You are here

Recent comments

Datesort ascending Author Article link, comment
Wed, 03/29/2006 - 19:38 Alex Backside comparison: Daria Werbowy vs. Cindy D.

Hi Dariafan,

This is exactly my point, that you don't have to be a heterosexual to like Daria. My other point is against what Eric says that one would have to be a non-heterosexual who hides their non-heterosexuality in order to like models like Daria, who have masculine features. All I'm saying is that I have met Daria in person recently, and there is nothing masculine about her. I'm a heterosexual, not a nonheterosexual, and I do not need better education on feminine beauty as Eric puts it. I take that as an insult because beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so you don't have to be just a man to appreciate beauty. I know plenty of men who find Daria beautiful and feminine, and a lot of women that feel the same way. As I said earlier, Daria is very feminine the way she looks now, and she is so beautiful. Maybe Eric needs glasses or something or better education himself on feminine beauty. Under no circumstances am I claiming to be an expert on feminine beauty myself, all I am portraying is that I, along with many of my male and female friends alike find Daria to be feminine and beautiful, and that there is nothing masculine about her. In regards to my comments about Eric possibly being an "Erica" instead of "Eric" is based on the notion that many women are competitive, and dislike other women who are more beautiful and successful than they are... and that it is possible that is the reason why Eric dislikes Daria so much. I apologize if I offended you as a woman Dariafan. I hope that my explanations clear me with you as I am on your side on this heated debate about how good Daria looks.

Wed, 03/29/2006 - 05:51 dariafan Backside comparison: Daria Werbowy vs. Cindy D.

well, again, i think that if you look for an anorexic model you don't have to mention daria. she was skinny in ss05 shows, but that was an exception. she's slender and she has narrow hips, but she's far from being skinny.
i agree that she's naturally androgynous despite her (natural) breast - see this recent pic:

Daria Werbowy

so i understand you may not like her in an 'average heterosexual' taste, but she isn't the anorexic type.

Wed, 03/29/2006 - 01:28 Erik Backside comparison: Daria Werbowy vs. Cindy D.

Alex: Ever come across a woman named Erik? FYI, I am not hiding behind a pseudonym. Anyway, I am neither looking to date women who look like Daria Werbowy nor women who have the fake, pornstar looks you mention. A woman who exemplifies the fake, pornstar looks you describe is Pamela Anderson, and you should read what I have to say about her looks. Daria Werbowy and Pamela Anderson are neither feminine nor attractive; the relative lack of femininity is an objective judgment here, but the attractiveness rating varies from person to person. However, Pamela Anderson has been popular among many heterosexual men. This shows that there are plenty of clueless heterosexual men out there who need better education about feminine beauty. Similarly, some clueless heterosexual men who have not seen enough of Daria Werbowy may find her attractive, but her looks are the kind that mostly appeal to nonheterosexual men, nonheterosexual women and women leaning toward anorexia. Some weight gain on her part will not make her masculinized skeleton feminine, though it would make her look better.

Tue, 03/28/2006 - 09:56 dariafan Backside comparison: Daria Werbowy vs. Cindy D.

hey alex,

i'm happy you like daria, but i don't think you need to be a heterosexual man to like daria or a woman to dislike daria. me, i'm a woman and daria is my total ideal of beauty made real. and if you go through forums and sites devoted to her, you'll find out that for every man who likes her, there're at least 5 girls who do it.
so, regardless of his statistics that make me think of positivism, i don't understand why eric should be a woman not to like her.

Mon, 03/27/2006 - 20:18 Alex Backside comparison: Daria Werbowy vs. Cindy D.

