Fashion models with and without make-up

Exactly what you said. No comments for the obvious fact that these women are naturally ugly (both before and after make up)

Masculine, ugly, freckly, bony...

If these women aren't chosen to be fashion models based on their natural, feminine, beautiful looks, then what are the criteria based on? Hmm...suspicious...

These are women?!

Models are not picked from the average population for being "beautiful" or "femenine" they are selected because they have a particular look that translates better in photography and runway shows.The fashion industry itself is not necesarily about beauty ,is about impact,attitude and controversy.

I understand that the majority of people are atracted to more clasicaly beautiful women ,that are more "femenine" so to speak.

But majority ,meaning the average joe/jane ,knows nothing about fashion ,or photography ,or has a particularly refined taste...

Majorities being made out of average people,have average ,ordinary tastes.

The fashion industry concentrates on the population that can afford its luxury items,wich have a more refined and particular taste and want to stand out from the average working or middle class person.Therefore women of higher social status percieve beauty and style in very different way the average woman does,so do men.

Men of higher social status wont be attracted by the same type of women the average joe preffers.Therefore pretendig this people should be adressed using average or ordinary women as models,makes no sense.
Models serve the sole purpose of looking a particular way on pictures or fitting into sample sizes (clothing samples just look better and are easier to make in certain sizes).Designers simply cannot go thru all the hassle of fitting each model individualy to make the best out of their shapes.If a designer were to have 15 voluptuous women as with noticeably differents shapes and fitting needs it would make all the process just ridiculously tedius.Plus how would a designer solve an emergency situation ,example,a model gets sick and cant do the job, then who will fit into that outfit???Are they supossed to magically fitted all over again or fin a girl with the same exact curves?(having in mind they would be ideally voluptous and ultra "femenine") Voluptous,or average bodies(wich are not the same of course) have too wide of a range of shapes... in oposition to the typical fashion model bodies, who tend to be more similar due to lack of curves.
Thin fashion models are a necesity of the fashion industry for more than one reasson.
While a voluptous model ,would be the femenine "ideal" it would complicate the process to an unpractical extreme.
Comercial models are closer to the average person and are often used to market diverse products that are not fashion or luxury items (such as fragrances)
The tipical ,average ,ordinary "hot" girl ,would simply not appeal to those of higher status and an aquired taste.

Adrian: Fashion designers pick models that appeal to them. The central tendency of their choices are at odds with majority preferences, including the heterosexual rich elite (both men and women). You have cited no evidence that rich heterosexual elite have a different taste in women compared to the average person. I have cited plenty of evidence regarding people's aesthetic preferences, and in these studies it has not been documented that upper class individuals prefer more masculine-looking women. The fact is that the dominant designers, male homosexuals to be more precise, have preferences at odds with the heterosexual majority.

Of course, high-fashion models are expected to have a restricted range of physique variation because the designers would rather have them fit into their designs. I have addressed this since the very beginning, but a restricted range could be anywhere along the spectrum of physique variation. Using slender and feminine women within the 5-foot-6 to 5-foot-8 range would work very well, too. It should be obvious why the skeletal proportions of high-fashion models are generally not feminine.

Eva and Naomi are older and their heydays are behind them so they have no more baby fat reserves to cover up their angular features.

The high fashion world stopped exclusively promoting classical, commercially appealing beauties at the end of the supermodel era. Eva Herzigova and Naomi Campbell are throwbacks from that era but every other model here is a representative of the different aesthetic direction that the fashion world took.

Of course you will say that the supermodels were all "masculine" and people only thought they were beautiful because they were famous. I wonder how they became famous in the first place. You may say that designers heavily promoted them but are these current models any less promoted? Why are the high fashion models of today unable to reach the same heights of fame as Linda Evangelista and Christy Turlington?

