Gabrielle from MC nudes

Erik,
Natural or not, her mammaries are completely out of proportion.
I don't think that she should be in that section.

How can ANYONE think that this is a feminine face? Her body, yes, but her face scares me right to my very core.

Aren't typical feminine features suppose to exude a soft, innocent look? What the hell is this, then? Take off the eye makeup and lip gloss, and that is purely an adolescent boy. Who can't even eat anything because his mouth is too small to fit anything in it.

LOL at Erik thinking Jessica Alba and Adriana Lima are unattractive and that this ho right here is. HAAHAHAHHA

http://www.pixelbomb.com/blog/images/2006/11/jessica_alba_black_ball20_c...
OMG look at the obvious masculine features!

http://www.starblogs.net/archives/adriana_lima1.jpg
She's hideous! my eyes!!!

Now I suppose you're going to tell me Kate Beckinsale and Kristin Kreuk are too masculine and unattractive for most "life-time heterosexual males." Dear lord. Because I suppose every guy in this world who thinks Jessica and Adriana are hot (99% of them) are all GAY. Good one, Erik.

Or maybe they're not "European" enough for you? After all, Jessica is 1/4 Mexican, Adriana hits almost all major races, and both Kate and Kristin have Asian backgrounds somewhere in their heritage.

Not all heterosexual men prefer pastey white, plain looking, they-all-look-like-they're-from-the-same-trailer-park girls, hunny. In fact, most heterosexual males aren't into that. It's gross. Sorry.

Der Wanderer, don't you get it by now? Erik is into freaky looking girls. The more disproportionate, the better. The more trollish, the better. The more retarded/inbred looking, the better.

Take a look at Sonia Blake. DAMN SHE'S FINE!!!! She's the next Marilyn Monroe.

This woman looks like she belongs in "Pink Flamingos".

LOL! You should not have enabled comments for this post Erik. Your poor taste in women is being called into question again. The woman you replaced actually looks better than this Gabrielle. How do you expect to compete with Victoria's Secret? All I can do is sit back and laugh at your delusions.

Der Wanderer: I agree that she has disproportionately large breasts, but wouldn’t you like to personally weigh each of her mammaries? I think she is a better choice than the woman she has replaced, and I will likely replace her with a better looking woman in the future.

Sarah: You should give up trying to judge facial femininity; it is a waste of your time. The woman is also tanned, so no point in bringing up pasty white complexions.

Danielle: I am not saying that this woman is suitable for lingerie modeling. Her breasts are too large.

I never said SHE was pastey, but the majority of the women in your attractive women section are. Either that, or they have uneven, blotchy skin.

And from the one time I briefly skimmed through some of your 'scientific' studies, they showed that high cheekbones and small lips were a sign of masculinity.

I know what feminine is when I see it, and this girl isn't it.

"This woman looks like she belongs in “Pink Flamingos”."

Never watched the movie, but if it has anything to do with The Hilton Flamingo (which I doubt it does), I can totally see Gabrielle working as a cigarette lady in the casino. Her body is suitable enough for her to be a showgirl, but they always have to smile and this woman looks as if her face would crack in a million peices if she tried smiling with those lips of hers.

Plus, showgirls have to be somewhat attractive.

This woman would have had a better shape had her breasts been proportional to her body. She has a beautiful waist-to-hip ratio. However, I do agree with those who say that the woman she replaced has a better looking face.

Sarah: A woman who knows what is feminine when she encounters it does not need to bother skimming through scientific studies to understand what it is about, let alone fail to understand the scientific literature. Whereas masculinization results in a higher placement of the cheekbones, high cheekbones by themselves are not masculine, and Gabrielle does not have high cheekbones; her cheekbones are horizontally prominent. Also, small lips are not a sign of masculinity. Women have fleshier lips, but men have wider lips. Gabrielle has lips that are non-fleshy but they are not wide. So what makes her lips masculine?

Very few women in the attractive women section are pasty, and they can’t help it; some Europeans cannot tan or barely can, and the feminine beauties among them certainly belong in a section showcasing European women. You apparently dislike pasty white skin, and this is your problem.

It's not only the fact that her cheekbones are high and that her lips are small that makes her masculine-looking; it's her overall appearance. Duh. Apparently you're the only one that thinks she's cute, Erik. You keep contradicting your theory of feminine beauty when you showcase all these unattractive women.

