Added to the attractive women section. I can’t tell whether her breasts are natural, and hence this addition should be considered temporary, but the woman that is replaced by her had the minuses of a duller face and being a porn star.
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
OMG look at the obvious masculine features!
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.
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, andhttp://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"
"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."
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.
"How can you conclude that Gabrielle’s breasts are fake?"
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.
"You can look up more pictures of her if you wish."
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.
"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."
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.
"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."
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.
"Do I need to cite proof that feminine beauties are disproportionately taken up by richer men?"
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!
"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,
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.
"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),"
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.
"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."
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 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?
Erik, please de-bold me. Except for the first line of my previous post. I swear I'll get the hang of this.
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:
Fay RE, Turner CF, Klassen AD, et al. Prevalence and patterns of same-gender sexual contact among men. Science 1989;243(4889):338-48.
Binson D, Michaels S, Stall R, et al. Prevalence and social distribution of men who have sex with men: United States and Its Urban Centers. J Sex Res 1995;32(3):245-54.
Remafedi G, Resnick M, Blum R, et al. Demography of sexual orientation in adolescents. Pediatrics 1992;89(4 Pt 2):714-21.
Grulich AE, de Visser RO, Smith AMA, et al. Sex in Australia: homosexual experience and recent homosexual encounters. Aust NZ J Public Health 2003;27(2):155–63.
Binson D, Michaels S, Stall R, et al. Prevalence and social distribution of men who have sex with men: United States and Its Urban Centers. J Sex Res 1995;32(3):245-54.
Remafedi G, Resnick M, Blum R, et al. Demography of sexual orientation in adolescents. Pediatrics 1992;89(4 Pt 2):714-21.
Grulich AE, de Visser RO, Smith AMA, et al. Sex in Australia: homosexual experience and recent homosexual encounters. Aust NZ J Public Health 2003;27(2):155–63.
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.
"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?"
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?
"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."
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.
"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."
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.
"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."
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?
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?
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.
"In addition, even men who are into such practices will often want to see the tamer porn because it features more beautiful women."
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.
You still haven't proved your claims about what kind of women rich men want
"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."
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.
"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."
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.
Isn't everybody forgetting the basic fact that what may be attractive to someone may not be to someone else?
Ok, I don't get it. Why would men like a weak stupid retarded looking woman anyways? I mean if I were a guy I would want a woman that has feminine qualities but not to the point where she looks like a child or a retard. Not to mention many of the women in your attractive women's section have bad teeth. Bad teeth or good teeth can totally alter bone structure. The women in your pics have weak jaws and "low cheekbones" or more accuratley ill-defined cheekbones because their teeth are bad. High cheekbones are not cheekbones placed high on the face. They are prominent cheekbones, or cheekbones that are well-defined. Please look up the definition of high cheekbones before you make up your own. High cheekbones are a sign of fertility in women. High cheekbones are a sign of beauty/attractiveness in women. The reason high fashion models' cheekbones look masculine is because there is no fat on them. This makes them look robust and manly. Women that are feminine will gain fat on their faces causing a more rounded face appearance, but the cheekbones can still be prominent. This is actually what an attractive women should look like. She should have fat placed on the right places on her face, including her cheekbones. Her cheekbones should be well-defined but softened due to the fat placement. Therefore she looks feminine but "well-structured", soft but strong, not weak and retarded. Women lose fat from their faces as they age due to a change in hormones. This causes them to look more masculinized as they age. High cheekbones are a good thing. Weight loss will result in little fat on the face causing the cheekbones to appear too prominent. This gives off the "masculine" look. The only part you have right is the fact that wider lips are in fact more masculine.
Tammy: The term ‘high’ in ‘high cheekbones’ obviously refers to height (high vs. low) or vertical placement on the face. Prominence or sideways projection of the cheekbones is a separate matter. I don’t completely disagree with your statement that ‘High cheekbones are a sign of beauty/attractiveness in women’ since you are actually referring to sideways prominence of the cheekbones, and more attractive women will more often than not have wider faces than the less attractive ones, but you have chosen incorrect terminology. With feminization-related shape changes, the cheekbones expand in the cheek area whereas with masculinization the cheekbones expand in the arches (the bony process of the cheebones, just beneath the temple). So a combination of shape changes comprising of shrunk cheekbones in the cheek area, expanded cheekbone arches and a longer lower face give a high appearance/placement of the cheekbones with masculinization.