I think the supermodel era ended when people got bored of constantly seeing a glamazon army in the catwalks and on the magazine covers. Popular culture also played a part when grunge music and style came to the forefront. Designers took their inspiration from this new movement and when they incorporated these ideas into their new collections they found that the glamazons could not represent them. Supermodels could never be anything but glamazons so when fashion needed them to be something other than glamorous they couldn't deliver. They couldn't do grunge and they certainly couldn't do heroin chic.

Models like Kate Moss, Shalom Harlow and Amber Valletta came to the forefront because they could do anything. They could be styled to look like a junkie or they could be elegant and even glamorous. They ushered in a new era where models had to have an edge. They have to have a certain amount of versatility to able to last.

You would surprised to see how some of those models you posted can transform into anything with the right styling. I have seen Rayder, Sturm and Ribeiro look very glamorous and I’ve seen them look very hard and mean. Will the "feminine" models in your "alternative fashion industry" demonstrate the same versatility? Will designers be able to go for any kind of look they want without it looking “put on” or unnatural? I don't think so.

You almost make it sound as if there is some gay designer conspiracy where they want to only promote “manly” models and rob the white, hetero men of this world of some greatly deserved erections. The designers and the modeling agencies want models that can “be anything”. Your “feminine” models may be able to look sexually appealing to some straight men but can they do anything else?

Danielle: As young individuals, Naomi Campbell did not have angular facial features, but Eva Herzigova did. The reasons for the supermodels’ fame are straightforward. The supermodels were a predominantly 1980s to mid-1990s phenomenon. During this period, there was no internet in the beginning, and it hadn’t caught on much by the mid-1990s. So what the public saw was very glamorous, made-up, air-brushed pictures of the supermodels, sometimes in carefully selected poses, and the models were heavily promoted by the industry. There were no alternative industries heavily promoting feminine beauty. So why wouldn’t these women become famous?

The fashion world did change. The supermodels at their peak were too heavy for the tastes of the homosexuals (in relation to your reference to heroin chic), who wanted the models to look more like boys in their early adolescence, but the process of shifting the norms among models takes time and this process would be facilitated by increasing tolerance of homosexuality on the part of the public. You make it sound as if the public’s preferences determined who would be supermodels and the public’s boredom with them ended the supermodel era when the facts are that the homosexuals would have a harder time passing off more young-boyish-looking women as supermodels, especially with the rise of the internet, where candids of the models would be spread all over the net and people would leave all sorts of nasty comments about their looks in blogs and forums.

You talk about models needing “a certain amount of versatility to able to last.” There is no need to use make-up, breast implants, carefully-selected poses and airbrushing to make a masculine model look feminine; one could simply use a feminine model. Similarly, if one needed a masculine-looking model, why use analogous procedures to make a feminine model look masculine? Why not just use a masculine model? Why not use an attractive woman who is in the middle of the masculine-feminine range so that she can be more easily made to look more masculine or more feminine instead of leaning toward a central tendency that is clearly toward the masculine side of average? Your comment also ignores many scenarios where feminine models would be most appropriate yet masculine ones are used by the industry. And, do the homosexuals need models to last? No. Only a few big names continue to do high-fashion modeling well into their twenties; for most others it is over if their hips grow too wide and they start growing breasts. With the homosexuals increasing choosing more slender women, a very large proportion of the models have been coming from the impoverished Eastern European nations because these poor girls would be more willing to starve themselves compared to the generally better off Western European/white American girls, and there is a high turnover rate among them because the supply is greater than the demand, and the homosexuals want the ones who like boys in their early adolescence, a look that is more difficult to maintain with increasing age.

I have never portrayed a gay designer conspiracy to rob heterosexual men of what pleases them. The homosexuals are simply selecting models to suit their tastes.

Your hypothesis on why supermodels lost popularity does not convince me. How has the Internet affected the popularity of fashion models? Are you saying that because the public has more access to candid photographs of fashion models they lost interest in them? I really don't buy that considering that supermodels like Cindy Crawford were regular tabloid fodder in their heydays and they were heavily photographed. I thought you were complaining about a lack of outlets that promoted "feminine" beauty. Judging by your attractive women section it seems that there still aren't very many outlets that promote beautiful "feminine" women.