Barely anyone likes pastey skin nowadays; that was only considered attractive up to the beginning of the 19th century. Whereas in the past, having pastey skin showed a sign of wealth and luxury (the lower class had to slave away in the sun all day), now it's considered sickly looking.

There's also a difference between pastey skin and light-colored skin. I'm naturally light-skinned myself but it's not to the point of me looking like a sick ghost.

Sarah:
If you watch "Pink Flamingos" because of my post, it's not my fault.
I'm warning you.

Whipped honey: Pink Flamingos was produced by a [borderline deranged?] homosexual (John Waters). Why would a woman like Gabrielle belong in something so filthy and freaky, and do you think he would want someone like her in this movie?

Sarah: Don't waste your time understanding femininity. The woman does not have high cheekbones, period. Thinner lips will not look masculine if their width is reduced, too (men have wider lips). There is a masculine-looking feature in her face, not describable as masculine because of the overall face shape, but you haven't figured it out. Strange isn't it for a woman who knows femininity when she sees it? It is the long distance between the bottom of the nose and the upper lips (greater in men). If you have Photoshop or another image editing program, lengthen her nose and reduce this distance; it will improve her attractiveness in a notable manner, making her look more feminine, too.

Honey, you are light but not naturally ghostly pale because you are not white...duh! The typical white person is naturally pasty white; the exceptions would be pink or in rare cases other colors as in yellow if the liver isn't functioning properly.

Pink Flamingos was produced by a [borderline deranged?] homosexual (John Waters). Why would a woman like Gabrielle belong in something so filthy and freaky, and do you think he would want someone like her in this movie?

Erik: Gabrielle looks like she belongs in "Pink Flamingos" because she looks like TRAILER TRASH.

Your obsession with defining female beauty as the physical signs of high estrogen and low testosterone seems to blind you to other considerations. Erik, so many of the women you find attractive look revoltingly low class.

I believe John Waters would have wanted someone like Gabrielle in "Pink Flamingos" because "Pink Flamingos" is full of people who look like they would fit right in at Gabrielle's family reunion.

John Waters does want women who meet your definition of "feminine" in his movies; such as Traci Lords, Joey Heatherton and Amy Locane in "Cry Baby".

Whipped honey: This website has to do with physical appearance, not social class. How do the feminine women I have been showing look lower class/trailer trash? There is an inverse relation between obesity and socioeconomic class among white women, and I haven’t been featuring overweight/obese women, but slender/medically-normal-weight women. Attractive women are upwardly mobile (disproportionately taken by richer men), i.e., feminine beauty is associated with higher class in this sense. Of course, their daughters will tend to be not so attractive because of regression to the mean, two factors in particular: 1) richer men are not necessarily attractive and 2) there is a positive association between testosterone and dominance in men, and hence the daughters of these women will tend to be not so feminine in a number of cases. Overall, the feminine women I have been featuring would be the types you would predominantly see among middle class and higher socioeconomic groups.

Joey Heatherton and Amy Locane are not feminine and Traci Lords is an ex-porn star. You think I would be using such women in a mainstream movie if I needed feminine characters?

"This website has to do with physical appearance, not social class."

Physical attractiveness is correlated to social class. In all times and places throughout human history, beauty has been defined in part as the physical signs of higher socioeconomic status (SES).

For example, in the West, in the 19th century, most lower SES people worked outdoors at farmwork or other forms of physical labor, and so a suntan was a sign of lower SES, while higher SES people either did not work or worked at indoor professions, so pale skin was a sign of higher SES. The result is that women went to great lengths to keep their skin as pale as possible, staying out of the sun during the hottest midday hours if possible, using parasols, bonnets and gloves, and even swallowing small amounts of arsenic to get a deathly palor. Then, in the 20th century, the transition to a primarily industrial, primarily non-agrarian economy moved most of the labor jobs indoors into factories, sweatshops, and other indoor environments, so that pale skin ceased to signify higher SES, and only those who had enough money not to work, or to have reasonably limited work hours, had the luxury of spending significant time outdoors. The result is that white people now are so obsessed with suntans that they have spawned entire industries of suntan lotion, fake tanning products, and even tanning parlors where they literally microwave themselves, causing a tragic skyrocket in melanoma (skin cancer).

Lower-class looks are to some degree distasteful to anyone who is not from a lower-class background, depending on whether those looks are combined with other attractive attributes such as the physical signs of good health and fertility.

