Please note: some images may not be work-safe.
The transsexual parade otherwise known as the Victoria’s Secret lingerie show: part 4
Previous parts: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3. This entry addresses Alessandra Ambrosio, yet again, but then I am a great fan of Alessandra and hope that she acknowledges my existence. She has twice deleted --at her fan forum -- links to pages within this site that pay a tribute to her beauty. How sad! Here is another tribute. Please Alessandra, don’t delete a link to this entry.
First, Alessandra will be compared to Dasha from Hegre Art.
Alessandra’s face is obviously that of an adolescent male transvestite but Dasha looks like a normal woman.
Who has the physique of a male-to-female transsexual?
Alessandra’s booty-ful physique.
If the Brazilian bombshell were to explode, as on this page, she will release a powerful, fetid heterosexual male repellant.
On the other hand, Dasha’s physique is booty-licious.
Just so as to not disappoint big breast fans, Alessandra will be compared to Sophie Howard.
Some face pictures of Sophie Howard reveal a hint of masculinization, but if one were to call her masculinized, what word could one possibly use to describe Alessandra?
Sophie Howard shown at an angle.
No comment necessary.
Sophie Howard booty collage.
Who wants to see Alessandra tanning? Who wants to see Sophie tanning? Damn, I’d rub tanning lotion on Sophie and give her a full-body professional massage for free. Alessandra, on the other hand, cannot avail of my masseuse services unless she were to pay me a decent amount in advance.
Next, we consider Daria from MPL studios. Note her very small breasts and not very feminine overall appearance.
If Daria were to hit on a lifetime-exclusive heterosexual man it is difficult to imagine any such man rejecting her, though he would wish that she had bigger breasts. Lifetime-exclusive heterosexual male fans of pasty-white redheads hit by the likes of Daria will surely say, “So what if she has small breasts? I’ve hit the jackpot, big time!” On the other hand, if lifetime-exclusive heterosexual men not aware of the riches of Alessandra Ambrosio are hit upon by her, the typical response should be obvious.
Yet, we get the following from Victoria’s Secret! Give me sexy? I’ll be dipped in dogshit.
How can Victoria’s Secret Company get away with using models like Alessandra? The reasons have been addressed elsewhere within this site, but it suffices here to address one reason.
Consider the 18 comments in response to pictures of Alessandra Ambrosio posted at bastardly.com. She is called beautiful, gorgeous and even libido enhancing (whose?)! However, “Absulaa” left the following comment:
good thing the photos are blurry to hide the man face on this dime a dozen six foot anorexic with tits. look how skinny those thighs are. don’t have any food on your breath because it will frighten this bitch and turn her off and dry her up quicker than an a-rab culture and compassion party
Although the profanity is inappropriate, Absulaa got it basically right except the major error involving breasts; Alessandra has breast implants. Other than differences in sexual orientation, the inability to see through fake femininity is also responsible for her high rating by some people. Time for the public to get better educated.
On a serious note, there is something that people may have a difficult time believing, but I have to say it. I have nothing against the looks of Alessandra or anything else about her. If a woman with Alessandra’s looks had a pleasant personality, I would have no problems whatsoever with befriending her and hanging out with her. The problem that I have is with the homosexuals that use the likes of Alessandra as models for purposes for which they are not at all suited, which would be lingerie modeling in our case. There is simply no "nice" way of bringing public attention to the problem.
(Posted on November 16, 2006 | Tags: Attractive women, Fashion models, Nudes)Comments (94) | Notify others
Comments:
Page 1 of 1 pages
first of all, let me just point out how hideous i think sophie howard is. although alessandra does show masculine features in her face, sophie howard is the true transvestite. her nose is massive and her eyes are scary; she has the perfect face of a witch. her body is a turn off as well. i’d take daria’s perky, tiny breasts over enormous saggy ones anyday. imagine what those would look like in 10 years? ughh.
your paragraph about how men would react to having daria hit on them made me laugh out loud. she is attractive, but i think it’s mostly just her thin body and glossy red hair (which is definitely fake). her face isn’t that pretty.. kind of looks like kirstin dunst, the troll.
i agree with you on some of the things you say about alessandra, like the fact that she’s not the greatest lingerie model, but don’t tell me you wouldn’t be ecstatic if a girl like that even said a word to you in real life!
and what’s this about alessandra deleting links to this site? are you sure it’s her and not just some fan that runs her site?
Posted by maddie on November 18, 2006 at 02:53 AM | #
maddie: Sophie Howard does not have saggy breasts. Her breasts will sag when she is older, but the context of this entry is lingerie modeling, and lingerie models are expected to be young adults. Therefore, using a large-breasted woman like Sophie as a lingerie model is appropriate.
Saying that Sophie looks like a transvestite is insane! If so, then Alessandra looks like a masculine man. Sophie doesn’t have the best looking face, but as I have already mentioned, the face is not the object of focus as far as lingerie modeling goes.
Daria’s face is less robust than that of Kirsten Dunst. Although Daria has dyed her hair an unnatural shade, she is a redhead.
