models have the highest status. Thus, Playboy models have veered closer to the physical norm among high-fashion models over the years, and Playboy typically underreports the weight of its bunnies/centerfolds to be more compliant with the norm among fashion models. Whereas Playboy models have gravitated closer to the looks of fashion models, there is obviously a limit to this process, and it is highly unlikely that Playboy bunnies will eventually look like high-fashion models. Given Playboy's attempts to artificially feminize the looks of its models, who remain more feminine-looking than high-fashion models, and insufficient education on the part of many men, Playboy magazine is not going to see sales drop notably. Besides, Playboy magazine features content that caters to a diverse audience, and it has many women readers, too, a number of whom go through the magazine to understand what interests men.
But if they are never going to meet these women in real life, why do men need to be educated on real vs. fake glamour? Why does this ability need to be honed? Is gracialization the quantity/proliferation of "fine" features? And if you concede that Playboy does cater pretty much to exclusively heterosexual men, why is this masculinization present in their featured models, why haven't sales dropped significantly as a result, and why would they allegedly be influenced by the fashion industry?
Virgil: Several women that I have featured in the attractive women section are well-known in the world of nude modeling, though their popularity does not approach that of many Playboy models, which is a big publication. The internet popularity of some of the women that I have featured is also limited by their refusal to get involved in hardcore pornography or their having posed nude only briefly. As I have mentioned previously, the high prevalence of [actual] masculinization in Playboy models is related to its intertwining with the fashion business, but Playboy does attempt to make its models look as [artificially] feminine as possible given that it most extensively caters to heterosexual men. Fake glamour and breast implants are not unusual among Playboy models, and these women often look good to many men. For instance, consider the case of Pamela Anderson who is far more popular than any of the women featured in the attractive women section of this site; she rose to fame after posing nude in Playboy. Read what I have to say about her looks and compare her looks to that of the attractive women that I have featured. The first photograph of Pamela Anderson on the page linked to above makes her look decent, but look at the rest of her pictures. Many men out there are not aware of tricks of photography, make-up and posing, and do not see through Playboy’s typical fake glamour and artificial femininity. This site partly attempts to better educate these men. Therefore, the issue is not a discordance between myself and heterosexual men in general with respect to what constitutes feminine beauty, but a difference in ability to distinguish fake glamour from genuine glamour.
Additionally, the popularity of the models is a factor, if your definition of aesthetic feminity correlates closely with what the majority of heterosexual men desire. If they wanted to see more of an especially feminine model, she would become popular in the world of nude modeling, a world dominated by and solely dedicated to fulfilling the aforementioned men's whims.
But if men truly preferred "feminine" women, wouldn't they be prominently showcased in publications whose bread and butter is heterosexual men? Either men don't find feminine women that unanimously appealing, or your definition of aesthetic femininity is flawed, somehow.
Virgil: High-fashion models are best compared to other models rather than non-model celebrities. The looks rather than the obscurity or fame of the glamour models shown here is relevant. Whereas FHM, Maxim or equivalent periodically come up with top-50 or top-100 sexy lists, based on polling millions, there are several problems with these lists. Using objective criteria, it can be shown that a good number of these women are not particularly feminine. It can also be shown -- mostly objectively -- that whereas these women are better looking than most women, many of these women do not qualify as great beauties, but I haven’t yet gotten around to addressing the relevant scientific literature. In a number of cases, such as that of Charlize Theron, the face is good but the body is unimpressive, and I can only use the face of such women for illustrative purposes. Then, these lists are typically not strictly based on looks alone; personality factors are also part of the ratings. A good personality has a halo effect on one’s looks, making one look better than one is, which is a problem for this site since it focuses on looks. It is also the case that sometimes not enough pictures of some of these women in bikinis are readily available for a proper evaluation of their physiques in three dimensions. Additionally, many people appear to compare female celebrities with the women they see around them, which would make the celebrities appearing in the top-sexy lists good looking in comparison, but I evaluate these women using high-standard realistic aesthetic criteria, several of which are not met by even the women that I have shown within the attractive women section of this site, let alone most of the women in these top-sexy lists. And, a serious problem with top-sexy lists based on public opinion is that many men in the general population are not sufficiently aware of tricks of photography, posing and make-up. This can lead to overrating of the looks of female celebrities. These are some of the reasons why contemporary top-sexy lists are generally not a good source of women that can be used to showcase feminine beauty.
Before I set up this site, I figured that Playboy magazine would be a good source of feminine and attractive women, but after going through hundreds of its models, I was disappointed to see the high prevalence of masculinization and fake glamour in its models. This is an issue that I will likely elaborate on in the future, but for now it suffices to say that over the years Playboy Inc. has gotten intertwined with the fashion business.