For instance, Marilyn Monroe, even more so before her nose job and chin implant, looked rather lower class, but at her peak she also looked extremely healthy and extremely fertile, so the effect was balanced out to create an overall attractive look. Gabrielle does not have that fertile look; her obviously fake, cartoonishly disproportional breast implants do not have the same effect as Marilyn Monroe's obviously real, gorgeously perfectly proportioned full breasts.

Oversized, disproportional breast implants are usually a sign of lesser fertility. The psychology of breast implants is that women who get absurdly oversized implants are almost always those whose natural breasts are A cups or very small B cups, so that they grew up hating their small breasts and idolizing huge breasts and lost all sense of perspective about how big is too big for a given frame, so laughably oversized implants are almost always a sign of naturally flat chests. Pamela Anderson is an example of this. I would bet money that Gabrielle has natural A cups. (To be clear, I am not suggesting that all small-breasted women hate having small breasts; just the ones who get the oversized implants.)

Oversized, disproportional breast implants are almost always a sign of lower socioeconomic background (not to be confused with lower current SES). Women with middle to high socioeconomic background, if they get implants, choose a size that is reasonably proportional to their frame. Pamela Anderson grew up in a trailer; though she's rich now, she still has the sexual/body image psychology of a girl from the lower class. I would bet money that Gabrielle grew up poor. It's not a coincidence that ridiculous cartoon-character breast implants are far more common among hard core porn stars, who are almost always from humble backgrounds, than among actresses and clothed models, who are from the whole spectrum of class status. Most porn stars have a year or five and then disappear; Pamela Anderson would have disappeared fast had it not been for her publicity-generating marriages to two rock stars and, now, her engagement to the leading man of the highest-selling porn flick ever. Lower class looks without the signs of good health and high fertility almost never hold the public's attention for more than a brief moment in the absence of extending their fifteen minutes by latching on to someone else's fame.

"How do the feminine women I have been showing look lower class/trailer trash? There is an inverse relation between obesity and socioeconomic class among white women, and I haven’t been featuring overweight/obese women, but slender/medically-normal-weight women."

There is an inverse relation between the *rate* of obesity and socioeconomic class among white women. This means the *rate* of obesity is higher among lower class white women; it does not mean that thinness automatically makes it impossible for a woman to look lower class. Gabrielle's face looks lower class, and would regardless of her weight. Also, her oversized implants indicate a lower-class background.

"Attractive women are upwardly mobile (disproportionately taken by richer men), i.e., feminine beauty is associated with higher class in this sense."

Do you have any proof for your claim that the women who meet your definition of "feminine" are upwardly mobile or disproportionately taken by richer men?

Offhand most of the rich married men I can think of married or women who do not meet your definition of feminine: Donald Trump's wife Melania, Bill Gates' wife Melinda, Prince Charles' wife Camilla, Prince Edward's wife Sophie, Prince William's probable future wife Kate Middleton, Rupert Murdoch's wife Wendi Deng, Prince Maximilian of Luxembourg's wife Angela, U.S. President John F. Kennedy's wife Jackie.

It appears that many, perhaps most, rich men do not agree with your definitions of "feminine" and "attractive". I wonder if you will evade this issue by claiming that these men must have "narrowly escaped nonheterosexuality", a very convenient accusation since it is impossible to prove and impossible to disprove.

"Joey Heatherton and Amy Locane are not feminine and Traci Lords is an ex-porn star. You think I would be using such women in a mainstream movie if I needed feminine characters?"

Whom *you* would cast in a *mainstream* movie is beside the point.

Joey Heatherton, as seen in these pictures 1, 2, and
http://www.angelfire.com/tv2/eccentric/jli1l1ij/joey-60s.jpg, and Amy Locane, as seen in pictures 1, 2, and 3, would be consired attractive by the vast majority of straight men, excepting men who are turned off by their coloring, an issue unrelated to femininity. Now I suppose you will inform me that their jaws are too wide or something of that nature. I submit that the vast majority of straight men couldn't care less.

As for Traci Lords being an ex-porn star, how is that relevant to her femininity?

Whipped honey: Of course some correlates of beauty will be associated with the upper SES groups, but your example of tanning has already been addressed within this site and is tangential to the discussion. It is not true that “in all times and places throughout human history, beauty has been defined in part as the physical signs of higher socioeconomic status (SES).” In Rome, the influx of Northern European slaves made the men flip for the light-haired, fair, fine-skinned and fine-featured Germanic women, and lots of native women ended up jealous, prompting a number of them to artificially lighten their hair and skin.