Sophie Howard is a popular [among heterosexual men] British pin up, which shows your preferences to be very anomalous given that you call her hideous. Besides, your comment, “don’t tell me you wouldn’t be ecstatic if a girl like that [Alessandra] even said a word to you in real life!” pretty much confirms that you are not a lifetime-exclusive heterosexual man. A top-ranked lingerie model is expected to cater to the central tendency of [discerning] preferences among heterosexual men, and Alessandra is nowhere close.
The threads deleted at Alessandra’s fan forum can only be the work of Alessandra or another forum admin, but a forum admin other than Alessandra would probably be inclined toward leaving the threads intact to illustrate examples of the kind of lunatics that lurk in cyberspace, i.e., myself for calling top-ranked fashion models masculine and unattractive to most people. However, the admin would have notified Alessandra if she didn’t find out first. Alessandra knows the extent of her masculinization better than others, and this site’s contents obviously struck a little too close to home. Therefore, either Alessandra deleted it or another admin did after Alessandra requested deletion.
Posted by Erik Holland on November 19, 2006 at 01:21 AM | #
first of all, i’m a girl.
because i’m a female, i mostly pay attention to a woman’s face instead of her breasts, and therefore i find sophie howard to be ridiculously ugly.
have you seen pictures from the 2006 VS fashion show yet? now please don’t tell me you think this is at all unattractive or masculine.
gorgeous face:
http://img146.imagevenue.com/view.php?image=94057_HJK_122_584lo.jpg
womanly body with a nice waist to hip ratio:
http://img21.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=94399_models7_122_588lo.jpg
horse face and ugly fake boobs, but sexy body (especially her legs):
http://img135.imagevenue.com/img.php?loc=loc525&image=81598_victoriasecret42_122_525lo.jpg
pretty real looking, full breasts to me:
http://img111.imagevenue.com/img.php?loc=loc440&image=90274_victoriasecret23_122_440lo.jpg
and your favorite model of all, having a tiny waist to die for:
http://img17.imagevenue.com/view.php?image=90001_victoriasecret49_122_302lo.jpg
if you think they all look like trannies, you’re insane.
Posted by maddie on November 19, 2006 at 02:01 AM | #
apparently, you don’t allow links, so the pictures don’t work. if you can find pictures from the VS show however, here are the photos i’m talking about.
the first one is of doutzen kroes.
second is of heather marks.
third is karolina kurkova.
fourth is of andi muise.
fifth is of alessandra ambrosio.
if you go to thesuperficial.com and visit their celebrity pictures in the forums, you’ll find a link to all these pictures from the VS show. take a look at the girls i mentioned.
Posted by maddie on November 19, 2006 at 02:04 AM | #
maddie: Links are allowed. However, if you post links to images and the site hosting the images doesn’t allow hotlinking, then you will get blanks as when you first posted. I took care of the links and now they point to the images.
Anyway, as mentioned in the first part of this series, to justify the title, it is sufficient to show that a large number, not necessarily all, of Victoria’s Secret models look like male-to-female transsexuals and that several of those that don’t are still often too masculine for the job. This is easy to show though it will take time; only four models have been addressed so far. Nowhere has it been asserted that all VS models look like male-to-female transsexuals.
Regarding your links, only one of them, Heather Marks, is passable as feminine. Karolina Kurkova easily qualifies as a woman that looks like a male-to-female transsexual; she was extensively addressed in the first part of this series. Your picture of Alessandra doesn’t undermine any of the photographic evidence presented here and elsewhere within this site; her waist-hip proportions remain unfeminine; the picture that you posted was snapped at an opportune moment while she was involved in exaggerated hip swinging while facing the camera obliquely. Doutzen Kroes has a masculinized face; see this comparison (Doutzen is on the left for those who don’t know who she is). Your link shows that Andi Muise has a masculinized face, and even if her breasts are natural, a number of male-to-female transsexuals on cross-sex hormone therapy develop female breasts. Therefore, citing masculinized female models with naturally prominent breasts does not undermine the title of this entry.
If you are a woman that looks at faces but no so much the physique, then why bother commenting on this entry? Lingerie models directly or indirectly cater to the preferences of heterosexual men; at least they are supposed to, and overall appearance, especially of the body, is what really matters rather than the face being the main focus.
Posted by Erik Holland on November 19, 2006 at 04:43 PM | #
Erik:
I agree that Alessandra does have a very boyish figure but I think she is best and more fairly compared to a more petite (i.e. slender) woman, as you did in another section of this site. I laughed when I saw her next to Sophie: certainly very few women would appreciate or measure up to that comparison!
I think there is a reason however that men appreciate a petite frame and when you look around you it is pretty evident that with the increasing obesity in western nations, a smaller less-likely-to-get-fat woman has become more appealing. Why don’t you add a section that showcases smaller, less voluptuous but still feminine women?
There are some things I don’t necessarily appreciate about your site, but here are a few things that I consider very pro-woman, regardless of her shape:
1. Your models are of normal weight and are not skinny.
2. Real women have THIGHS, as do your models. Someone like Alessandra has sleek, attractive legs, no doubt, but in general, a nicely proportioned female will have meat on her thighs, something we as women have learned to eschew. That has been one of the negative impacts of showcasing tall, pencil-thin models with impossibly long legs as the pinnacle of womanly beauty.
3. Your models aren’t necessarily large-busted. The idea that women should be very, very thin with large breasts (in many cases achieved with implants) has also had a negative impact on “normal” women.