I have many questions about this site, but I'll just ask this one for now... why are the models picked for the site and touted as true examples of beauty obscure women from relatively obscure pornography sites? Now, I understand your argument for the nudity -- that isn't my issue -- it's just that, if the actual preferences of most men are the question, and the definition of actual aesthetic beauty in your opinion, why not use a popular men's magazine like Playboy, FHM or Maxim as a determinant? There are polls all over that consist of who men believe the most sexually appealing women are. If the women that these lists actually consist of differ from fashion models in any discernible way -- which I believe they do, at least from the neck down -- wouldn't the aforementioned resources be a more convincing display of actual male preferences than virtually unknown softcore porn models chosen by you and you alone?
Dariafan: Women leaning toward anorexia appear to disproportionately like masculinized women. Daria does not have to be skinny for several of them to like her. Daria does look better in the picture because of the weight gain, but more important to this thread is the extent to which her backside has improved. See if you can find an appropriate picture.
Alex: I have not said that one has to be nonheterosexual to like Daria; I have said that Daria’s looks disproportionately appeal to nonheterosexuals. You say that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. This is true to some extent, but masculinity-femininity can be assessed using objective criteria, and Daria is not among the ranks of feminine women, as her skeletal structure clearly shows, and I have cited enough anthropological evidence on the feminine vs. masculine page to back up this claim.
It is not the case that I dislike or hate Daria; I just don’t like her looks, but the point of this entry is to compare a top-ranked high-fashion model’s backside with that of a glamour model to provide additional evidence for the strong gay influence in the fashion business.
I am not a woman, and even if I were, it is highly unlikely that I would want to look like Daria; I would prefer more feminine looks.
Noel: You say that women come in different shapes and sizes. Of course, but so what? There is not much diversity among the highly aesthetically pleasing, and I will be adding more materials on aesthetics to elaborate on this point further. You say that one can find so-called masculine features in every woman. Well, I have pointed out that masculinity-femininity should be assessed by examining a cluster of traits, not individual traits, given that sex hormones are only partly responsible for trait variation. Cluster analysis will easily separate more masculine from more feminine women.
You say that my description of models is an insult to womankind. How can this be? Models do not represent women in general. To point out the shortcomings of the looks of a model or to praise the looks of another model is not to insult women. This site is not about how women are supposed to look like; it is about aesthetics and focuses on the looks of models and beauty pageant contestants. The vast majority of women do not have to look like the feminine and attractive women that I have shown in order to get a man interested in them; in fact, some men will sleep with almost anything that it is possible to sleep with.
You say that femininity is more about behavior than shape. Well, this site has nothing to do with the masculinity-femininity of behavior; this site addresses looks. You say that I don’t accept other people’s idea of what constitutes feminine beauty. Like I have said before, there are individual differences when it comes to what one finds attractive, and it is hardly productive to argue over this, but masculinity-femininity of physical appearance is a matter of objective analysis, and I have cited plenty of anthropological evidence in this regard. Nobody has addressed the anthropological data that I have cited, let alone refuted it and you just expect me to take other people’s word as to what is feminine?
You ask what makes me think that I am an expert? Where have I claimed to be an expert? There is no rocket science here, and no expertise is needed to come up with this site. If you think that I am just posting pictures of nude women to make my case, you definitely need to carefully go through this site; you will find plenty of scientific data, among other things. Besides, since when has an interest in attractive women in their natural element become a perversion?
i didn't think of posting here again, but your post was so nice that i'm here again to say you 'hi'. :-)
well, probably we like daria for opposit reasons. the thing is that i find her rather adrogynous. of course i've never met her, but i saw plenty of videos and pics. if you see candids, when she is more natural, it's just the way she moves, she talks, she sits... and also physically, if you see her from behind or just her face with no make-up... but at the same time she's very sweet, so she makes it more feminine.
i wonder if you met her in an official situation, where she played the game.
bye! :-))
My boyfriend Alex wrote to you about Daria Werbowy and I wish to add something to this discussion.
I must say that I came to a conclusion that you don't know much about women, femininity, masculinization and other issues that you speak about. All women come in different shapes and sizes and you can find some so called "masculine" features in every woman but the way you describe models it's an insult to womankind. Every woman is feminine if she wants to be, femininity is more a behaviour then shape. But the one thing that you have really missed, and I can tell that you have no idea what masculinization is. Please look it up in the dictionary or copy it from someone else's works just like you are using other peoples' ideas and words. You sound smart but you are really not very intelligent because you insist that you know better then everybody else and you don't accept their ideas of feminine beauty. Why do you think you are such an expert? Why do you think you can judge Daria's body and call it masculine when so many people told you they don't have the same opinion as you do. Do you ever consider that you are simply wrong? And maybe you just don't know anything about feminine beauty. I have serious doubts about you, your knowledge, and the reasons why you decided to run this website. Your examples of feminine beauty are insults to women and if I have to look like them to be found feminine by you or man like you I rather not be a woman at all.