The face shape differences between high-fashion models and glamour models shown within this site are predominantly because of the bony face structure, not the amount of fat deposited in the face because these women, like typical people, have little fat in the face.
For Whipped Honey
FEMININE WOMEN AND THE NORM IN PORN
I agree with you that most men’s preferences are less of a concern to pornographers than the preferences of the men who regularly purchase pornography, but why should we assume that these regulars are getting exactly what they want? Most women will not pose nude, let alone indulge in pornography. So you are wasting your time trying to explain the looks of porn stars primarily in terms of what the customers prefer. You must also consider non-looks-related factors such as screen presence and behavior.
The subgenre of porn that focuses on women with very large breasts usually doesn’t sell as well as regular porn because this is a niche, and the models or actresses are disproportionately overweight or obese.
You got it right that regular porn customers are more into atypical or disinhibited sex acts, but they are also a minority among men. Most men will be exposed to porn but few will become regular customers. So the preferences of these regulars should not be extrapolated to most men.
You also said that if regular customers more into atypical or disinhibited sex acts were interested in feminine women, they would make porn movies featuring feminine women best sellers. But, there are few feminine women porn stars to start with and fewer still who will indulge in more atypical/disinhibited sex acts, and the latter will usually be co-featured with the less feminine ones as the pornographers would like to make more money by having customers buy 5 videos featuring 5 women each and only one attractive woman per video rather than one movie with 5 attractive women. So the pornographers are hardly making ‘”feminine” women bestsellers.’
WOMEN THAT RICH MEN WANT OR END UP WITH
I didn’t make it clear that when I talked about rich men disproportionately taking up the more feminine and attractive women, I was specifically talking about wives. I added the note about wives after the statement. So wives are included, but so are other types of female partners, whom I explicitly stated later as girlfriends or escorts, and this isn’t changing my tune. It should be obvious that the women that rich men are disproportionately seen with in upscale settings are not necessarily their wives. You can add mistresses or concubines to the list.
You interpreted my statement that “There is no reason why an interest in masculinized women and Bayes’ theorem cannot work in concert” as incompatible with the claim that feminine women are disproportionately taken up by rich men, and earlier as incompatible with a greater frequency of nonheterosexuality among rich men.
Let us say that 10% of the general male population but 20% of rich men are interested in masculinized women because of higher rates of nonheterosexuality among rich men. Let us assume that most of the remaining men in either group are interested in feminine women. Let us say that 33% of the general male population but 25% of rich men end up with masculinized women. Let us say that 33% of the general male population but 40% of rich men end up with feminine women. Under these assumptions, we note that rich men are disproportionately nonheterosexual and disproportionately take up more feminine women. We also note that among rich men, even though they are few and desirable and hence have their choice of women, 60% end up with normal or masculinized women whereas upward of 70% and less than 80% prefer feminine women. So at least 5% of rich men who either prefer feminine or normal women end up with masculinized women and roughly a third or more of rich men end up with a female partner with a non-desired level of masculinity-femininity. This hypothetical scenario is simultaneously compatible with a higher prevalence of nonheterosexuality among rich men, rich men disproportionately taking up feminine women (this would be especially so if we consider what kind of women these men obtain on the side) and many rich men marrying women who they don’t find particularly physically appealing for a variety of reasons such as personality factors, an attempt to avoid gold-diggers (see the discussion on Bayes’ logic), business interests, trying to keep wealth within the extended family, etc. So I don’t have a problem making up my mind.
ok well I didn't know I was using the wrong terminology. But now since you know what I mean, when people say that high cheekbones give a more youthful appearance later in life reducing eye wrinkles, etc. do they mean high cheekbones or sideways prominent ones. Also, is it possible for a female with high cheekbones to still be feminine overall? I read somewhere on here that Asians are the most feminine race, looked it up and found it was true. Asians often have high cheekbones. So now I am confused as to why high cheekbones are masculine, if the most feminine race tends to have higher cheekbones. Also, can you please post some pictures of women with sideways prominent cheekbones because I don't know if I just can't tell the diff. For example this woman you posted on this page to me seems to have high cheekbones because they expand right below the temple just like you said. Yet you claim she is feminine? Do you understand my confusion?