4. You do not showcase models with breast implants (as far as I saw). This site seems to be about what you consider “natural” beauty in a woman, not beauty achieved via plastic surgery. Again, most woman have real breasts. How soon will it be before people think implants are more attractive than the real thing?
These points do pertain to Alessandra in that she represents the pencil-thin, insubstantial thighed, breast implanted model who is very, very far from what a real woman can or should even want to achieve. While “real” women in the main fall far short of some of the criteria you consider the hallmarks of beauty in a woman, I do appreciate this idea that the average woman may be far closer to the ideal than what the fashion industry and Hollywood would have us believe.
Posted by Sandy on November 19, 2006 at 09:28 PM | #
in this entry you refer to masculinizations of alessandra in both her face and body, and therefore i’m pointing out the fact that i care more about the face than the physique of a woman.
lingerie companies are supposed to cater to the desires of women, so that they can sell their product (men don’t buy stuff from victoria’s secret).
Posted by madeline on November 20, 2006 at 09:28 PM | #
Sandy: It is a great compliment to have his site being called pro-woman even though this site’s intent is neither to be pro- nor anti-women. I appreciate it. Some other women have told me similar things; one even found it surprising that she agreed with this site. Her surprise was presumably a result of encountering useful information/objectives, notwithstanding the extreme “objectification” of women here, which flips feminists, although I have had one self-described feminist tell me that she appreciated the site.
Regarding the comparison of Alessandra with Sophie, I know that it is extreme, but given the lingerie modeling issue, it firmly drives home the point about Alessandra’s unsuitability as a lingerie model. Since I had already featured a comparison of Alessandra with a petite but feminine woman previously and planned on showcasing two women apart from Sophie for less extreme comparisons, the Sophie comparison is not that out of place.
Adding a section showcasing petite but feminine women is not a bad idea. On a related issue, I have been mulling adding a sexy women section, which would feature women considered sexy by heterosexual men. Slight masculinization is a correlate of sexiness in women, but women who happen to be sexy by heterosexual male standards will still be much more feminine than the likes of Alessandra.
Madeline: What do women wear lingerie for? To make themselves more sexually appealing to their male partners, who would typically be lifetime-exclusive heterosexual. Heterosexual men will also normally be interested in a lingerie show. Therefore, lingerie models directly or indirectly cater to the preferences of heterosexual men, and their looks should reflect this, but this doesn’t happen to be the case for too many Victoria’s Secret models. Besides, men and women rate women’s beauty similarly, and both overwhelmingly and strongly prefer above average femininity in the looks of women. Therefore, it is far from the case that the looks of Victoria’s Secret models reflect the aesthetic preferences of the general female population.
Although you say that you care more about the face than the physique of women, if you were to watch a lingerie show with the intent of purchasing lingerie, you will definitely have to look at the physiques of the lingerie models. The choice of Alessandra as a lingerie model simply cannot be justified from any perspective other than the preferences of homosexuals.
Posted by Erik Holland on November 21, 2006 at 01:53 AM | #
1)Alessandra wouldn’t delete your link if you didn’t call her masculine, boyish and say things like: “Alessandra, on the other hand, cannot avail of my masseuse services unless she were to pay a decent amount in advance.”
2)The girl you compared her to looks like she is recovering from being shot in the face by a repeating BB gun, not a “woman”.
Posted by phred on January 04, 2007 at 10:43 PM | #
phred: The deletions happened before this entry was posted, and were surely not based on my comment about massaging her. As far as masculine and boyish go, if she were otherwise, she would have found such labels amusing and would have left the links to give others a good laugh, but Alessandra knows how “feminine” she is and does not want others to realize the extent of her “femininity.”
I have compared Alessandra to three women on this page, and I do not know which one you have referred to as the one seemingly repeatedly shot in the face, but this is a comment I would normally expect from annoyed homosexuals who have no counter argument.
Posted by Erik Holland on January 05, 2007 at 12:30 AM | #
1) I apologize about the deletions misunderstanding.
2)
a) The model I meant was the first comparison, Dasha. She’s got freckles from forehead to chin, and they kind of remind me of scabs. That also makes her look masculine to me.
b) I am assuredly not a homosexual. I have a girlfriend, I am Christian (which means I was taught not to agree with hoomosexuality), and I work around too many fruits to find it appealing in the least (I mean QUARK-sized. Look up quark for future reference).
Thank you and have a nice day.
Posted by phred on January 05, 2007 at 09:29 PM | #
phred: Dasha’s freckles make her face look masculine to you? Compare face shape. On second thought, you cannot be helped by this site!
If you are a Christian, since your salvation depends on righteous living, I hope that you are aware that you are committing numerous sins here. Your sins: looking at imagery that may induce lust (Job 31:11-12; Matthew 5:28), character assassination (in a separate thread involving Andrea from glamour.cz; Jeremiah 20:10) and lying (in a separate thread where you pretend that you have not seen any scientific/medical references within this site; Proverbs 6:16-19).