It seems to me that you may be a pervert who loves nudity and naked girls pictures because that is all you are posting to back up your arguments.
Noel
I'm glad we have one thing in common, and that is we both agree that Pamela Anderson is not beautiful nor feminine. But it's too bad that you're still stuck with the notion that Daria isn't, but that's you, and no one can blame you for it. But you should not classify Daria in the same category as Pam Anderson as she looks nothing like Daria. In regards to your question about me coming across a woman named Eric, if you really want me to answer that, the answer is yes. Infact, her real name was Erica, but she wanted her girlfriends and man friends to call her Eric. So, it's quite possible that you are also a woman.
In regards to many "clueless heterosexual man who need better education on feminine beauty" as you call it, I feel you fit into that category if you are a man. In regards to nonheterosexual men and women and men who lean towards anorexic women as beautiful, Daria is far from being anorexic, infact, if you ever met her in person, she has a very feminine musculature and skelatal structure, and your data on who find her attractive are totally misjudged on your part, because I started a petition at work, and so far all heterosexual men and women, and nonheterosexual men and women alike find her feminine and beautiful, and I have over 3000 people working at the office on four levels of the building, and I only got to my peers on my floor. So, Eric, I repeat my plea for you to go and educate yourself further on feminine beauty. Take art or something, draw, and learn to appreciate beauty no matter if it looks masculine or feminine to your eyes. I do agree with you that there are some models out there that do have masculine looks, but Daria Werbowy is not one of them. Don't be a Daria hater, and don't try to influence other people on how you feel about Daria and Models like her. Daria is a hot one!
Concerned: What is racist about this site and what is not supported? Read the introductory page and the FAQ page to understand what I am trying to do with this site. I am well aware of the fact that people are born different, but this site is not about how women should look; it is about aesthetics, and addresses models and beauty pageant contestants.
Most of your points seem to have racist leanings, and little support in general. What are you trying to do with this site? Not everyone is born with full breasts and wide hips. I have a "prominent nose" and chin, am 5'10" with small breasts and backside, and I'm offended by your site. There are as many women with your "masculine" characertistics as women with "feminine" ones. We don't need another voice pulling our perceived body image in yet another direction.
Virgil: This site is not about my personal definition of femininity and attractiveness or else why would you or anyone else care about its contents? Masculinity-femininity can be assessed objectively and applies across populations, and there is a lot that is objective about beauty, too, but whereas some correlates of beauty apply across populations, exacting aesthetic criteria are population specific. Therefore, the experiments will have to control for ethnicity.
Regarding airbrushing, this applies to skin blemishes, and is of little relevance to this site because the focus here is on shape as it results from skeletal structure, muscle structure and fat distribution. It is true that photos of glamour models also employ posing tricks, but the sources of these photographs typically provide a sufficiently large number of pictures from multiple angles, which allow an assessment of the body in three dimensions, and if the model is really good looking, then no posing tricks are necessary, and this is usually obvious. Similarly, one can often find enough photos of prominent fashion supermodels to reasonably assess their shape in three dimensions or resort to screen captures of fashion shows if necessary.
To answer your last question, when you look at professional cheerleaders or women in beer ads, some of them are feminine and attractive whereas others are not. Given the association of high fashion with high class, the looks of fashion models trickle down to other models in the mainstream media, but if I can help it, this will change. I am not aware of mainstream modeling in Russia, but chances are that the chief exporter of Western culture around the World, i.e., America, influences mainstream modeling there.
Hmm... you you'd have an experiment done, the likes of which would involve your personal definition of feminine and attractive women and would probably be unprecedented. If you or anyone else could come up with a purely scientific definition of "feminine attractiveness" that applies across races -- because some "lifetime heterosexual" men don't find white women in general attractive -- it may be possible. It could also possibly procure credits for me... but it would need funding. And we'd have to add pictures of the "attractive" women without their photographic bells and whistles as well. While the girls in both your "attractive" pictures and 50's cheese cake pinups definitely have more to work with -- for the latter, a lot more -- there's "crafty posing" and lighting employed there, as well. In modern shots of any model, you also have to worry about airbrushing and digital retouching. I've seen it done on my own studio photos before, so I'd assume that it's old hat when the image is counted on to generate profit. A blemish here, some celullite there, a deep line or furrow, peach fuzz on the top lip, a prominent old scar, stretchmarks -- all of these things can be concealed through technology, and they would make a big difference in the evaluation of any woman. Clear, full body photos of many supermodels that are untouched may not even exist.
What I will ask is, is there any industry that you are willing to concede that shapes -- no pun intended -- women's images that are dominated by heterosexual men? I've mentioned both softcore and hardcore pornography, "lad mags"... what about professional sports cheerleaders, or women in beer ads? What about in other countries, where homosexuals are almost universally shunned, like Russia (since you insist on a European origin)?