Hey Eric,

I just want to tell you that if I didn't have a steady girlfriend, I would do anything and everything to get to be with Daria. I mean have her as my steady girlfriend. I was in Toronto and they were filming a special about her on City TV the other day, and man, let me tell you she looks fabulous!!! I think you mainly get your data from her older photos as Dariafan says, because she currently looks reallllly sexxxyyy!!! (Honey, if you're reading this I love you very much, and I'm glad I'm with you!!!) I really don't understand Eric where you're getting your info, and I'm actually starting to doubt that you're a man because so far any man I have asked find models like Daria very sexy, and it has nothing to do with them not being heterosexual as you say, "There are plenty of nonheterosexual men out there, most of whom hide their nonheterosexuality. Assuming that all the rich men involved are not lifetime-exclusive heterosexuals, the most plausible explanation is that these men partly found the models attractive because of their masculinization.", I don't agree with that. I have plenty "non-heterosexual" friends that also find Daria and models like her non-masculine and sexy. I'm actually beginning to think that even if you are a man, that you are not able to get classy girls like Daria to be your girlfriend, and find it easier to go out with women that are like a hooker or a porno-star, you know, fake tits, ass, botox lips, etc. because they are easier to lay, and I underline "easy". I repeat myself Eric, I met Daria in person in Toronto at City TV, and she is very, and I mean VERY feminine. You better re-evaluate your standards man. Or are you a man? I mean you can be a feminine man who is jealous of beauty or something. Cheers be to Daria and her feminine beauty...

Mon, 03/27/2006 - 02:42 Erik Backside comparison: Daria Werbowy vs. Cindy D.

Dariafan: Given Daria’s high status, she may be able to maintain her weight gain without suffering much loss of modeling assignments for the same reason that Gisele Bundchen can get away with some of her weight gain compared to when she started out, but for girls starting out as high-fashion models or those lacking the status of Daria, this is not a luxury they can afford.

High-fashion models are best compared to other models rather than non-model celebrities. When it comes to non-model celebrities such as actresses, few of them are good examples of feminine beauty, and when one comes across some good examples, most of the pictures available are of the face, few pictures can be found showing their physiques clearly enough for a proper evaluation of aesthetics, and pictures of the backside of these women are not easy to come by. Therefore, why bother with non-model celebrities? Of course, if I come across some decent-looking non-model celebrities, I will feature them. Regarding the measures related to beauty in women, one does not need to describe beauty in quantitative terms, but quantitative data are needed to minimize accusations of subjectivity.

Sun, 03/26/2006 - 03:57 dariafan is back Backside comparison: Daria Werbowy vs. Cindy D.

hehehe! nice to see such a debate!
if i ever write something about those issues, i'll quote this page for sure.

anyway, comparing daria with that cindy or whatever her name is ... is like comparing the moon with a chistmas tree ball.
of course daria is physically ambiguous, feline, masculine, it's a part of her charme and the reason why she has more fans between women than men (although most of the pics in this site date back to ss05 shows, when she was overthin, later she's gained weight again).
but you don't need to look for pornostars to get a different kind of beauty around. there's plenty of actresses, commercial models, celebrities and the range of beauty is wide, you can easily find what you're looking for on tv, mags...
and this is only about the most superficial level of this site. about the deepest let me say that if you consider female beauty only as a matter of measures, breast and butt...

Sun, 03/26/2006 - 02:13 Erik Backside comparison: Daria Werbowy vs. Cindy D.

Bianca and Alex: I need to respond to your comment for a number of reasons, including the fact that several people will be going through this page and also because whereas I have been called many things, sexist is new. If you are busy, then take your time to reply back. You have repeated Isabella’s argument about masculinization in women. I recommend that you go through the eating disorders page and look at Fig 3 and read the materials around it. You will encounter evidence related to sex hormone variation in women. Note that normal variation in sex hormone levels is sufficient to produce varying levels of masculinity-femininity in women.

You say that high-fashion models have a clearly different body type than the rounder-featured glamour models. You are right about the different body type of high-fashion models, and it is labeled a masculine body type.

How can it be sexist for a heterosexual man to find women who look like adolescent boys or male transvestites sexually undesirable? Do you not understand what heterosexuality is about? More importantly, if you read about the importance of femininity to beauty in women, it will become clear than men and women judge the attractiveness and femininity of women similarly. Therefore, sexual appeal is not a necessary component of judgment of attractiveness and femininity because heterosexual women judge these variables in women like heterosexual men do. Additionally, as I have mentioned previously, whereas there is some subjectivity as to what one finds attractive, masculinity-femininity of physical appearance is easily assessed in an objective manner.