I can't tell the diff. between high and "sideways prominent" cheekbones. I understand what you are saying but then looking at this picture I see by your definition she has high cheekbones. "the cheekbones expand in the arches (the bony process of the cheebones, just beneath the temple). " Her cheekbones expand at the arches. She is attractive however her hairstyle, lips, and bad nose make her unattractive. I am still confused about the whole cheekbone thing.
Also, there has been extensive research done on the appeal of high cheekbones. The results are always that "high cheekbones" add attractiveness to both males and females. Both males and females are sexually selected over "low-cheekboned" counterparts. If you want some links I can provide them just ask, but I am too lazy to go back and get them right now. Of course within those results is also the fact that cheekbones that are too high start to lose their charm and therefore high cheekbones that are not too high are most attractive but that high cheekbones in general are more attractive than low. So, are the researchers really mistakening "high" cheekbones for "sideways prominent ones"? Just look up some research on your own and you will easily find what I am talking about. So please clear the whole high cheekbone vs. sideways prominent cheekbones confusion with me.
Also: What about the whole Halle Barry epidemic? I mean why were people so crazy about her high cheekbones if they were unattractive? Why are women to this day still requesting to have their cheekbones done like hers?
I don't see why you think "pasty" is a bad thing. Although tan skin can make almost anyone look more attractive many white women pull off "ivory" or very white skin off very beautifully. My mother is very pale with blue eyes, if she was tanner she would look fake and unnatural as blue eyes rarely go with tan skin. However, she doesn't need to tan because her vibrant ivory skin and light blue eyes make her a sight to see. She was so beautiful when she was younger. A quality that makes many people attractive does not make ALL people attractive and in fact can do the opposite. So yes, many white women don't look good extremely white, but MANY white women do look good. Many tan middle easterners look amazing with darker skin, however some don't look good with their darker skin. Also, many middle easterners have darker features so darker skin matches that. It's like picking between a white or chocolate labrador, it all comes down to your individiual preferences. Although, I have to say that a softer color of the skin to me is more feminine. This is not to say that a woman with dark skin is not feminine, but how soft is that version of the color. If she is brown, is it a soft brown? White woman often have a soft color. White women with pinkish skin as often seen in the very nordic countries, still look good with that pink skin as long as it is a soft pink. Even skin tone contributes a lot to everything as well.
Tammy: This high cheekbones issue has created a lot of trouble for me. Too many people use the term to refer to width or sideways prominence. You mentioned this topic in the scientific literature, and I know that there have been contradictory findings, partly because the researchers have not used the term in a consistent manner and partly because they didn’t have proper controls. I suppose I will have to come up with picture comparisons, but this will take a while. In the meantime, the following should help.
In the image below, the orange part colors the cheekbones, and you can observe that the yellow part of the mid-facial bone forms part of the bony portion of the cheeks. The cross-hatched portion refers to the arches of the cheekbones.
Now look at the following skulls; the female is at the left. Note that the cheekbone arches are much more powerfully developed in the male (right) but the cheekbones in the cheek area are shrunken in the male (all references are to shape differences). Note also that the cheekbones sit higher on the face in the male (a combination of the shrunk appearance of the bony portion of the cheeks and the longer lower face; if you saw these skulls in front view, you would also note that a more powerful development of the cheekbone arches further tends to make more masculine cheekbones appear placed higher on the face). The skulls are shown at different angles and I will try to find better examples, but I think you should get the idea.
Now if you look at Gabrielle, whereas her cheekbone arches are somewhat sideways prominent, her cheekbones are also expanded in the cheek area. This is a good illustration of how much of her cheeks are filled with the cheekbones (a lot); the placement of the cheekbones is clearly low on the face. The picture on top of this page isn’t clear because she is looking down, but expansion of the cheekbones in the cheek area is a more significant feature of Gabrielle’s cheeks than the development of the cheekbone arches.