How can you conclude that Gabrielle’s breasts are fake? I don’t like fake breasts, and generally avoid putting women with implants in the attractive women section. I have three photosets of her and it is not clear whether she has breast implants; I don’t think she has them. I am waiting to come across additional photosets to hopefully clear this issue. Don’t tell me that your conclusion is based on the large size. There are non-obese women with naturally even larger breasts.

You can look up more pictures of her if you wish. I believe her real name is Karin S. The S may be Sýkorová or Spolnikova. She is also sometimes referred to as Alicja Passtel or Ala Passtel. See some pictures of Gabrielle/Karin S. from a mainstream setting; there is absolutely nothing whatsoever that is lower class about her face/body.

The explanation of a high frequency of breast implants among porn stars is simple. Non-overweight masculinized women are bound to disproportionately have small breasts, porn stars tend to be masculinized women, and they need to look more feminine for the male viewership. Naturally, upper class women will be less inclined to be porn stars, but class is not an issue behind the high frequency of breast implants among porn stars.

I have not implied that thinness automatically makes it impossible for a woman to look lower class. I have been talking about probabilistic social class. Multiple considerations suggest that the feminine beauties I have been showing will predominantly come from middle class and higher backgrounds.

Do I need to cite proof that feminine beauties are disproportionately taken up by richer men? Visit some upscale clubs/restaurants and observe for yourself. Granted that not all rich men have hot wives, but in individual cases, there could be a number of reasons why: the man may not be a lifetime-exclusive heterosexual, the man wasn’t rich/famous before he met his wife, the man fell in love with his wife for reasons such as personality/compatibility (looks are not the basis for a long-term-stable relationship), or a super-rich man is wise enough to avoid the good looking gold diggers and go for a woman that is genuinely interested in him. To elaborate on the last point, if you are a famous multi-millionaire/billionaire, you could potentially get a huge number of drop-dead gorgeous women to marry you, but they would typically be after your money and a divorce will be expensive. So what is the wise thing to do? Get a decent woman who is genuinely interested in you; if needed, plenty of bombshells can be had on the side. To explain further, there are some decent women, some women who are genuinely interested in you, and a few very attractive woman, i.e., the probability of finding a long-term-stable female partner who satisfies all three conditions is low, and hence you will not see very attractive women with some very rich men – simple Bayesian logic (which a wise rich man would know) rather than a number of lifetime-exclusive heterosexual rich men disagreeing with “my idea” of feminine beauty.

What kind of people I would cast in a mainstream movie is relevant. You mentioned John Waters in the context of making selections similar to mine. But I wouldn’t make his selections. An ex-porn star will generally not be suitable for a mainstream movie, and I didn’t say Traci Lords isn’t feminine. I addressed whether Joey Heatherton and Amy Locane are feminine, not whether they are attractive. Of course most men will find these women attractive; I myself have called some somewhat masculinized women attractive, but these are not examples of feminine beauties.

Erik, Prove Rich Men Choose "Feminine" Women, Because I Don't Think They Do"

Erik, I said "in part". Not an absolute rule. Of course there are exceptions to every rule, but in general, the physical signs of higher SES are considered more beautiful.

The signs that Gabrielle's breasts are fake:
1. The lower halves of her breasts are exact semi-circles, not a natural shape.
2. The extreme disproportionality of her breast size to her hip width; women with that much estrogen have wider hips.

Gabrielle's implants are well done in some ways, no roundness on top, no excessively high placement too close to her collarbone, no nipples pointing upwards, almost well done enough to pass for real, if not for those two giveaways. I know everything there is to know about natural breast development, having grown a big pair myself, and Gabrielle's are fake.

I judged Gabrielle on the first pictures you posted on this page. She looks better in the link you posted in this comment, mainly because she is clothed and posed in such a way that the implants don't really show.

Here's why I don't buy that.

You claim fashion models are "masculinized" because the fashion industry is dominated by homosexual men. So what's your explanation for why porn stars are "masculinized"? You cannot possibly claim the heterosexual porn industry is dominated by homosexual men!

Why would heterosexual men pay to look at "masculinized" female porn stars? If you claim that most men who look at heterosexual pornography are "not lifetime exclusive heterosexuals" or "narrowly escaped nonheterosexuality", then considering that the porn industry makes more profit than the legitimate film, television and music industries combined, what you are really claiming is that the MAJORITY of men are "not lifetime exclusive heterosexuals" - which would contradict your claim that most men are lifetime exclusive heterosexuals - or that most men "narrowly escaped nonheterosexuality" - which would mean that you, Erik, who *claim* you have no trouble escaping nonheterosexuality, do not represent the majority of men.