You mention masculinized and unattractive women such as Natalia Vodianova, Gisele Bundchen and Kate Moss ending up with rich and famous men, and then infer that these rich men found these models feminine. This is an incorrect inference. The only thing that can be inferred here is that the rich men found these women attractive. There are plenty of nonheterosexual men out there, most of whom hide their nonheterosexuality. Assuming that all the rich men involved are not lifetime-exclusive heterosexuals, the most plausible explanation is that these men partly found the models attractive because of their masculinization. Of course, one cannot be sure about the sexual orientation of these men, but it should be clear that your inference that the rich men have found these women to be feminine does not follow from the data that you mention.

How is this site promoting hate against high-fashion models? Why should people start hating high-fashion models after better appreciating how masculine and skinny these women typically are? Similarly, why should people end up hating homosexuals just because a miniscule number of them are creating some problems? It is another matter that a number of people will acquire a negative view of top-ranked gay fashion designers in general after going through this site, but these gays are creating problems that need to be corrected, and what other options are there apart from educating the public?

You say that the nude models featured here are in danger of being used as sex objects. Here is some news for you: these women typically enjoy nude modeling, often finding the notion of men ogling at their nude images arousing, and are not being abused.

Fri, 03/24/2006 - 16:27 Bianca and Alex Backside comparison: Daria Werbowy vs. Cindy D.

Hi Eric,

We've decided to answer your nonsense because Isabella is not here today. First of all models cannot be considered "masculinized women" because masculinization is a process of changing womans body and a development of male characteristics in female. Do you think models take steroids or hormons??? You accuse models of being "masculinized", how do you think this so called masculinization happened to them? Obviously you don't have a clue what masculinization means, it is an abnormal development of male characteristecs in the female usually as a result of hormone therapies or adrenal malfunction.
Your examples of feminine beauty are unacceptable and purely sexist. You show women with rounder features and you are trying to convince us that they are more feminine then models who clearly have different body types. According to you and other many sexist man they are not sexually desirable because they don't fit your description of "feminine woman" or should we say a woman regarded primarly as the focus of sexual attraction.According to you feminine equals fuckable. You are vicious, degrading and most of all stereotyping of how and what is feminine according to you. Obviously man find these models feminine because for example Vodianova married a billionare Prince, Gisele dated Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Moss was the girlfriend of Johnny Deep....dou you think these man would date masculine women? We don't think so. On the other hand we think that man with more taste, the ones that don't see women only as a sex objects and will not comment on her boobs, backside and so on, prefer to date a model to a porn star. The truth is that you are wrong and your site promotes hate towards models and most of all homosexuals and homosexual designers. Yes we love models, we think they are feminine, we love fashion designers and their clothing and we assure you that we are not clueless and the only clueless people are the naked girls on your site. Please if you don't have anything better to do educate them about the dangers of sexual exploitation because clearly they are in dangers of being used as sex objects. Here is an idea of a good site for you Eric. Something that would help humanity and prevent young women from being used and abused.
Please close this hate site and help some good cause......Please don't write back we are too busy to respond just accept our opinion and if you don't understand what sexist is at this point then you probably never will.
Bianca and Alex

Fri, 03/24/2006 - 06:37 Erik Backside comparison: Daria Werbowy vs. Cindy D.

Isabella: How can you say that academics have not agreed as to what constitute feminine and masculine physical features? This is patently absurd. Does one have to even be an academic to note that there are multiple skeletal differences between men and women, on average? The feminine vs. masculine page features plenty of figures from academic sources, and the academic references are listed at the bottom.

You accuse me of a clear bias with respect to categorizing women as feminine or masculine. However, I am categorizing women in terms of being more feminine or more masculine, usually in an overall sense. Thus, a somewhat masculinized woman is more feminine than a more masculinized woman.

You mention that according to your research, newborn boys and newborn girls differ in only genitals and finger lengths. Firstly, this of little relevance here given that I am not addressing neonates. Secondly, there are other differences that you have not come across and plenty of differences that have yet to be cataloged. For instance, newborn boys and girls differ with respect to subcutaneous fat:


Rodriguez G, Samper MP, Olivares JL, Ventura P, Moreno LA, Perez-Gonzalez JM. Skinfold measurements at birth: sex and anthropometric influence. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2005 May;90(3):F273-5.

Rodriguez G, Samper MP, Ventura P, Moreno LA, Olivares JL, Perez-Gonzalez JM. Gender differences in newborn subcutaneous fat distribution. Eur J Pediatr. 2004 Aug;163(8):457-61. Epub 2004 May 27.