Virgil: I will be convinced that most heterosexual men are not deluded about the attractiveness of fashion supermodels if you proceed as follows. Find a few hundred lifetime-exclusive heterosexual men, picked at random, and ask them to name the best looking women they are aware of. Then tell me about all the fashion supermodels named and let me provide pictures of these women that are clear enough to show their masculinity-femininity and allow an evaluation of their attractiveness. I will also provide similar pictures of some feminine and attractive women. Then you have the men evaluate all the pictures and ask them how attractive do they still find the fashion supermodels.
After this, you find another randomly selected group of lifetime-exclusive heterosexual men and randomly assign them to two groups. Ask the first group to rate on a 1-100 scale the pictures of some prominent fashion supermodels [that I will provide]. Then have the first group rate pictures of feminine and attractive women that I will provide on a 1-100 scale. Reverse the presentation of these two groups of pictures for the second group.
If these experiments show that fashion supermodels are not seen as less attractive after exposure to feminine plus attractive women and remain well-appreciated by most of the lifetime-exclusive heterosexual men, then I will believe that most heterosexual men find fashion supermodels genuinely attractive.
I reiterate, what evidence could possibly convince you that heterosexual males' affinity for fashion models isn't a widespread delusion on their part?
Virgil: The fact that some people in the past believed the earth to be flat did not mean that the earth was indeed flat. Similarly, heterosexual men who are not aware of tricks of make-up and posing, and also not aware of the existence of many women that are much more feminine and attractive compared to fashion supermodels may find these supermodels attractive, but just as most people have been successfully educated about the true shape of the earth, this site can make most heterosexual men correctly rate the attractiveness of fashion supermodels.
Regarding the looks of pornstars, few women are willing to pose nude and even fewer still are willing to participate in hardcore pornography. Thus, a pornographer is limited by the number of women available and cannot be very selective. Additionally, whereas women who participate in hardcore pornography are typically non-prostitutes, they are similar to prostitutes with respect to inclination toward promiscuity.
Women inclined toward promiscuity tend to be more masculinized than less promiscuous women, which makes sense since testosterone is a well-documented correlate of libido. I have cited some research in this regard on the skinny fashion models page, and can extensively cite literature on this issue if you dispute this point. Therefore, pornstars would actually tend to be disproportionately masculine, and the rough rule is that women who are into the harder forms of hardcore pornography -- such as sadomasochism and some other disgusting sexual practices -- are, on average, more masculine than the pornstars or nude models who refuse to participate in the more extreme forms of pornography.
Therefore, heterosexual men interested in hardcore pornography get to see some of the more masculine women performers and pick the best looking ones as their favorites, but the best looking ones among these women are often not among the more feminine women in the general population because of the aforementioned reason.
There is also the case that an inclination toward unusual sexual interests is more pronounced among nonheterosexual men. Based on random, population-based samples, 15-20% of men in Western societies are not lifetime-exclusive heterosexuals, and men who are not lifetime-exclusive heterosexuals but at the same time not exclusively gay will disproportionately genuinely prefer somewhat masculinized looks in women as well as be disproportionately interested in pornography.
In a nutshell, when it comes to pornstars, the number and type of women available as performers limit a pornographer, feminine types are especially underrepresented due to unwillingness on the part of these women, and some portion of the variance in the high status of some masculinized female pornstars does not reflect the preferences of lifetime-exclusive heterosexual men. On the other hand, fashion modeling is much more respectable, which means that a large number of women will be willing to be fashion models, which in turn allows the possibility of selecting mostly feminine and extremely attractive women, but no such thing is seen in the fashion world, thanks to the gay domination of the fashion business.
If you concede that "many men" find them attractive, doesn't that make them attractive? And what about the prevalence of ultra-thin women in the porn industry? While their biggest star, Jenna Jameson, probably has what you'd call "feminine" facial features, her reputed measurements are 34D-23-34 at 5'6'. She has large breast implants and slender hips, and so do most other popular women within the porn industry. Given that the number of homosexual men working in heterosexual porn is probably statistically negligible, how do you explain the fact that the faces and figures of most popular American porn stars look similar to those of fashion models with the exception of huge, unnatural-looking fake breasts tacked on, and a diverse array of heights, skewed towards the more petite?