If you say heterosexual men pay to look at "masculinized" female porn stars because somewhat "masculinized" women are more likely to be promiscuous and therefore more likely to do porn, then you contradict yourself because most of your "Attractive Women" gallery, including Gabrielle, are "nude models" who are quite willing to be photographed for public display with their genitalia showing, something NO non-promiscuous woman would EVER do. And many "nude models" secretly moonlight as porn stars and escort service prostitutes using different names, including one close friend of mine, so if you buy that "I'm just a nude model I don't do porn" nonsense, you're kidding yourself.

The reason for the high frequency of breast implants among porn stars is that, according to Jenna Jameson who should know, it is now almost impossible for a porn star to get top billing and box cover without breast implants. It has become a job requirement regardless of the woman's physical type. Yes, class is not an issue behind the high frequency of breast implants among porn stars, and that's not what I said; I said class is an issue behind the high frequency of *disproportional cartoon-character* implants among porn stars. Many legitimate film actresses get breast implants as well, but they are statistically less likely to come from the lower class than porn stars, and so most of them have the taste to choose implants at a fairly proportional size.

And no, porn stars don't need those exaggeratedly huge, ridiculous implants for the male viewership. Men's favorite size in implants is said to be C cups.

Yes, you do.

The entire crux of your argument is men are NATURALLY programmed to prefer women women who are "feminine" as you define it; if that is true, then the rich men who can have their pick of women would generally choose the more feminine ones. So prove it!

Unless you have statistical, not anecdotal, evidence that rich men are less likely than middle-class or poor men to be lifetime exclusive heterosexuals, there is no valid basis for using the "not exclusive lifetime heterosexual" excuse for the total absence of any evidence for your claim that rich men tend to marry "feminine" women.

the man wasn’t rich/famous before he met his wife,

All the men I listed were rich/famous before they met their wives. Almost all men who are not born rich/famous but become so, are married to a woman they met after they became rich/famous because once they get rich/famous they trade in the first wife for a younger model.

You are backpedaling. You said "feminine" women are disproportionately taken by richer men; now the richer men choose a woman on the basis of something other than looks. If the ones who choose "feminine" women are the majority, at least give me some anecdotal evidence.

Plain women are gold diggers too, and rich men know that very well. No rich man is naive enough to think that he can avoid gold diggers by avoiding good looking women.

Erik, consider that your claim that richer men are more likely to choose "feminine" women might be mistaken. You haven't managed to produce any solid evidence of it, not even anecdotal evidence.

I listed eight very rich men with at least $100 million and non-"feminine" wives whom they married after they got rich and who have never been rumored to be anything other than heterosexual. Here are some more:

Billionaire Peter Brandt and his wife Stephanie Seymour
Canadian media mogul David Thomson, 10th richest man in the world, and his fiancee actress Kelly Rowan
Rock star Paul McCartney and his wife Linda
Rock star John Lennon and his wife Yoko Ono
Rock star George Harrison and his wife Olivia
Rock star
Rock star Keith Richards and his wife Patti Hansen
Rock star Sting and his wife Trudi Styler
Rock star Steven Tyler and his wife Theresa
Director Steven Speilberg and his wife Kate Capshaw
Actor Tom Hanks and his wife Rita Wilson
Actor Harrison Ford and his fiancee Calista Flockhart
Actor Clint Eastwood and his wife Dina Ruiz
Actor Paul Neuman and his wife Joanne Woodward
Actor Robert Deniro and his wife Grace Hightower
Prince Felipe of Spain and his wife Princess Letizia
Prince Michael of Kent and his wife Princess Michael
8+14, that's 22 so far.
And I could think of many more if I were willing to spend the time.

Can you come up with a list of even just 10 men who have at least $100 million who are married to "feminine" women?
:bug:

Erik, please de-bold me. Except for the first line of my previous post. I swear I'll get the hang of this.
:red:

Whipped honey: Young, well-endowed women with sufficient supporting connective tissue development can have semi-circular breast lower halves. Estrogens are not the only factors behind breast size. Some women with naturally large breasts do not necessarily have very wide hips just as some feminine women with very wide hips also have small breasts. So, it does not follow that Gabrielle/Karin has breast implants.