The reference immediately above also documents that neonate boys are heavier and longer than neonate girls. Additionally, controlling for femur length, newborn boys and newborn girls differ with respect to head circumference:


Joffe TH, Tarantal AF, Rice K, Leland M, Oerke AK, Rodeck C, Geary M, Hindmarsh P, Wells JC, Aiello LC. Fetal and infant head circumference sexual dimorphism in primates. Am J Phys Anthropol. 2005 Jan;126(1):97-110.

Some aspects of pelvic morphology are different between boys and girls in the 0-5 years age range:


Sutter RC. Nonmetric subadult skeletal sexing traits: I. A blind test of the accuracy of eight previously proposed methods using prehistoric known-sex mummies from northern Chile. J Forensic Sci. 2003 Sep;48(5):927-35.

The evidence in the citations above is the tip of the iceberg.

You write that professional photographs cannot be compared to pornographic pictures. Where is the pornography at this site? Nudity does not qualify as pornography unless you appeal to some community standards, but the problem with community standards is that even pictures of women in bikinis will qualify as pornography if the community comprises of Moslems. Pornography is the depiction of sexual activity for the purposes of titillation, and is not a feature of this site. As I have pointed out previously, I have little choice at present but to seek pictures of feminine women from adult-oriented sources, thanks to the gay domination of the fashion business.

You write that it is difficult to determine the femininity of a woman if her backside is in your face. This is absurd. You need to look at a woman’s backside to see how feminine it is, and I am not featuring close-ups of backsides that obscure the waist and legs, thereby making it difficult to judge femininity.

You describe Lucie as high-cheekboned, small-breasted and flat-bottomed. This would be a correct description of her if you were comparing her to an obese woman with lower cheekbones, but Lucie is much more feminine than your typical high-fashion model. And, where did you get the impression that Lucie has a protruding ribcage?

Sandy looks transsexual to you? Then the fashion models in the sexy fashion models page, with the exception of Josie Moran, qualify as masculine men in drag. Both such characterizations are obviously incorrect, and your statement appears to be a bad case of sour grapes. Besides, none of the women shown in the attractive women section look like boys.

Katie does not look underage. All the glamour models shown are at least 18, as per the U.S.C. 2257 statement of compliance available at the sources of the pictures. On the other hand, you should be aware that many high-fashion models are under age 18.

You describe a masculine woman as one that has lower voice, notable body hair and abnormal growth of muscle mass, which could only be achieved through male hormone therapy. Your description is that of a very masculine woman, an anabolic-steroid-abusing female bodybuilder to be more precise. On the other hand, if one were to assess, say, 20 anthropometric variables related to physical sexual dimorphism, then a bipolar scale (feminine at one end and masculine at the other) will clearly emerge, and it will be seen that even among women who lie toward the feminine end of the scale, some are more feminine than others. Therefore, it is not difficult to compare women in terms of being more feminine or more masculine overall as long as there is not a very close call, but the comparison of high-fashion models and the glamour models shown within the attractive women section of this site does not even approach a close call; which of these groups is more masculine is unambiguously clear.

You say that models are women and no woman is perfect. This is indeed true, and it would be easy to come up with a long list of imperfections in the women featured in the attractive women section of this site, but the point remains that the great majority of people prefer feminine-looking women to masculine-looking women, and will find the glamour models shown here much better looking on average than high-fashion models.

You say that homosexual males experience a desire to be like women in appearance and behavior. Well, whereas feminine mannerisms are a group-level correlate of male homosexuality, there is great inter-individual variability with respect to feminine mannerism among male homosexuals. Some homosexual men are not feminine on any count, and a curious mix of feminine and hypermasculine traits is not unusual among male homosexuals. Only a minority of homosexual men actually desire to be women.

You ascribe the looks of high-fashion models to what the public considers beautiful and economic considerations. Why have you ignored the scientific literature that I have cited, which clearly shows that most people find the skinniness typically seen in high-fashion models socially unacceptable and also that most people strongly prefer feminine looks in women? As I have pointed out previously, the high desirability of designer clothing means that even if unattractive women are generally chosen to model high fashion wear, sales will not diminish. For instance, if unattractive women were universally used to sell toilet paper, it is unlikely that people will either reduce their use of or stop using toilet paper. It is naïve to believe that public desire is responsible for why high-fashion models are typically skinny and masculine. As to what kind of women look up to high-fashion models to learn about what constitutes attractiveness, some clueless women do, and it is partly a goal of this site to provide these women with proper education.