Posted by Erik Holland on January 11, 2007 at 06:03 AM | #
I’m gradually finding more things discomforting. And for one thing, lingerie models for the likes of Victoria Secret, Fredericks of Hollywood, and Cosabella are meant to cater to WOMEN who buy their products. If the picture displays the message “hey, you can look like a crack whore, like me.” then women won’t buy. The appeal to men is it see it on their partner - and if they choose to oogle it in the catalogs that weren’t designed for them, oh well. It’s like you’re spiting the industry for refusing to make their catalogs into free soft-core porn. And another thing, are you homophobic?
Posted by Chris on January 15, 2007 at 05:00 AM | #
Chris: You should have read the comments above. Women in general prefer to look feminine, not masculine, and heterosexual women should know that heterosexual men prefer feminine-looking women. A fundamental principle behind advertising is, “buy our product, look like this.” Therefore, the masculine looks of many Victoria’s Secret models cannot be explained in terms of female preference. Since women wear lingerie to make themselves more sexually appealing to their male partners, who would typically be lifetime-exclusive heterosexual men, lingerie models directly or indirectly cater to the preferences of heterosexual men. In other words, there simply cannot be any justification for using masculinized lingerie models other than in terms of the preferences of the gay fashion designers behind the lingerie company. Your use of the term “crack whore” indicates jealously. If the nude women were dressed in lingerie or other clothing, nothing about them would suggest that they are “crack whores.” None of the nude women shown above are porn stars by the way. Once again, your comment suggests poor comprehension. Victoria’s Secret Company is not being criticized here for not filling its catalog with pictures of nude women, but for using a lot of masculinized women as lingerie models, many with breast implants.
What has prompted you to question whether I am homophobic? I am not. There is no unflattering portrayal of some homosexuals here that does not have a basis in reality, as inferred from a massive amount of evidence.
Posted by Erik Holland on January 16, 2007 at 02:53 PM | #
I’ll pardon your presumptuousness on the jealousy conclusion. As I’ll apologize for not differentiating topless modeling & such from pornography (which is by definition for the sake of sexual gratification), though in general terms it is rather easy to classify it along with porn and the like of FHM, and Stuff. And your principle of advertisment doesn’t explain the high response that the likes of Victoria Secret get from their consumers since it’s quite likely that more than 1/2 of their consumers probably don’t look like the models. Women actually do find Alessandra quiet cute. Models are becoming more analogous to “our favorite celebrities.” Which might explain Victoria Secret’s massive growth after using supermodels - and when it comes to the lingerie modeling, that’s most probably a matter of saving money after expending a lot on the use of supermodels. In other words, more bang for your buck. As for it being a misleading example of sexiness to women, it’s relative. People could argue the same for Barbie (who also does have a lingerie collection). Women’s ideas of sexy don’t always correlate to a mans, and it’s not like they have to.
Posted by Chris on January 16, 2007 at 10:33 PM | #
Chris: Defining pornography in terms of the purpose of sexual titillation/gratification is a loose standard as it will classify R-rated Hollywood movies with sex scenes as pornographic, too; you need to add the requirement that sexual activity be depicted with nothing left to the imagination. Anyway, fashion models are not becoming more similar to “our favorite [non-model] celebrities” but it is the other way around. If Victoria’s Secret uses supermodels/very famous fashion models, it is bound to attract attention, but then the supermodels/very famous fashion models have ended up with their status because of the gay domination of the top ranks of the fashion business, not because the general public finds their looks appealing. There is a demand for lingerie, and since there is no heterosexual alternative to the gay-dominated fashion industry, Victoria’s Secret can do brisk business.
There is no way the typical heterosexual woman would prefer the face shape and the physique of Alessandra Ambrosio to those of Dasha. Additionally, men and women judge female attractiveness similarly.
I don’t get what you mean by Victoria’s Secret saving money after spending a lot on supermodels. The very famous high-fashion models it uses are so expensive that a company that can afford them should have no problems whatsoever in using comparatively hardly known feminine and attractive models to also sell lingerie. Victoria’s Secret will at most throw in a few feminine models.
Using its brand name, Victoria’s Secret can continue to sell well even if it suddenly switches to feminine models only, and it will actually be more successful because not only will a large number of women be buying from them, but also heterosexual men will take a strong interest in its lingerie show and catalogs, which would allow it to earn more advertising revenue. However, the gays involved make a lot of money and would much rather avoid using feminine women to the maximum extent possible, for aesthetic reasons as far as they are concerned.
Posted by Erik Holland on January 17, 2007 at 09:55 PM | #
I think Alessandra’s gorgeous, with an amazing body. Sure she’s slender, but she’s a healthy thin--nicely toned, but still has curves. Not anything like the waify Kate Moss type model.
She doesn’t have implants btw--it’s just a push-up bra. Even with someone who has nothing to work with (like me), it does wonders.
Posted by Sarah on January 18, 2007 at 05:20 PM | #
boyish figure???
Posted by Kelly on January 18, 2007 at 05:23 PM | #
Sarah: Do push-up bras result in this or this when there are other pictures of the same woman showing small breasts?