So the answer to the attractiveness question is that a more feminine development of the cheekbones in women and a more masculine development of the cheekbones in men will tend to correspond to greater attractiveness, within limits, of course. And since attractiveness depends on how it all fits together, you will surely find attractive and overall feminine-looking women with high cheekbones (as in high placement of the cheekbones on the face).
Tammy: You called Asians the most feminine ethnic group and then inferred from their cheekbones how more feminine cheekbones should look like. There are two problems with this approach. Firstly, face shape differences across ethnic groups are overwhelmingly due to factors apart from sex hormones and other elements responsible for making men look different from women. Secondly, East Asians have reduced secondary sexual characteristics compared to Europeans, which means that the men look less masculine and the women less feminine on average compared to their European counterparts, but this cannot be described as East Asians being a more feminine ethnic group. Just looking at the example of East Asian women, there are far fewer East Asian women with hourglass figures than European women. Whereas East Asian women have lower testosterone levels than European women, on average, they also have lower estrogen levels and higher testosterone levels for a given amount of estrogen levels. All this hardly translates to describing East Asian women as more feminine than European women, and they look less feminine than European women, on average. If East Asians were a more feminine ethnic group, both their men and women would be more feminine than their counterparts in a more masculine ethnic group.
It is pretty sad that scientists don't really know what they are talking about because they cannot even properly define what they are studying, such as high cheekbones. There is so much confusing research out there that is so contradictory and a person like me will easily get confused. I am kind of getting into anthropology. I was always interested in differences between people, where people got certain characteristics from, culture, etc. So I look up this stuff when I have time, but I realized that few sources are credible. Anyways, I do get the point about high cheekbones. I always thought that high cheekbones were really just well defined cheekbones, but they are just placed high on the face. I always thought the reason Marilyn Monroe's face was considered so attractive was because of her "high cheekbones" but now I think she only had well-defined low cheekbones. Are there people that are just in between though? Anyways, here are some pictures of Marilyn Monroe:
Ok, so I went a little crazy with the pictures but am I right that she is really feminine and so are her cheekbones? Also, I noticed that Marilyn's wide face makes her extremely attractive. However, how common is a wider face among Northern Europeans? They are obviously the most feminine as you explained, so do they too often have wider faces? My face is medium, and I can't seem to find anyone in my family (we are Northern European) with a wide face.
If you do end up posting pictures comparing cheekbones, might I suggest that you also post up pics of men with low and high cheekbones. I know this whole website is about women and not men but I think that if you posted a pic of a low cheekboned female compared to a highcheekboned female next to a male with high cheekbones I can see how a masculine woman looks more like a man than a feminine woman. Also, I read in many articles recently that high cheekbones are actually sexually selected by women in men. Women like high cheekbones on men because it makes them more masculine. I would like to see and compare how cheekbones enhance a man's appearance but don't do the same for a woman's appearance.
One more question, and sorry if its stupid, but I noticed that masculine men are attracted to super feminine women, and visa versa. So, about evolution... will extreme femininity and masculinity eventually die out and will we all be kind of balanced and in the middle of the scale of femininty and masculinity? How is femininity preserved in this case? I am attracted to more masculine men with high cheekbones, but I want to have feminine kids. I don't think its possible to have feminine kids if I go for the type of men I like.
Also, I see your point with the model you posted. Her cheekbones indeed are not high according to your def. and pics. They are just wide and well-defined. I do think her cheekbones are really the only thing that makes her attractive though.
Are Britney's cheekbones high or low? To me they appear low but this picture throws me off. Why? Is it just airbrushed to make her cheekbones look high?
Tammy: Of course, there are cheekbones in between high and low. High and low can only be in reference to some average, and lots of people will be average or close. The cheekbones of Britney Spears are about average, not high or low. The picture you posted may have the face digitally edited. Marilyn Monroe was in the normal to feminine range, but not highly feminine.
Just because more attractive women will tend to have wider and thereby more feminine faces, on average, doesn’t mean that the faces have to be wide in order to be feminine or attractive. Here are some faces, ranging from wide to narrow, and all are clearly feminine, and have low-placed cheekbones except Katherine: Nikky, Lilian, Maria, Callista, Katherine, Elkie, Domenica; the narrower faces still look more feminine than the wider face of the following woman.