You say that my standards are narrow-minded and sexist, and that the 21st century is one of diversity. I don’t understand what is sexist within this site, and as to diversity, I appreciate diversity, but this site is about aesthetics and there is little diversity in aesthetically pleasing looks.

Thu, 03/23/2006 - 15:32 Isabella Backside comparison: Daria Werbowy vs. Cindy D.

Hi Eric,

Your research is inadequate and inaccurate. You have no clear indication as to what features may be categorized as masculine as a pose to feminine and no academic source that you are relying upon. You have displayed a clear bias when categorizing women as feminine or masculine because you are using subjective standards. Academics published in professional journals still have not agreed upon what is male and what is female characteristics. Obviously, since you are not an academic, your opinion is just that- an opinion-and a wrong one if you ask me. According to my research, when a human is born, the only difference between a male and a female is their genitals and finger length.

Obviously, professional photographs cannot be compared to pornographic pictures. It is difficult to determine their femininty when the backside is in my face. After revewing your personal "Debbie Does Dallas" collection, I have some criticisms of my own based on your categorization of high cheek bones, small breasts, and flat bottoms, and so on as un-feminine. Lucie has small breats, protruding rib cage and high cheek bones. Sandy looks transexual and even resembles the cast of Transamerica. I have serious questions about the legality of Katie- doesn't she look too young to be on display? And Pipi Longstocking looks like a little boy.

If you are going to criticize women and femininity, you should do some research. A masculine woman is characterized by lower voice, growth of body hair and abnormal development of muscle mass, which could only be achieved through male hormone therapy. Femine attributes are large or small breasts, fertility, being emotional and smaller waist, etc. There is no one definition of a woman or femininity. Models are woman and no woman is perfect.

Lastly, homosexuals experience a desire to be like a woman, in appearance and behaviour. A homosexual designer would choose models that are extremely femine and beautiful because they are more likely to identify with these women. Psychologists have proven that the people who become famous are adored by the general public because all people prefer to identify with a beautiful person as someone who resembles them. Therefore, woman who are beautiful would be chosen as a model because other women would want to look like them, dress like them and buy the product they are wearing. Clearly, economical growth is the underlying factor in the modelling industry. The models you criticize represent the top fashion designers and these models are responsible for selling millions of dollars of products for them. If they were masculine and unattractive, who would identify with them?

Please consider this opinion and perhaps you may achieve a broader view of the world, rather than your narrow-minded sexist standards. The 21st century is one of diversity.

With love,
Isabella LLP
Nick, Alex, Bianca and Brian

Tue, 03/21/2006 - 00:06 Erik The importance of femininity to beauty in women

Anonymous Visitor: Compared to women 4 and 8, woman 7 has relatively larger buttocks and breasts, a relatively smaller rib cage and a more feminine face. Woman 7 also has more feminine feet than woman 8 and a more slender skeletal build than woman 4, which tends to go with greater femininity. Therefore, between these three women, woman 7 is the most feminine.

Tue, 03/21/2006 - 00:00 Erik Backside comparison: Daria Werbowy vs. Cindy D.

Brian: What kind of office do you work at? Not a typical office it seems. Even Dariafan, who strongly dislikes this entry, acknowledges the androgyny of Daria Werbowy. Daria is a textbook example of a masculinized woman. Is a feminine woman supposed to have broad shoulders, a narrow pelvis and a near-flat backside? The masculinity of Daria Werbowy is hardly related to her height or skinniness. I have shown plenty of pictures of tall and feminine women within this site, and have also pointed out that some skinny women have feminine skeletal proportions.

I am not forcing my opinion on anyone. You are entitled to your opinion as to how beautiful Daria is, and whereas you may find Daria beautiful, as some others do, most people don’t. On the other hand, go through the feminine vs. masculine page to understand that Daria is masculine by objective standards. Read the page linked to in my previous comment for evidence that people overwhelmingly prefer feminine looks in women. And, here is yet another picture of Daria Werbowy that shows how "beautiful" she is:

Daria Werbowy

Mon, 03/20/2006 - 18:21 Brian Backside comparison: Daria Werbowy vs. Cindy D.