Virgil: When it comes to naked supermodels, you have to see the issue in context. For instance, consider the case of Anna Kournikova. She is popular among men, not because of her Tennis skills, but because of her looks. Although Anna Kournikova is far from a feminine-looking woman in comparison to the feminine women that I have shown, she is more feminine and better looking than most other prominent female Tennis players. Therefore, among the more famous women out there, you would expect her to be among those who are more popular among men. If Anna Kournikova were a nobody and tried her luck with modeling, she would not get very far in terms of endearing herself to a large number of men. Similarly, fashion supermodels tend to be somewhat more feminine and often better looking than most high-fashion models, and it should not be surprising that their make-up enhanced and carefully posed physiques with [often] breast implants are comparatively seen as eye candy by several heterosexual men, especially those not well-versed with tricks of make-up and posing. Therefore, the possibility of seeing such supermodels naked will surely excite a number of heterosexual men and will translate to good sales. Less attractive nude celebrities will also sell well, but if the celebrities are widely seen as unattractive as in some of the examples you mention, then their nude photographs will not be appreciated, though plenty will still look at them. Playboy magazine has tried to maintained some class by not showing the extent of nudity as in Penthouse, Hustler and equivalent, and for it to maintain a classy image, it is unlikely that it would want to feature nude celebrities widely considered as unattractive, though the tabloids will show semi-nude celebrities, regardless of attractiveness, and this is one reason why tabloids sell.
In other words, I am aware that many heterosexual men find supermodels such as Heidi Klum attractive, but given the dearth of feminine and attractive women among prominent models and the relative lack of education concerning tricky posing and make-up on the part of many men, what do you expect? If I can help it, the likes of Heidi Klum will be seen as far less attractive than they are presently by heterosexual men; this will happen once people are better educated about feminine beauty. I will add that Heidi Klum is better looking than many women out there, but in the absence of gay [fashion designer] influence, there is no way she would have acquired her high status and would be almost a nobody in the world of modeling.
You are correct that only a small percentage (< 5%) of women suffer from either anorexia or bulimia, but sub-clinical eating disorder symptomatology characterizes a greater proportion of women, and this is a major reason why anorexia and bulimia get prominent attention. About 2-5% of people with anorexia commit suicide, and I do not know whether this qualifies as a high suicide rate among the mentally ill.
But naked celebrities that men find unattractive wouldn't... for instance, I heard threats to cancel subscriptions when the idea of putting Rosanne Barr in Playboy was bandied about -- probably as a rumor. I really don't think that Playboy would seriously consider having Whoopi Goldberg or Calista Flockhart model for them, celebrity status, or no. If the money that they pay the models wasn't going to be reflected in sales, they wouldn't pay them that much. Even as someone with a mother who did go on starvation diets, used caffeine pills and amphetamines, considered wiring her mouth shut and eventually turned to bulimia in a desperate pursuit to take 20 pounds off of her 145 lb., 5'5 frame, I know that she's an anomaly, and the amount of mentally and physically healthy women who do so are small. The real reasons that eating disorders have gained such prominence in the media are that 1. it's a sexy issue and 2. anorexics have a very high tendency to commit suicide (making the death rate from it higher than any mental condition, barring depression), not in that order. I'm a Psych major, and I was shocked by how small the percentages really were in comparison to the attention that it gets in the public eye. I'll ask you an additional question: what evidence would possibly convince you that heterosexual men are attracted to supermodels, if their obvious willingness to look at them naked in magazines that cater to them won't?
Virgil: For a woman to look more masculinized than another woman, she doesn’t have to look like a man; learn about the subtlety of masculinity-femininity by going through the data mentioned on the feminine vs. masculine page.
As to why Playboy would pay big bucks to the likes of Elle MacPherson and Rachel Hunter compared to more feminine non-celebrity nude models, naked celebrities sell and celebrities will not pose nude unless they are paid well. Naked celebrities primarily sell because of their celebrity status; their looks are secondary.
She's not very curvaceous, I'll give you that, and her breasts don't suit her frame... as a result they look obviously fake and porn star-esque. However, an hourglass figure isn't the only way a female can have a feminine body. A pear-shaped physique is also uniquely feminine, and so is a petite frame like Miss Toth has, sans implants. Just how many men do you see that look like that? What about when actual supermodels like Stephanie Seymour, Cindy Crawford, Naomi Campbell, Elle MacPherson, and Rachel Hunter have posed for Playboy? Did sales drop as a result, and were Playboy's offices flooded with calls, letters, and e-mails from indignant "lifetime heterosexual" males? If so, why does Playboy continue to feature actual fashion models and pay them much more than the average centerfold?
Virgil: The central tendency of Playboy playmates has shifted toward the masculine over the years, but there is still variation in looks, and some of them are feminine. I will provide an example of how some level of increased masculinization doesn’t notably hurt Playboy’s appeal to heterosexual men, especially given the ignorance of several of them that I have mentioned previously, but first I will answer your other questions.
Evidence regarding the underreported weight of Playboy centerfolds is mentioned on the eating disorders page. I do not recall where I read about the female readership of Playboy.
Yes, excessive exercise and unnecessary dieting on the part of some women with a medically normal body fat level are problem issues of significance; see the eating disorders page.