I was not trying to make it seem like the general public was responsible for the decline of the supermodel era. I think they gradually lost interest in the lives of the supermodels when they started to retire from modeling. The people in the insular high fashion world were the ones who got tired of the supermodel look. When the supermodels got older and retired they weren't replaced with other glamazons. They were replaced with women like Erin O’Connor, Stella Tennant and Kirsten Owen. The public liked the looks of the supermodels in general. You cannot prove that they didn't. It is fairly obvious that the heroin chic models lacked the classic good looks that the supermodels possessed and the general public admired.

You think the models are made up to look "feminine" when they are only made up to look glamorous or elegant. High fashion models rarely get breast implants. You are thinking of VS models. Most of the regular VS models don't do regular high fashion work and those that do don't have boob jobs. You have argued that "feminine" women cannot be made to look "masculine" at any angle so why should modeling agencies scout girls who can only sport one look? You have argued that "masculine" women can be made to look "feminine" with the use of lighting, posing and makeup so why wouldn't scouts choose girls who can be anything and therefore make more money for the agency? You are ignoring the role that modeling agencies play in the success and the promotion of models. They are the people in the fashion industry who want their models to have long lucrative careers. You are right that only a few models last well into their twenties but their agents often play a large role in the success and longevity of a model.

if u coverup the right side and just look down the left lane, it looks like a bunch of army recruits!

I agree with Adrian's comment somewhat. Birds of a feather tend to flock together.

Also, I always thought that television shows and movies were specifically picked due to the demands of the general population. Someone who used to work in the media told me this. The same goes for people who are conscious of a higher brand of beauty and taste.

I would not date a guy who wears football jerseys and drinks beer, because that's just not me. I suspect that most men of higher class and taste wouldn't date a women who is what we call "white trash." He might sleep with her, maybe, but not date her.

Erik, please stop do such a thing. the women you posted I saw them with my own eyes, face to face and they are beauty. you picture are fake. if I could post the pictures I have you will see they are prettier than the women you state.

Models are chosen for having a "blank canvas face" meaning no natural beauty

hello, if many of you females, pulled your hair back just the same, stipped yourself of makeup, gave a blank stare, had your photo taken and cropped in the same manner... you would more than likely look the same... or worse.

its their androgynous traits that account for their versatility and success

You have to admit that Adrianna Lima is very beautiful before AND after makeup. She looks very feminine.

Male and female both are human? got nose, mouth, eyes and heart the same. with photoshoping, camera teahnic, makeup etc. u would make the different person on the picture. I find all of them are look ugly on your pictures but I see all of those fashion models look beautifull on the other pitures outside this site. I think all of them look feminine however they are not that super-beautifull but I they are quite beautifull for my standard because I sure in this world has a lot of people with dispoportion face. you can try visit the country like sudan, congo, papau new guinea or some where in south east asia. I know there are a lot of people that look terrible than those fashion models much. It's not their fault and it's because the enveroment where they are living. by the way I don't find those fashion models are masculine even they are not that gorgeous. I assume the person who say those girls are masculine would be fell from being masculine males because he even couldn't recognize which one is male ? which one is female? :) those ugly pictures of the fashion models above are the result of light condition, makeup, photoshoping.

More of fahion models above.

About Avon Aoki, it's like I said before on this site that the japanese has very strong character of inner eyelids fold, also chinesse. but as I observe more of chinese have bigger eyes than japanese. this due to china is big and has many tribes. but the most as I have seen, the people part south east asian- caucasian and the people part native american Indian-caucasian tend to look 85-100 percent caucasian. some original native american Indian in canada already look like euresian people (ussr.) awhile some origianl native south east asian people already look like Uzbekistani or central asian. that's the reason why native american part aucasian and south east asian part caucasian tend to look 100 caucasian.

Avon Aoki isn't look like caucasian but she looks okay, however she isn't pretty in my openion but she is feminine.

Naomi Campbell is truly beautiful bot with and without makeup.