Hi Erik,

Everyone in our office said you are wrong, Daria looks feminine and she is a beautiful woman. She dosn't look masculine at all. Please let us have our own opinion how a woman should look like. Please don't make an opinion and force it on other people. All women are different and they have different body types if you prefer shorter and with more body that is no problem but we think that tall and skinny can also be very feminine and that runway models don't look masculine. Look around you how many masculine looking women do you see every day? Regards

Sun, 03/19/2006 - 13:41 Anonymous Visitor The importance of femininity to beauty in women

I think #8 and #4 are more feminine than #7, but that's me.

Sun, 03/19/2006 - 01:52 Erik Backside comparison: Daria Werbowy vs. Cindy D.

Brian aka Nelson aka Alex: You do not have to post under different names to make your point. One comment is enough. Besides, your preferences notwithstanding, people overwhelmingly prefer feminine women to masculine women.

Sat, 03/18/2006 - 13:28 Nick Backside comparison: Daria Werbowy vs. Cindy D.

Cindy vs Daria,

Cindy's backside is not attractive at all!. The way she is trying to open it up is sick. Thank you for not posting the whole thing, I'm sure it is as sick as her front.

Thank you for being so considerate...

Fri, 03/17/2006 - 17:00 alex Backside comparison: Daria Werbowy vs. Cindy D.


Daria is one hot body, Cindy needs to get a better quality shaver, loose some bacon and get rid of that zit on her ass....

Fri, 03/17/2006 - 16:49 nelson Backside comparison: Daria Werbowy vs. Cindy D.


Hell yes, come to daddy baby!

Thu, 03/16/2006 - 15:41 brian Backside comparison: Daria Werbowy vs. Cindy D.

Go Daria.
Daria is hot and sexy. Long legs and beautiful face. But most important she is classy and looks intelligent. Cindy on the other hand looks like a $2.00 dollar hooker and a porn star wanna be. Her pussy is so ugly.. yuck.. who wants that one night stand looking girl over hard working and successful model like Daria. Round ass is not everything,Cindy looks like she never finished high school and showing her ass on internet is the only thing she could do with herself. Daria doesn't have to pose naked to get people's attention.

Sat, 03/11/2006 - 18:46 Erik Welcome!

Nathaniel: Thank you for taking the time to come up with the comparisons above, which I will address. In your first comparison, you compare Keira Knightley with a glamour model. Between these two women, Keira Knightley is more masculine. In the glamour model, what you consider puffiness is a lower and hence more feminine placement of the cheekbones, and what you consider a longer and masculine chin is not masculine but an ethnic trait (Northern Europeans have better developed chins). The 2 pictures below show the overall masculinization in Keira Knightley’s face.

Keira Knightley

Notice the squared chin of Keira Knightley below, something that is not apparent in the photo you posted, which underscores the fact that in the kind of evaluation relevant to this site, the photographs of a person should be evaluated from multiple angles.

Keira Knightley

Now consider the third comparison (from top) that you make. As in the picture of Keira Knightley above, the glamour model shown has an upwardly tilted face, which would tend to make her chin look more prominent than if her face were downwardly tilted as in the woman that you compare her to. Besides, her cheekbones are partly obscured by hair, and her face is broader in the middle (cheekbones) than it is at the level of the gonial region (jaw). I agree that the eyes and lips of the glamour model could be better.

In your second comparison (from top), the jawline of the glamour model is more feminine, but partly due to her narrower face and her smile, her chin looks more squared.

Now that you have posted two pictures of Sophie Dahl, consider the following two pictures of her and see how robust and masculine her facial bone structure is. Also, her lips are thinner than what they appear in her photos above (thanks to make-up).

Sophie Dahl

In 3 of your comparisons, the women that you have chosen have more masculine faces. In two cases where you identify puffiness of cheekbones, the cheekbones are placed lower on the face and hence are more feminine. The glamour models that you have flagged have narrower faces than the women they are compared to. Now, masculinization causes facial narrowing (shape), but being closer to the central tendency among gracile Northern European populations rather than masculinization is the reason why the glamour models have narrower faces. In the case of Sophie Dahl, there are more aesthetically pleasing ways to achieve facial breadth than via massively developed cheekbones.