The explanation for porn stars being disproportionately masculinized is that feminine women are less inclined toward promiscuity, and this doesn’t conflict with my showing nude models. If you look at the early nude models, you will often encounter masculinized women because they were basically prostitute types; regular women wouldn’t pose nude then. Times have changed. There is some but not excessive stigma against women posing nude in Western societies. So this makes it possible for one to be more successful at obtaining pictures of feminine nude models. Even so, I have gone through thousands of nude models to feature the 55 or so nude women in the attractive women section. The correlation between “low moral character”/prostitution/promiscuity and nude modeling is much weaker now in Western societies, and many nude models are not promiscuous in real life, especially if they are feminine. Ask yourself, if a woman is posing nude, is an escort in real life and this is her livelihood, what stops her from having sex on camera? Most people are going to have a low opinion of her regardless of whether she does porn. What would disproportionately prevent the more feminine nude models from having sex on camera?

Most porn stars do not have gigantic/cartoonish breast implants. Most of them have reasonably sized ones, and your bringing class into the issue is again irrelevant. Some women who decide to make a living through nudity/porn work may decide to get exaggerated implants to cater to a certain niche, namely, men into humongous breasts, but upper class women would be less likely to be doing porn in the first place, so getting humongous breast implants to cater to a niche among men would not be an issue.

The best proof of richer men disproportionately taking up feminine beauties can be obtained by spending some time in, say, a big mall or large general social gathering and looking at the women and then looking at the women in upscale clubs. Do it and get back to me.

There is plenty of evidence that upper class men are less likely to be lifetime-exclusive heterosexual than men in general; to mention a few, including random and population-based samples:

I am not backpedaling when saying that richer men are also selecting women on criteria apart from looks. This should be obvious. And did you miss the application of Bayes’ theorem? Apparently yes because you mentioned plain women being gold diggers, too. The application of Bayes’ theorem suggests that the most likely non-gold-digger for a rich man would be a not so attractive woman.

I don’t keep up with the lifestyles of rich men and am not going to waste my time looking up rich men with feminine and attractive wives. No reasonable person should dispute that feminine beauties are disproportionately taken up by richer men.

Nude models have a financial incentive to lie and say they don't do porn.

Nothing disporportionately prevents the more "feminine" nude models from having sex on camera. Some of them do and some of them don't. The reason you think they are underrepresented in pornography is that you haven't seen enough pornography to know. If most of the most successful porn stars meet your definition of "masculinized", then that indicates that most heterosexual male porn fans find "masculinized" women attractive and perhaps even more attractive than "feminine" women.

Your claim is that heterosexual men watch "masculinized" women in pornography because they don't have the option of watching "feminine" women because "feminine" women are less likely to do porn. I say you are judging based on the most popular porn stars, and if you looked further, you would find that there is a huge percentage of "feminine" women in porn.

Those who do, often pretend they don't because part of their cachet as nude models is that they are in some way better or more respectable than porn stars. You buy into this mentality yourself, as you stated that Gabrielle from MC Nudes has an advantage over the woman she replaced because the replaced woman is a porn star, and you stated that you would not cast Traci Lords in a mainstream film because she is an ex-porn star. Your own statements should tell you just how much MORE stigmatized porn stars are than nude models.

Erik, if it's important to you to believe that nude models don't lie when they say they don't do porn, then have your illusions.

If "feminine" beauties are disproportionately taken up by richer men, then why can't you prove it?

I've already done it. I've spent plenty of time in shopping malls and large general social gatherings and plenty of time in upscale clubs and other monied environments. Monied environments such as upscale clubs have a much HIGHER percentage of women who look like high fashion models.

That a rich man is unlikely to find a woman who is decent (whatever that means), genuinely interested in him, and gorgeous, and so therefore chooses which category to give up on and gives up on gorgeous, does not prove plain women aren't gold diggers. Yes, a rich man improves his odds of finding a non-gold-digger wife by looking among non-georgeous women, but only becaus plain women outnumber gorgeous women and therefore the same proportion of non-gold-diggers amongst plain women is a much higher number than the same proportion of non-gold-diggers amongst gorgeous women, not because plain women are less likely to be gold diggers. And all this is a moot point unless you can prove that "masculinized" women are less likely to be gold diggers than "feminine" women, and considering how many high fashion models marry astronomically rich men, it appears that is not the case.

Fiat! You can't prove your claim that "feminine" beauties are disproportionately taken up by richer men, so you declare that "no reasonable person would dispute" it. Incredible!