The more extreme examples of femininity and masculinity are not going to be eliminated. If there is a majority bias toward feminine women and masculine men, some such individuals will appear in every generation, but the majority of women will not be able to become very feminine or the majority of men very masculine. More on this in an article on sexually antagonistic selection.
This issue of cheekbones is somewhat confusing. I don't know if you are aware of this but in pictures cheekbones can look different at different angles, when smiling or pouting. Someone said i had feminine cheeks, although mine are not low set...i think. I think people usually equate broader/fuller cheeks compared with the rest of the face to femininity.
Btw since this site is about looks, i can comment on hers :)
I don't find her attractive and i am a gay male. It has to do with her "masculine" lip region. When i said i am a gay male and don't find her attractive (obviously lol). I meant because of her "masculinization" i should find her attractive but i don't.
Ok, so I don't get why Marilyn Monroe is a historic sex symbol if she is not highly feminine? I mean what is your opinion on why she was and still desired by so many men? Is it the fake blonde hair? I heard she was an hourglass and maybe that is why? However, everytime I see a photo of her it is not of her body but of her face. Everyone seems to like her face? What makes her face so attractive if she is not super feminine? Also, who is more feminine: Marilyn Monroe or young Elizabeth Taylor?
Can you please site a source that claims Northern European women have an hourglass figure more often than any other ethnicity? I would just like to see it please, because honestly I see few hourglasses in the first place. I have an hourglass figure, and I am not Northern European. I find it odd that so few women have a true hourglass figure, and the majority of these women are supposedly Northern European. I am Polish, Italian, and German. I doubt that my German ancestry was the sole contributor to my hourglass figure, especially because my family was from a Southern part of Germany close to France and no one from my German side looks remotley Northern European. I think that I notice that British women have hourglass figures most often. Actresses like Kate Winslet are curvy and beautiful! However, countries up more North, I really don't see them having hourglass figures that often at all! I mean I see more Northern European's having an hourglass figure than African Americans or Asians, but not other European women. Also, I took a belly dancing class not too long ago and I noticed that many of the middle eastern women in it were hourglass figures while the european women seemed less curvy? These middle eastern women were in good shape and not at all fat. The only un-feminine part of their body I noticed were their calves and ankles, which were often too thin to be feminine.Please show me the study because I am interested to see it. Thanks!
Let's show young Marilyn too, in that case. Norma Jeane Mortensen had a Norwegian father and is an example of a Nordic type of woman. So is Elizabeth.
As for the hourglass figure I live in Sweden and can assure you that there are many women here who have a very feminine figure.
Anita Ekberg, Swedish actress;
wow. Anita has almost an identical body to mine. its so strange. except im a little on the thinner side compared to her, but our breasts, shoulders, arms(mine r a bit thinner) are almost identical! Thats crazy!
my waist goes in a little more than hers as well, but i suppose its because of her body position that makes it look larger.
I think Marilyn has a face too round for a Nordic type. Her eyes, nose, and lips are also not Nordic. I see Elizabeth Taylor more as the Nordic type, minus the blonde hair, although not all Nordics have blonde hair anyways.
Also: Marilyn is not a natural blonde.
Also, it is stated on Marilyn's driver license that her eyes are brown. It could be a typo, but there is much speculation that her eyes originally were brown and that they were altered.
After doing some research, I come to the conclusion that Marylin Monroe is not 100% Nordic. Her mother was American and most likely mixed. To me she is probably mixed with Italian or Polish or something, or maybe both. I do support the theory that mixing increases attractiveness. I think if you mix a Nordic with another type of European you get a very attractive person, like Marylin. I think Marilyn looks better with her natural dark eyes, however, I think the blonde hair def. increases her attractiveness. It's so strange she didn't get blonde hair since her father is Norweigan? But I guess her mother was too dark or had totally dominant genes or something.
Elizabeth Taylor was English. I find it interesting how many beautiful people come out of England even though the people there are usually regarded as plain or just ugly. I guess maybe those are just myths? Or maybe its just the majority of English people that are ugly, but then you get a drop dead gorgeous one like Elizabeth Taylor!
There is no evidence of Marilyn being anything but Nordic. No Eastern European- or Hispanic names appear in her family, and the photos I have seen of her and of her family are very much in line with Anglo-Saxon/Scandinavian descent.