There is a lot that is objective about beauty. In an entry titled the importance of femininity to beauty in women, you will find a table showing criteria such as averageness, low overall fluctuating asymmetry and femininity as well-documented correlates of beauty, all of which can be objectively assessed. There is a lot more that I haven’t yet gotten around to addressing. You should go through the entire site before asking questions.
Gracilization is merely one component of beauty. More gracile does not necessarily mean more attractive.
A combination of femininity and youth (late teens to early-mid twenties) make some of the women appear to have what you call childlike facial features, but most of them look like they are in their twenties, and I have not claimed that they have ideal looks; the women shown will be seen as more feminine and attractive on average than fashion models by the public at-large. The aforementioned link cites evidence that femininity is the most powerful correlate of beauty in women in the absence of physical defects, which supports my selection of attractive women.
Now, to answer your first question. Consider the following four pictures of Tiffany Toth, who is the March 2006 Playboy Cybergirl of the month. Does she look like a feminine woman except for breast implants? Does she have a feminine waist and hip region?
Now look at the following three pictures and see how feminine her rib cage, waist, hips and face are.
Tiffany Toth is clearly not among the more feminine women out there, but crafty posing, make-up and breast implants can make her look more feminine than she is. In any case, she is better looking than many women, and if Playboy shifts toward more masculinized women such as Tiffany Toth compared to the women that it featured in its early years, its sales are not going to drop notably for this reason.
Playboy's becoming a real part of the fashion industry by selling bunny t-shirts... additionally, they're willing to sacrifice the reputation that sells the shirts in the first place by hiring less sexually desirable centerfolds? How do you know that the weights of Playboy centerfolds are underreported? And "many" female readers is probably a stretch... are there any surveys to back that up? Given the obesity levels of the average American woman, do you really believe that excessive exercise and unnecessary dieting among healthy women are prominent issues? And is beauty indeed objective? The very criteria that you use to define beauty seems to be subjective, placing Northern European -- and by approximation European in general -- women at the top of the facial beauty category by virtue of the higher prevalence of gracialization among them. Many of the women in your "attractive women" category look not just youthful, but childlike (in the facial area), and I'm not sure if that's exactly what most men and women see as ideal. Perhaps you could find a survey of sorts that proves that the majority that you claim finds these women -- or women that look similar to them -- attractive and ideal.
Virgil: The reason that people in general need to have their aesthetic sense honed is that this will help promote feminine beauty among female models in general and beauty pageant contestants. People with a more sophisticated aesthetic sense will be less open to being swayed by what they see promoted as good looks unless they recognize -- using objective criteria -- that the looks are indeed good; they will also mostly demand female models who are good examples of feminine beauty.
There is not a whole lot that can be done about the looks of high-fashion models, but high-fashion models can be made to occupy their own niche, i.e., fashion shows and fashion magazines, and have less of an impact on society.
Yes, gracilization is another word for fineness.
Regarding Playboy Inc., it had a headstart in terms of being a pioneering publication, but it would have been poor marketing on its part if it had stuck to publishing a men’s magazine only. Thus, Playboy Inc. has diversified itself, and using its models to sell clothing or other fashion merchandize makes good business sense. In this regard, Playboy magazine would need to be within or close to the norms in the fashion world. Additionally, among female models, high-fashion models have the highest status. Thus, Playboy models have veered closer to the physical norm among high-fashion models over the years, and Playboy typically underreports the weight of its bunnies/centerfolds to be more compliant with the norm among fashion models. Whereas Playboy models have gravitated closer to the looks of fashion models, there is obviously a limit to this process, and it is highly unlikely that Playboy bunnies will eventually look like high-fashion models. Given Playboy's attempts to artificially feminize the looks of its models, who remain more feminine-looking than high-fashion models, and insufficient education on the part of many men, Playboy magazine is not going to see sales drop notably. Besides, Playboy magazine features content that caters to a diverse audience, and it has many women readers, too, a number of whom go through the magazine to understand what interests men.
But if they are never going to meet these women in real life, why do men need to be educated on real vs. fake glamour? Why does this ability need to be honed? Is gracialization the quantity/proliferation of "fine" features? And if you concede that Playboy does cater pretty much to exclusively heterosexual men, why is this masculinization present in their featured models, why haven't sales dropped significantly as a result, and why would they allegedly be influenced by the fashion industry?