Kelly: Notice the picture of Alessandra Ambrosio above, under the “No comment is necessary” sentence, where she is contrasted with Sophie Howard. Alessandra’s picture is taken from the same photo shoot that you have used; notice the bikini, the bracelet, necklace and background. There is obviously something boyish about her physique in the picture that I have shown but not in the picture that you have shown. How is it possible for a woman’s physique to look boyish in some pictures, but not in others taken during the same photo shoot? Posing! It is clear from an evaluation of multiple pictures of Alessandra that posing is responsible for the non-boyish look rather than the boyish look. Alessandra is older now and not so successful in matching the physique of boys, but look up her pictures from a couple of years ago.
Posted by Erik Holland on January 19, 2007 at 08:56 PM | #
I love that you think your view of the perfect woman is the right one. Who says your view of “femininity” is correct or perfect?
Models do well in their business by being popular - and popularity for a model is defined by how stunning everyone thinks she is; everyone being men, woman, both straight and gay. Obviously, the fact that a model like Alessandra Ambrosio is headlining victoria’s secret indicates that there is a DEMAND for her to do so.
You could take a magnifying glass up to any woman and make her look ugly. You say that posing covers up her boyishness, but its equally likely that certain poses make her look more boyish. Her legs are a healthy, attractive weight (As shown here, posted above as well: 
)
and her breats are not large enough to be fake and fit her proportions, which are quite feminine: 36”, 25”, 37” (look it up if you dont beleive me). And the last measurement (hips) you negelect to discuss in your argument above. She has an attractive femine posterior, in no ways boyish (CURVED at the side).
Posted by dave on April 20, 2007 at 01:55 AM | #
Dave: There are plenty of citations within this site regarding what people in general aesthetically prefer in women; this site is not about what I think looks good in women. Women like Alessandra end up where they are not because everyone thinks she is hot but because the gays who dominate the fashion business find masculine women like her “hot,” and use her to sell items of clothing that many women desire. In the absence of alternatives, i.e., feminine models selling comparable items of clothing, women will have no choice but to patronize the gay fashion designers.
I am not using a magnifying glass to clarify Alesandra’s masculinization; the women that she is compared to are shown with a similar level of “magnification.” It is clear that posing is making her physique look non-boyish rather than boyish. As I have explained previously, the photo of Alessandra below the “no comment necessary” statement shows her standing straight, i.e., no special posing, and it is clear that her physique is boyish, whereas Kelly pointed out a different picture from the same photo shoot, where Alessandra is posing in a major manner, and it is only the extreme posing that is making her physique look non-boyish. Breast implants are not always large. Some women get small breast implants, and Alessandra could very well have small breast implants since her breasts in her recent pictures do not look natural. I don’t believe that your stated measurements of Alessandra are correct and looking them up will not be helpful since it will be unclear how reliable the sources are, but her measurements are irrelevant if one has pictures of her physique. So what if her hips are somewhat curved at the side? Masculinity-femininity is assessed via overall looks, not a particular feature, and Alessandra is clearly masculine.
Posted by Erik on April 23, 2007 at 02:48 PM | #
Please don’t redact the photographs’ “naughty bits.” There is nothing obscene about the human body.
Posted by Cal on June 07, 2007 at 08:35 PM | #
Well...I am a 30 year old male, heterosexual, with some experience working around models, and I happen to love the model look a look which, believe it or not, in many cases, comes from good genes.
Yes, the long legs, the flat belly, the tight but firm and abundant butts. Oh, and one more thing.. yes, some of them eat as much as they want, and somehow manage to keep slim. (and im not talking about the anorexic, heroin chic model look, which I find sick)
The most common modification you will see is the breast implants. But if you dare to say that only models are guilty of that, you are even more delusional than you appear at first glance.
I absolutely love Alessandra and I find it very funny to read your accusations of her being a transvestite. Id be worried if I thought you where serious about it, but cmon, this is the internet! the land of the wackos, so feel free.
On your first comparison with Dasha, I see 2 beautiful women, but personally the look on the skin on Dasha’s legs and the texture of her butt, well I find it repellent. Its like you could see the blood under her skin. Looks almost painful. But then again, thats maybe due to her Caucasian genes, and the lack of sun, which Alessandra does enjoy, plus her healthy, rich mixture of European and American genes.
So anyway, conclusion.. you are wrong. 
Posted by George on July 02, 2007 at 01:19 AM | #
Oh, and about that “masculinization” issue, perhaps you are not able to understand the concept of beauty, but some of the most beautiful women in history, and in modern times, have some sort of boyish features or strong lines like lets say Brooke Shields, Sophia Loren, Heidi Klum, Liz Hurley. All of them could pass as men or boys if they had short hair and a fake mustache.
Of course to realize that, and fully comprehend the concept of beauty, you would require a greater intellectual capacity, and a bigger load of cultural baggage, along with some studies on human sexuality.
Posted by George on July 02, 2007 at 01:29 AM | #
alessandra looks like horse, hideous, beedy eyes and long face, and is wider in her lower hips (where legs are) than in upper (pelvis) , and nothing about her LONG legs is tasty. Man reckoning her beauty MUST be non-heterosexual. Nothing would convince me opposite. But the women above, have appealing bodies, I specially highly esteem their milky complexion, it looks so pure and soft and fresh
Posted by bron on July 02, 2007 at 08:26 AM | #
George: I know that some fashion models are naturally thin. I haven’t argued that some fashion models but no glamour models possess breast implants. Easily half of Playboy centerfolds from the 1990s onward have sported breast implants. I usually avoid glamour models with breast implants.