There is nothing slavic or latin about Marilyn's looks, nor does anything appear in what is written about her that would suggest anything other than Anglo-Saxon/Scandinavian descent. All Nordics are not blond, by the way. There are those who have light brown or brown hair, especially in the UK and Irland.
Gladys Pearl Baker's mother was named Della Mae Hogan, born in Missouri. HER parents were Tilford and Jennie Nance Hogan.
Gladys's father was named Otis Elmer Monroe.
Marilyn's father is most probably Martin Edward Mortensen, a Norwegian.
Sorry but Marilyn's lips and other facial features are very much Nordic. Everything about this gorgeous actress was Nordic. You erroneously believe all Nordics are of Hallstatt type but that's not the case. That's a common misconception. Since I live here I know what people look like and Marilyn very much looked like Scandinavians in general. Anita for example has a similar face type to Marilyn's. She's from Malmö, Sweden.
Changing eye color..in the 50's? They can hardly do it now. She had dark blue eyes.
Emily, I don't think Marilyn is nordic, however, she wants to look it. I personally think Greta Garbo who was more beautiful, She is swedish but i'm not sure. Greta was a natural beauty and classy. Marilyn was a home wrecker.
They both had good careers.
What you think is hardly relevant. Everything points in that direction, whereas nothing points to her NOT being Nordic.
Actually Emily, they did have the ability to change eye color, and other colors in general in the 50s. She didn't wear contacts, but they could change the color on the film they were using. Both Marilyn's passport and drivers license state that she has brown eyes. She obviously is not 100% Nordic. I don't stereotype all Nordics to be Hallstadt type, but I know a Nordic when I see one and she def. has Eastern European. Sorry Emily I know how much you hate Eastern European women, but that is actually what gives Marilyn her appeal. Her broad face, far apart eyes, thicker lips, etc. None of these are characteristics of any type of Nordic. Most Americans have Eastern European mixture even all the way down South but it is less common, Marilyn was no exception. Why do you take anything that is good and try to box it into the Nordic category? For your information I think Elizabeth Taylor is more attractive than Marilyn anyways and she is English! You claim English people are generally ugly too, but after seeing too many attractive English people I disagree. Elizabeth Taylor was a beautiful English woman and Marilyn is def. a Nordic Eastern European mix, which is the best mix in my opinion and better than 100% Nordic. However, I have to say that my favorite actresses and actors are English and they are usually most attractive in my book. I don't know about English people in general, but I do know that the celebrities that come out of England are often gorgeous.
oh and Erik:
Do you consider Anita's (pic above in Emilys comment) as feminine because our body's are almost identical. Seriously, they look so much alike its scaring me. So is it feminine because that would give me a good idea if I am feminine or not? According to my measurments I am a true hourglass shape, so I am wondering if one needs anything more to be feminine body wise?
" on the film they were using. Both Marilyn's passport and drivers license state that she has brown eyes. She obviously is not 100% Nordic."
This is ridiculous.
She had blue eyes - not brown. Watch her films. Why one driver's license was incorrect I can't say. Most color photos from that period are very faded now, by the way. Most look sepia and brownish. They need some kind of restoration.
Excerpt from the autopsy of actress Marilyn Monroe;
Coroner Thomas Noguchi conducted the operation. He was assisted by Eddy Day. Noguchi's findings were as follows.
External examination: The unembalmed body is that of a 36-year-old well-developed, well-nourished Caucasian female weighing 117 pounds and measuring 65-1/2 inches in length. The scalp is covered with bleached blond hair. The eyes are blue. The fixed lividity is noted in the face, neck, chest, upper portions of arms and the right side of the abdomen. The faint lividity which disappears..."
Saying Marilyn wasn't Nordic without providing corroborating facts is pointless. Everything we know about her tells us she was indeed very much a Nordic girl. Anything else is speculation based on air.
Other Nordic actresses;
Liv Ullman, Norwegian
Bibi Andersson, Swedish
Harriet Andersson, Swedish
Anita Ekberg, Swedish
Gunnel Lindblom, Swedish
Ingrid Bergman, Swedish
Poor taste, much? This "woman" looks exactly like my father, who suffers from Klinefelter's syndrome (meaning, he's half man, half woman). You can't be serious. I thought this was "feminine" beauty?