Virgil: Several women that I have featured in the attractive women section are well-known in the world of nude modeling, though their popularity does not approach that of many Playboy models, which is a big publication. The internet popularity of some of the women that I have featured is also limited by their refusal to get involved in hardcore pornography or their having posed nude only briefly. As I have mentioned previously, the high prevalence of [actual] masculinization in Playboy models is related to its intertwining with the fashion business, but Playboy does attempt to make its models look as [artificially] feminine as possible given that it most extensively caters to heterosexual men. Fake glamour and breast implants are not unusual among Playboy models, and these women often look good to many men. For instance, consider the case of Pamela Anderson who is far more popular than any of the women featured in the attractive women section of this site; she rose to fame after posing nude in Playboy. Read what I have to say about her looks and compare her looks to that of the attractive women that I have featured. The first photograph of Pamela Anderson on the page linked to above makes her look decent, but look at the rest of her pictures. Many men out there are not aware of tricks of photography, make-up and posing, and do not see through Playboy’s typical fake glamour and artificial femininity. This site partly attempts to better educate these men. Therefore, the issue is not a discordance between myself and heterosexual men in general with respect to what constitutes feminine beauty, but a difference in ability to distinguish fake glamour from genuine glamour.
Additionally, the popularity of the models is a factor, if your definition of aesthetic feminity correlates closely with what the majority of heterosexual men desire. If they wanted to see more of an especially feminine model, she would become popular in the world of nude modeling, a world dominated by and solely dedicated to fulfilling the aforementioned men's whims.
But if men truly preferred "feminine" women, wouldn't they be prominently showcased in publications whose bread and butter is heterosexual men? Either men don't find feminine women that unanimously appealing, or your definition of aesthetic femininity is flawed, somehow.
Virgil: High-fashion models are best compared to other models rather than non-model celebrities. The looks rather than the obscurity or fame of the glamour models shown here is relevant. Whereas FHM, Maxim or equivalent periodically come up with top-50 or top-100 sexy lists, based on polling millions, there are several problems with these lists. Using objective criteria, it can be shown that a good number of these women are not particularly feminine. It can also be shown -- mostly objectively -- that whereas these women are better looking than most women, many of these women do not qualify as great beauties, but I haven’t yet gotten around to addressing the relevant scientific literature. In a number of cases, such as that of Charlize Theron, the face is good but the body is unimpressive, and I can only use the face of such women for illustrative purposes. Then, these lists are typically not strictly based on looks alone; personality factors are also part of the ratings. A good personality has a halo effect on one’s looks, making one look better than one is, which is a problem for this site since it focuses on looks. It is also the case that sometimes not enough pictures of some of these women in bikinis are readily available for a proper evaluation of their physiques in three dimensions. Additionally, many people appear to compare female celebrities with the women they see around them, which would make the celebrities appearing in the top-sexy lists good looking in comparison, but I evaluate these women using high-standard realistic aesthetic criteria, several of which are not met by even the women that I have shown within the attractive women section of this site, let alone most of the women in these top-sexy lists. And, a serious problem with top-sexy lists based on public opinion is that many men in the general population are not sufficiently aware of tricks of photography, posing and make-up. This can lead to overrating of the looks of female celebrities. These are some of the reasons why contemporary top-sexy lists are generally not a good source of women that can be used to showcase feminine beauty.
Before I set up this site, I figured that Playboy magazine would be a good source of feminine and attractive women, but after going through hundreds of its models, I was disappointed to see the high prevalence of masculinization and fake glamour in its models. This is an issue that I will likely elaborate on in the future, but for now it suffices to say that over the years Playboy Inc. has gotten intertwined with the fashion business.
I have many questions about this site, but I'll just ask this one for now... why are the models picked for the site and touted as true examples of beauty obscure women from relatively obscure pornography sites? Now, I understand your argument for the nudity -- that isn't my issue -- it's just that, if the actual preferences of most men are the question, and the definition of actual aesthetic beauty in your opinion, why not use a popular men's magazine like Playboy, FHM or Maxim as a determinant? There are polls all over that consist of who men believe the most sexually appealing women are. If the women that these lists actually consist of differ from fashion models in any discernible way -- which I believe they do, at least from the neck down -- wouldn't the aforementioned resources be a more convincing display of actual male preferences than virtually unknown softcore porn models chosen by you and you alone?
Dariafan: Women leaning toward anorexia appear to disproportionately like masculinized women. Daria does not have to be skinny for several of them to like her. Daria does look better in the picture because of the weight gain, but more important to this thread is the extent to which her backside has improved. See if you can find an appropriate picture.
Alex: I have not said that one has to be nonheterosexual to like Daria; I have said that Daria’s looks disproportionately appeal to nonheterosexuals. You say that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. This is true to some extent, but masculinity-femininity can be assessed using objective criteria, and Daria is not among the ranks of feminine women, as her skeletal structure clearly shows, and I have cited enough anthropological evidence on the feminine vs. masculine page to back up this claim.
It is not the case that I dislike or hate Daria; I just don’t like her looks, but the point of this entry is to compare a top-ranked high-fashion model’s backside with that of a glamour model to provide additional evidence for the strong gay influence in the fashion business.
I am not a woman, and even if I were, it is highly unlikely that I would want to look like Daria; I would prefer more feminine looks.