I am not calling Alessandra a transvestite, but am saying that if you were to look at a Victoria’s Secret lingerie show, it would be difficult to avoid the impression that a lot of male-to-female transsexuals are walking the runway. I am talking about looks, not what these models are, and I am using “transsexual,” not “transvestite.”
Dasha doesn’t have the best skin—a combination of the inability to tan and freckles, but the focus is on femininity of face and body. If her photo had been taken from a professional modeling shoot, all the freckles would have been airbrushed.
I am well aware that many of the “most beautiful women” in history have been masculinized, but all except one (Sophia Loren) you named have a fashion modeling background. The portrayal of these women as “great beauties” reflects the domination of the fashion business by homosexual men.
Sophia Loren does appear to have a masculine element to her face in some photos, but her body as a young adult was certainly not masculine. She just has massive cheekbones and other robust features that add a pseudo-masculine element to her face.
Posted by Erik on July 02, 2007 at 04:41 PM | #
oh, so now ur hatin’ on freckles too? yeesh, you might as well just dress up a bunch of blow up dolls, erik. 12 year old-body-type blow up dolls. white ones.
Posted by 8D on July 03, 2007 at 11:21 PM | #
small peepeebron:
ALL women have wider hips on the lower area than on the top. ur blind and gay.
srsly.
gay.
and have a white fetish.
Posted by 8D on July 03, 2007 at 11:23 PM | #
This is how the high fashion industry does sexy: 
By muddphudle at 2007-07-03
The jewelry and lingerie they are wearing probably costs more than your car. You can’t compete and neither can Dasha, Daria, and that hag, Sophie Howard. Your sluts have their niche market and Alessandra has hers. High fashion models don’t exist to give you wood. You can’t force the “evil gay designers” to change. Why don’t you give up this useless crusade to convince people that VS models look like men and focus on giving your white trash women a shot at modeling.
Maybe you can create your own lingerie line. Why don’t you make some bras and panties out of trash bags and duct tape and then have Daria and Dasha model your glorious designs. I am sure that the “lifetime exclusive heterosexual” men would appreciate your efforts. You can post the runway pictures on Myspace. I am sure that “the evil gay designers” will want to claw your “lifetime exclusive heterosexual” eyes out once they see how much attention you’re getting. Your revolutional use of truck stop hotties will single-handedly topple “the evil pederest fashion empire” and all will be right in the lifetime exclusive heterosexual world. There!! Problem solved!!
Posted by Danielle on July 04, 2007 at 02:23 AM | #
8D: I did not imply that I hate freckles. People generally prefer spotless skin to freckled skin, and Alessandra has better skin on this count.
I just had an email from a person who will not be commenting here anymore because of your childish insults. I have asked you many times to behave, but you haven’t listened. So be warned that you will be banned from commenting if you keep coming up with childish insults against the commentators. Your insults are also senseless. Bron is a woman and most of your insults against her are not applicable.
Danielle: If the women in your picture had feminine faces, most people would find them a lot more appealing. There is no reason why one couldn’t use feminine models for selling high-end jewelry and lingerie. Of course, high-fashion models are meant to appeal to gay fashion designers, not heterosexual men. Once gain, I don’t believe that the homosexual designers can be made to change. One will have to come up with an alternative fashion industry, a difficult though not impossible task. When this alternative exists, we will see whether feminine models can compete with the masculine ones. It will take a while to come up with this alternative.
Posted by Erik on July 05, 2007 at 12:39 PM | #
Once again Eric, I am trying to tell you that an alternative industry will NEVER be set up. High fashion isn’t that important. It does not have to be revolutionized or dethroned or whatever. You are just going to have to live with that. If any change does occur it will be becuase the current industry has evolved into something different. It won’t be because you get some nutbag to give you money to make clothes and because the Today’s show lets you voice your idiotic views in a 5 minute segment. Once again, you cannot compete with the fags. So give up!!!
By muddphudle at 2007-07-05
Posted by Danielle on July 06, 2007 at 12:35 AM | #
erik
brom was you. stop prentending, kkbb?
Posted by 8D on July 06, 2007 at 07:12 PM | #
dont really get what erika has to do with high fashion. she’s much too poor to afford the stuff anyway. money talks, bb. haute couture is made for those who can afford it. and you cant. so they dont give a shit about you, or your views.
most people dont give a shit about models/high fashion. they care more about celebrities.
and brom was you. you were just masquarading around as a noraml poster trying to further ur views, cause no one else agrees wit u. erika cracker worshipper. dats u.
Posted by 8D on July 06, 2007 at 07:15 PM | #
THIS MAY INTEREST YOU, ERICA:
Posted by 8D on July 06, 2007 at 10:16 PM | #
Danielle: I have numerous objectives. I believe that I will succeed in bringing down the incidence of unnecessary dieting in the general female population. I may or may not succeed in establishing at least one mainstream outlet for feminine beauty appreciation. I acknowledge that coming up with a high-fashion alternative is the most difficult to achieve goal, but what is the point of giving up even if this cannot be achieved?
I am doing my job, not worrying about the results. The results—at least some—will come.