If you don't keep up with the lifestyles of rich men then how do know they disproportionately take up the "feminine" women? If you don't keep up with their lifestyles then how do you know who they marry?
:P

Her bowed out zygomatic process...I thought you said that was a masculine trait, erik?

^^ Or maybe not masculine, but it's at least a sign of greater robusticity of the facial bones surely, which I thought you said is 'unattractive'. Erik, if you don't think masculinization and greater maturity/robustness are the same thing (and I believe you said that they are not, it's just that women are pedomorphic on more factors), can you list the ways in which adult males tend to be more pedomorphic? I have never read ANYTHING about this, all the literature is more about how women are pedomorphic.

Gabrielle: Whereas I haven’t seen much of pornographic movies, you can bet I have gone through pictures of thousands of porn stars. The sites that I get pictures from often feature nude porn stars. When I initially gathered pictures for this site, I didn’t know who was or wasn’t a porn star, but I ran into databases featuring the nude/porn work of various models and also asked around, and it turned out that few of the women I had intended for the attractive women section had done porn work. So inadequate sample size doesn’t explain my conclusions.

In the age of the internet, a nude model that does porn will not get far with lying about her porn work. If you seek pictures of Gabrielle, including by using her other names, you will note that a number of men are asking whether she has shown “pink,” i.e., her genitals, but apparently she hasn’t gone beyond a slight peek of her vulva so far. If she had done porn, how well could she hide it?

When it comes to the appeal of a porn star to heterosexual men, you are also looking at factors apart from looks, namely the woman’s repertoire of onscreen sex practices and how disinhibited her screen presence is. Masculinized porn stars tend to indulge in a wider variety of sex practices, making them suitable for casting in more movies and widening their appeal base, and these women also tend to be more disinhibited. So once again, their popularity isn’t because of their physical masculinization, but because they comprise the typical women who are willing/able to do on camera what they do.

I have seen few upper class men dating fashion models types; they generally go for women most find better looking than average, which corresponds to above average feminine women. I don’t have to keep up with the lifestyles of individual rich men to point this out; just general observation in upscale settings suffices.

You were on track to getting Bayesian logic right, but missed the point. The point isn’t that plain women aren’t gold diggers or are less likely to be gold diggers, but as you said, since there are a lot more of them, the most likely non-gold-digger and suitable match for a rich man would be a woman who isn’t that attractive. Wise rich men know they can get plenty of action on the side and wouldn’t marry rashly. When they goof up, it costs them dearly. Consider Paul McCartney; he ended up with a former nude model, porn star and call girl, and will be paying decent alimony. Since femininity is a very powerful correlate of beauty in women, it follows that masculinized/non-feminine women will be overrepresented among plain-looking women, and hence you can paraphrase Bayesian logic in terms of the likely femininity of a suitable choice for a rich man.

Not from Twisty’s: I would not recommend that you equate feminine features with pedomorphic ones. Feminine maturation makes a woman deviate away from the norm in children. Just because the deviation on some counts is less than that in men, it does not follow that “feminine” should be labeled “pedomorphic.” Gabrielle’s overall face shape should be seen in this context, which shows the expansion of the cheekbones resulting from feminization, not robusticity.

The real reason so many female porn stars are "masculinized"

Erik, your statement to me in your most recent post on this page is accidentally addressed to Gabrielle, the nude model.

Erik, you assume that the reason most female porn stars are "masculinized" is that "feminine" women are generally less willing to do porn than "masculinized" women. Melisande, who has worked as both a nude model and a porn star, says that many pornographers prefer the "supermodel or underage type of body when shooting". Did you ever even consider the possibility that the real reason most of the nude models in your "Attractive Women" gallery have not done porn is not that they refused but that heterosexual pornographers TURNED THEM DOWN? "Masculined" women are common in porn because many heterosexual pornographers prefer them to "feminine" women.

As for your claim that "masculinized" women are popular as porn stars because they are "more disinhibited" and willing to perform a wider variety of sex acts, I am not convinced that is true, but IF that is true, then why should men WANT "feminine" porn stars who are more inhibited and perform a narrower range of sex acts?
8-/

Erik, you contradict yourself about rich men's preferences in women

You claim that rich men disproportionately take up "feminine" women; you provide no evidence, not even anecdotal, let alone statistical, to back up this claim; you admit you do not keep up with the lifestyles of rich men yet insist you still know who they marry, and claim that "general observation in upscale settings suffices" to prove this claim. MY general observation in upscale settings is that rich men are far MORE likely to marry "masculinized" women.