Look, let's take it step by step. Some general analysis of the schlock on this page....
First off, since this website likes to fetishize studies without giving any thought to the fact that statistics do not make science only charlatanism, and that stated preferences are influenced by culture, self-perception, childhood, etc, etc, I will point out that there are plenty of studies which acknowledge the softness that femininity entails, it know where they apply and where they don't. High cheekbones and slimmer cheeks indicate sexual maturity and thus are considered more attractive. Now, knowing the crude intellectual capacities and the inability to grasp subtleties of the typical internet denizen, I will point out that this does not mean overly chiseled face. Yes, an overly robust nose looks masculine, as does a lower brow, yaddadda. We're all hear it before. The inportance general quality of softness must be applied properly. Being plush and fat does not make a woman feminine. It washes out any features she might have that would have signaled femininity. Neither does a round face (some of the examples given by the websites's author are appalling! Absolutely tasteless, bland or below average women, even downright awkward!). Some of the slovenly faces in his gallery lack any elegance. If I were to hurl accusations at the author, I would accuse him of tastelessness at the very least, and pedophilia at the worst. Pudgy fat cheeks are meant for babies, not women. There is nothing classic about it.
A few pictures of Grace Kelly's face function as generally good examples of feminine facial bone structure (I say a few, because others are questionable, and might represent distortions of the camera, or unfortuitous style).
Long face (not a round, formless blob), straight jaw line with no sagging double chin. Larger eyes, restrained nose, good jaw definition, and so on. The softness is at the edges. No sharp angles at the edges. Rounded edges! That's what is meant! Not a chipmunk, or some rubenesque monstrosity! All this talk of robustness and I fail to see mention that robust figures and fat hamhock legs and butts are extremely masculine! A women should be dainty where should be dainty, and strong where she should be strong! Describing what I mean would require lots of words. I am simply surprised so few have the cohesive aesthetic formed in their heads. And another thing: objective is a funny word. Why? Because not all men have equal powers of discernment.
Now, many runway models, if not most, fail to impress me. However, there are a few gems which I prize. Why? Because they preserve a slender figure without going into excessive anorexia or whorish obesity and hottentot ugliness. They also have stately faces.
Now, stop looking to porn sites for pictures! You pervs need to stop surfing the web and coming here for approval from a crowd of buggers.
Bob the Chef: Most of your verbiage requires no comment. As to the rest, here it is. Nothing in this site does not give thought to culture shaping preferences. I do not think there are any galleries within this site comprising of a significant number of women with round faces or “pudgy fat cheeks.” I do not have a low opinion of the attractiveness of fashion models, period, but like some of them myself.
The contention that “High cheekbones and slimmer cheeks indicate sexual maturity and thus are considered more attractive” is misleading. Sexual maturity is indicated by more developed/contoured cheekbones. How the size increases and how the contours develop varies with exposure to sex hormones. Sexual maturity comprises of greater development of the cheekbone arches and the shrinking of cheekbones in the cheek area of men, thus resulting in a higher-placed-cheekbones- or high-cheekboned look with masculinization, and in women, the cheekbones tend to expand in the cheek area, giving a low-cheekboned look.
Your example of Grace Kelly itself fails to substantiate your statement on high cheekbones and slimmer cheeks indicating sexual maturity and hence being attractive. If you contrast Grace Kelly with Amanda Heard, it is obvious who has slimmer cheeks and higher cheekbones (whereas the angles are different, feel free to search for other pictures). Both women look sexually mature, both are attractive.
If you Bob are male like your chosen name implies then you are homosexual. That is clear. You are in no way a heterosexual man.
This fact makes a big difference in this kind of discussion because where you are coming from when you look at a woman is in no way the same as a straight man.
You argue your case as if your preference of women is factually correct when at best you just go on describing with you think. All it amounts to is lameness and especially futile considering you are not a heterosexual man. You have no business discussing women's looks because you are not the object of a straight woman's cross-hairs so your opinion on how women should look is meaningless.
At best it's laughable and at worst it's misogynistic. Also, you're possibly, like the owner of this website (Erik), a white supremacist.