8D: Heed the warning about behaving. Bron has left numerous comments, and it should be clear that she is not me. I also have IP logs to prove this. I have addressed the misleading arguments by David Staples (your link) here.
Posted by Erik on July 10, 2007 at 05:59 PM | #
Dream on Eric, no one is going stop dieting because you tell them to stop and they certainly aren’t going to stop in order to look more like your nasty models. The problem with your site is that you are a nobody which means that you are unable to hire beautiful “feminine” women represent your ideals. You have to rely an frowzy soft porn trailer trash as your examples of “feminine beauty”. As a result, your arguments are even more unconvincing and you look like a fool with bad taste.
If I were you I would stick to the pseudoscience bullshit arguments until I could find some reasonably attractive Jessica Rabbit clones who are insane enough to model for creepy white supremacist nerds. Your “attractive” women section is a sad joke. If you achieve anything it will be getting more women to throw up their every meal in order to look as different from your “beauties” as possible. LOL!
Posted by Danielle on July 10, 2007 at 09:03 PM | #
Oh and I hope that these never come back: 
Sorry to say that I would much rather look like this: 
than this: 
You have bad taste. Give up your useless crusade.
Posted by Danielle on July 10, 2007 at 10:15 PM | #
the girls erica shows are kind of...mediocre. like… plain. nothing is special or striking about them. that’s okay, but that’s not suitable for modeling.
8D
ps: indeed, erica likes the whities.
Posted by 8D on July 11, 2007 at 10:59 PM | #
Danielle: I am not telling women to stop dieting unnecessarily. I am telling women who are dieting unnecessarily about a common reason underlying their behavior. Many of these misguided women are bound to see the light and eat better.
I do not have to be anybody in order to educate the public. Also, it is not like I am destined to be a nobody for good. The attractive women section of this site is a sad joke for only a small minority, mostly comprising of nonheterosexual individuals.
The corset example you have provided illustrates well why this site won’t be prompting anything close to something so ludicrous. The model looks like a male-to-female transsexual with breast implants. This person doesn’t look anywhere close to feminine notwithstanding the tiny waist. Femininity lies in overall appearance and cannot be acquired by modifying one or two features.
It is also interesting that your examples of fashion models involve posing/special angles of photography to make the women look more feminine than they are, hair obscuring masculine face shape (as in Milla Jovovich) and the choice of a model with not-so-masculine looks (Caroline Trentini) that is contrasted with a woman from the attractive women section who is clearly not among the better looking ones (I have planned for some time to move her elsewhere).
Posted by Erik on July 16, 2007 at 11:54 PM | #
Eric, you are so unbelievably arrogant that it’s comical. So thinking that the fugbeasts in your “attractive women” section are unattractive makes me a fag? You have got to be kidding me.
Caroline Trentini looks nothing like a tranny (imo). The way you throw that insult around makes me think that you have never seen a male-to-female transexual in real life. I haven’t posted any pictures of Milla Jovovich. I think you are referring to that picture of Linda Evangelista that I put up.
The woman that I put up from your “attractive” section is very good example of your poor taste and your ludicrous definition of femininity and attractiveness. I love how you pulled that bullshit out of your ass when you said that you were meaning to take her down. LOL! Most of the women in that section are just as sloppy and plain as the one I posted.
Posted by Danielle on July 18, 2007 at 02:10 PM | #
[IMG]C:\Documents and Settings\Danielle Girvan\My Documents\My Pictures\ohaithere.jpg
Posted by Danni on July 18, 2007 at 05:12 PM | #
I can’t believe an elegant white beauty like that can’t get work in the fashion industry. She looks like the beauties I see drinking buds on their “lawns” with their relatives\lovers. What has the world come to when girls of this caliber are not worshiped as the living godesses they are.
Posted by but on July 18, 2007 at 11:32 PM | #
"You have bad taste. Give up your useless crusade.”
Well stated Danielle. Your comment is a little bit rude but read in the context in which it was written, its funny and accurate. So I really have to second it.
And after reading all the comments here posted by non-educated, opinionated morons, i think all I have to say is that every time I’ve been confronted to discussions of this kind (trying to find a consensus on beauty) I’ve been confronted by the same kind of uneducated, opinionated morons, and please, do not feel bad, uneducated opinionated morons conform the largest percentage of human population. It is not rare.
You are embarking on an useless crusade, and besides you are giving some strange clues about your personal, intimate issues.
One, as an heterosexual man, does not look for guidance in magazines or tv ads when in front of an attractive female. You might be a stranger to the feeling, but it is something you feel in your gut.
Like when you smell a grilled steak.
And though a lot of people try to push the issue that this feelings are triggered and manipulated by media, this is, in fact a feminine approach, gay, if you want, when issued by men.
Because, us, men, know what we are talking about when we talk about women. And I mean, that milky white girl you posted is hot, with her flaws of course, but maybe to show them was the intention of the photographer, she’s still hot. Adriana Lima and Alessandra Ambrosio are hot too.
You see, I came into this discussion because I am fond of Alessandra, but us, men who like women, do not discriminate girls as you gay people do.