Noel: You say that women come in different shapes and sizes. Of course, but so what? There is not much diversity among the highly aesthetically pleasing, and I will be adding more materials on aesthetics to elaborate on this point further. You say that one can find so-called masculine features in every woman. Well, I have pointed out that masculinity-femininity should be assessed by examining a cluster of traits, not individual traits, given that sex hormones are only partly responsible for trait variation. Cluster analysis will easily separate more masculine from more feminine women.
You say that my description of models is an insult to womankind. How can this be? Models do not represent women in general. To point out the shortcomings of the looks of a model or to praise the looks of another model is not to insult women. This site is not about how women are supposed to look like; it is about aesthetics and focuses on the looks of models and beauty pageant contestants. The vast majority of women do not have to look like the feminine and attractive women that I have shown in order to get a man interested in them; in fact, some men will sleep with almost anything that it is possible to sleep with.
You say that femininity is more about behavior than shape. Well, this site has nothing to do with the masculinity-femininity of behavior; this site addresses looks. You say that I don’t accept other people’s idea of what constitutes feminine beauty. Like I have said before, there are individual differences when it comes to what one finds attractive, and it is hardly productive to argue over this, but masculinity-femininity of physical appearance is a matter of objective analysis, and I have cited plenty of anthropological evidence in this regard. Nobody has addressed the anthropological data that I have cited, let alone refuted it and you just expect me to take other people’s word as to what is feminine?
You ask what makes me think that I am an expert? Where have I claimed to be an expert? There is no rocket science here, and no expertise is needed to come up with this site. If you think that I am just posting pictures of nude women to make my case, you definitely need to carefully go through this site; you will find plenty of scientific data, among other things. Besides, since when has an interest in attractive women in their natural element become a perversion?
hi alex,
i didn't think of posting here again, but your post was so nice that i'm here again to say you 'hi'. :-)
well, probably we like daria for opposit reasons. the thing is that i find her rather adrogynous. of course i've never met her, but i saw plenty of videos and pics. if you see candids, when she is more natural, it's just the way she moves, she talks, she sits... and also physically, if you see her from behind or just her face with no make-up... but at the same time she's very sweet, so she makes it more feminine.
i wonder if you met her in an official situation, where she played the game.
bye! :-))
Hi Eric,
My boyfriend Alex wrote to you about Daria Werbowy and I wish to add something to this discussion.
I must say that I came to a conclusion that you don't know much about women, femininity, masculinization and other issues that you speak about. All women come in different shapes and sizes and you can find some so called "masculine" features in every woman but the way you describe models it's an insult to womankind. Every woman is feminine if she wants to be, femininity is more a behaviour then shape. But the one thing that you have really missed, and I can tell that you have no idea what masculinization is. Please look it up in the dictionary or copy it from someone else's works just like you are using other peoples' ideas and words. You sound smart but you are really not very intelligent because you insist that you know better then everybody else and you don't accept their ideas of feminine beauty. Why do you think you are such an expert? Why do you think you can judge Daria's body and call it masculine when so many people told you they don't have the same opinion as you do. Do you ever consider that you are simply wrong? And maybe you just don't know anything about feminine beauty. I have serious doubts about you, your knowledge, and the reasons why you decided to run this website. Your examples of feminine beauty are insults to women and if I have to look like them to be found feminine by you or man like you I rather not be a woman at all.
It seems to me that you may be a pervert who loves nudity and naked girls pictures because that is all you are posting to back up your arguments.
Noel
Eric
I'm glad we have one thing in common, and that is we both agree that Pamela Anderson is not beautiful nor feminine. But it's too bad that you're still stuck with the notion that Daria isn't, but that's you, and no one can blame you for it. But you should not classify Daria in the same category as Pam Anderson as she looks nothing like Daria. In regards to your question about me coming across a woman named Eric, if you really want me to answer that, the answer is yes. Infact, her real name was Erica, but she wanted her girlfriends and man friends to call her Eric. So, it's quite possible that you are also a woman.
In regards to many "clueless heterosexual man who need better education on feminine beauty" as you call it, I feel you fit into that category if you are a man. In regards to nonheterosexual men and women and men who lean towards anorexic women as beautiful, Daria is far from being anorexic, infact, if you ever met her in person, she has a very feminine musculature and skelatal structure, and your data on who find her attractive are totally misjudged on your part, because I started a petition at work, and so far all heterosexual men and women, and nonheterosexual men and women alike find her feminine and beautiful, and I have over 3000 people working at the office on four levels of the building, and I only got to my peers on my floor. So, Eric, I repeat my plea for you to go and educate yourself further on feminine beauty. Take art or something, draw, and learn to appreciate beauty no matter if it looks masculine or feminine to your eyes. I do agree with you that there are some models out there that do have masculine looks, but Daria Werbowy is not one of them. Don't be a Daria hater, and don't try to influence other people on how you feel about Daria and Models like her. Daria is a hot one!
Pages