You explain away the many marriages of famous rich men to "masculinized" women by claiming that "There is plenty of evidence that upper class men are less likely to be lifetime-exclusive heterosexual than men in general" and that "The application of Bayes’ theorem suggests that the most likely non-gold-digger for a rich man would be a not so attractive woman."

Make up your mind: Either rich men disproportionately marry feminine women OR rich men are more likely to be not lifetime exclusive heterosexuals and marry "masculinized" women to cut down on the risk of marrying a gold digger. You can't have it both ways!

Whipped honey: Sorry about mistakenly addressing you as Gabrielle. I will address Melisande’s comment in the entry titled, “Guinevere...” I will say in brief here that there is a positive correlation between an interest in atypical/bizarre sexual behaviors and a disinhibited libido. Men with a stronger libido are more likely to be regular customers of pornography. Hence there will be a strong demand for porn/pictures of women featuring underage bodies even though men into such females are a small proportion of the population. So if some pornographers are especially looking for 18-plus women with underage bodies, you bet this is not because most men demand this.

There is no way pornographers are turning down feminine beauties in porn. Breast implants are quite common among porn stars, including the top-ranked ones. If these women were feminine, they would typically not need implants. Why do pornographers allow so many porn stars with breast implants? This is because most of their customers prefer women with more femininity that what the porn stars naturally have, but the pornographers are just not successful in recruiting enough sufficiently feminine women.

Why would men want feminine porn stars that are more inhibited and perform fewer sex acts? Many men are not into sex practices such as anal sex, oral-anal sex and ejaculate consumption, and hence they are perfectly at home watching porn where such acts or other atypical/disinhibited acts are not featured. In addition, even men who are into such practices will often want to see the tamer porn because it features more beautiful women.

When I talked about the women that rich men are disproportionately seen with in upscale settings, I wasn’t talking about wives. The women could be wives, girlfriends or escorts.

I do not have a problem making up my mind. There is no reason why an interest in masculinized women and Bayes’ theorem cannot work in concert.

More on why "feminine" women are not the norm in porn

Erik, it makes no difference whether "most men" do or do not want porn stars with "the supermodel or underage type of body". All that matters to pornographers is what men who buy pornography regularly want, and they apparently generally want the "supermodel or underage type of body", so that is what pornographers use.

Pornographers turn down "feminine" women in porn and choose women with breast implants because many, if not most, male regular porn customers prefer fake breasts to real breasts. Fake breasts are usually firmer, perkier, and more upright than real breasts of the same size. Those male regular porn customers who do not prefer fake breasts tend to prefer very small breasts for underage-looking waif appeal. There is a subgenre of porn that focuses on large real breasts, but it does not sell nearly as well as porn featuring large fake breasts or small real breasts.

"Feminine" porn stars who are "more disinhibited and perform fewer sex acts" may appeal to men who are not into "atypical/disinhibited sex acts", but such men are FAR less likely than men who are into "atypical/disinhibited sex acts" to be regular porn customers, and pornographers make money by catering to their regulars.

Wrong. Men who are regular customers of the more "atypical/disinhibited porn" usually have little or no interest in "the tamer porn", and if they regarded "feminine" women as more beautiful, they would make those porn films that feature "feminine" women bestsellers - and they don't.
:long:

You still haven't proved your claims about what kind of women rich men want

You're backpedalling. What you said was "Do I need to cite proof that feminine beauties are disproportionately taken up by richer men? Visit some upscale clubs/restaurants and observe for yourself. Granted that not all rich men have hot wives"

You made it clear that when you claimed "feminine" women are disproportionately taken up by rich men, you were talking about wives. After I pointed out that many rich men marry "masculinized" women and that you can't even come up with anecdotal, let alone statistical, evidence that rich men disproportionately marry "feminine" women, you changed your tune and rewrote your statement to include girlfriends and escorts, since you know there is no way to prove who rich men date or hire as prostitutes.

That is not what I meant; what I mean is that your idea of rich men's "interest in masculinized women and Bayes’ theorem" CAN "work in concert" with each other, but CANNOT work in concert with the claim that "feminine" women are disproportionately taken up by rich men.

Both Gabrielle (aka Ala Passtel) and Ilona are absolutely gorgeous women. I really cannot understand how this might not be obvious to everybody. Plus, they are not comparable. They are perfect beauties, of a different kind. Very few are as perfect as those lucky two.