The glamour models that you have flagged could certainly have better looking eyes and lips, but given a limited choice, one has to select the best overall package. The overall package includes the body, and in this regard, the physiques of Keira Knightley and Sophie Dahl are nowhere close to being good examples of feminine beauty, and I suspect that the redhead that you have shown has a less impressive physique than the redheaded glamour model you compare her to. If you tell me the names of the redhead and the third woman that you have shown, I will try to get more pictures of them to evaluate their looks better.

Your preferences may lean toward the somewhat masculinized. Slight masculinization in women is usually not aesthetically problematic, and I have myself displayed somewhat masculinized women in the attractive women section of this site, but these women tend to have fine facial features.

Fri, 03/10/2006 - 23:11 Nathaniel Welcome!

Ok, here i am coparing and contrasting women you find attractive with women i find attractive

Why They are Ugly

Fri, 03/10/2006 - 22:23 Nathaniel Welcome!

Thank you for editing my posts.

I suppose you are right about the artificiality of thier lips. and I agree with you about the masculinity of the Fashion Models.

-though they do have an andgrogenous, neither male nor female beauty, which is very interesting- if not sexy. They are not built like women, but they lack muscles, or body hair, or prominant browbones, which define men, and so they are almost sexless, rather than sexually appealing to gay men.

but anyway, I wanted to say that I'm not sure exactly why, but almost all of the girls you posted in your "attractive women" section make me feel slightly sick. They all have something, I can't put my finger on exactly what, that makes them not only unattractive to me, but somehow slightly creepy.

They all seem to have small eyes, and thin lips, and somewhat puffy cheeks. Anyway they all look slightly gross to me- only in the face.

If I think of why, I'll let you know

The bodies of most of them are ok, though I feel their breasts seem to be a bit small in comparison with their hips, but I know that this is the way most women are built.

Fri, 03/10/2006 - 20:02 Erik Welcome!

Nathaniel: I added the image to your comment and removed the three subsequent entries since two had nothing but non-functional links and one had the link to the image. The XHTML code for displaying the image is:<img src="{url}" alt="image" />
Replace {url} with the url of the image and do not include the brackets; you can replace the word image with a more descriptive term. An example would be:
<img src="" alt="beautiful women" />
Your choices are fine. The faces that you like are a lot more feminine than those of high-fashion models, on average. On the other hand, notice that in at least two cases, and likely all four, the thicker lips are artificially achieved by heavy make-up. European women generally tend to have thin lips, and if I had to select between a fine-featured model with thin lips vs. a less gracile model with thicker lips, it will typically be the former. The glamour models that I have shown are not supposed to represent ideal looks. It is human to have imperfections, and what needs to be considered is the overall package.

Most of the attractive women that I have shown look like they are in their twenties; only some look 18 or 19. Since increasing age tends to make the face more robust, finer facial features can mistakenly imply younger age, but the bodies of the glamour models shown suggest that most of them were in their twenties at the time the photographs were taken.

Fri, 03/10/2006 - 12:55 Nathaniel Welcome!

I agree with you on many points.

The models faces do in many ways resemble those of adolescent boys.

And their bodies even more so.

Women with an hourglass silhouette are undeniably more sexy and beautiful in my opinion.

However the faces of the women(?) [girls] you posted, are not, to my mind, the ideal of female beauty in any sense.

I will try to find pictures of what I find attractive in a womans face, and I will post them.

I suppose for one thing they all have small lips, and that i do not find as attractive as the fuller lips seen on many of the runway models.

A big part of part of it, is that I feel the most beautiful woman should look less "girlish" and more Womanly. A beautiful woman should not look naive and childish like the girls you posted, but should instead look knowledgable and sophisticated.

While the masculinity of the fashion models prevents them from looking sexy, in the traditional sense, it does make them look older, and somehow more sophisticated and worldly than your glamour models (ie porn stars)that you posted. This I feel is an important component for female sex appeal. (at least for a man who is confident in his own masculinity)

Here is what I consider to be beautiful in a woman's face.

A large forehead, and large eyes.

A small nose, full lips, and a narrow, almost pointed jawline.

beautiful women