Posted by George on July 21, 2007 at 03:39 AM | #
Danielle: I have never made the points that you are a male homosexual or that Caroline Trentini looks like a male-to-female transsexual. Ms. Trentini looks like a woman, and I said that she is less masculine-looking than average among high-fashion models. Sorry for mistaking Linda Evangelista for Milla Jovovich. Evangelista was modeling a long time ago and a lot of her face is covered by hair, which threw me off.
15 women added to the attractive women section at some point or the other have been removed so far, and more removals are planned. Therefore, there is no B.S. about the planned removal. Her (Nikki) bone and muscle structure are a little on the heavy side, and I need to transfer her elsewhere. On the other hand, you have ignored your own selections of fashion models in poses/styles where they look more feminine than they are.
Danni: If you wanted to post a picture on your hard drive, you need to upload it to a website such as imageshack.us and then post the url of the image. What you did will not work. I may add an upload facility in the future.
George: Your comment makes little sense. So who really is uneducated and opinionated?
Posted by Erik on July 21, 2007 at 05:11 AM | #
Erik:
I think that what really doesn’t make sense is your answer to my comment, which states perfectly clear points.
Do you mean that you cant make sense of my comment on the way us heterosexual men instinctively acknowledge the “hotness” of any given woman,
without going into tortuous details the way other women as well as gay men do?
And I apologize for any flaws in my English, it is not my native language, so I might not have been quite as accurate as I wished I had.
Posted by George on July 26, 2007 at 01:06 AM | #
George: English is not my native language either. If your comment is supposed to make sense then its sense is lost upon me. I got your point about men quickly judging how attractive a woman is, but this is true of people in general, including women and homosexuals. An argument limited to “I find this woman hot but not that one” is not relevant to this site. You can learn about the goals of this site by reading the FAQ. To work toward these goals, some details about physical appearance have to be addressed to show why one woman is more feminine than another or why she would be considered more attractive by most people.
Posted by Erik on July 26, 2007 at 04:47 AM | #
Hi Erik,
Very interesting site. I agree with some of your opinions (not all) on how men and women (including myself) have been brainwashed to believe that beauty and “perfect” proportions only exist in Hollywood and on the covers of fashion magazines. And if one doesn’t fit these standards they are not considered attractive. Just read some of these posts, perfect example. I’m not sure how accurate your statements are on the high-fashion models looking like adolescent boys (for a reason) it does kind of make sense. It seems like those models on the runway are looking more and more adrogynous and emaciated as the years go by.
But, as a frequent shopper of Victoria’s Secret, I happen to think that a lot of the Victoria’s Secret models are very attractive, but not ALL of them. And they are not perfect (sorry guys). I for one don’t understand the fashion industry’s fixation with Gisele Buncheon. To me, she’s attractive but not beautiful. And your right, one can tell that some of them have had breast augmentations. To each his/her own. Their choice, right? What irritates me, is when men hold that look as the only standard of “beauty”, calling these women perfect, and if we don’t look like them then we are unnatractive. I’m wondering if they would still think the same thing of these women when they see how they look without all the smoke and mirrors?
I can recognize and appreciate an attractive woman, but being female myself, I am no fool. I know how to enhance my beauty, what tight shirts and short skirts to wear, makeup etc… <sigh!> I honestly think that the majority of men, epecially where I’m from, love the “illusion” of beauty. They say they like it natural, but what are they always looking at? Cosmetically-enhanced, bleached blonde, fake-and-bake, wannabe Pamela Andersons. And I admit, there’s a lot of pressure to go to these extremes just to measure up.
I do have a question for you though. What do you think of women like Eva Mendes and Jennifer Lopez? They are very curvaceous, fit and healthy-looking, and I belief they have not had any cosemtic surgery (on their bodies).
Posted by McSushi on August 20, 2007 at 07:52 AM | #
McSushi: I haven’t been talking about brainwashing; more like many people being fooled by tricks, which is facilitated by the dearth of feminine beauty in the media.
I personally don’t find the looks of Eva Mendez and Jennifer Lopez appealing. These women do not have feminine faces, especially Eva, and Jennifer has apparently undergone numerous cosmetic surgery procedures (example 1, example 2).
Posted by Erik on August 27, 2007 at 11:24 PM | #
erik do you not find there faces appaealing or there bodies too i.e the overall figure
Posted by joe on August 29, 2007 at 02:28 PM | #
erik in the above comment im reffering to jennifer lopez and eva mendes
Posted by joe on August 29, 2007 at 02:29 PM | #
Thanks joe, that’s what I was hoping he would answer.
I wanted to know Erik’s opinion on their “bodies” (JLO and Eva Mendes) not their faces,because from what I see I would classify them as having feminine figures.
Posted by McSushi on August 31, 2007 at 02:46 AM | #
ok..jow about someone like Cintia Dicker ? she has a gogeous face and an amazing body..u can’t say this one looks masculine.
http://onethousandmodels.com/cintiadicker/cintiadicker-img14.html
http://onethousandmodels.com/cintiadicker/cintiadicker-img30.html
http://onethousandmodels.com/cintiadicker/cintiadicker-img32.html
http://onethousandmodels.com/cintiadicker/cintiadicker-img23.html
Posted by Dana on September 12, 2007 at 03:29 AM | #
Joe and McSushi: With faces like Mendes’ and Lopez’, it is unlikely that the physiques would be feminine. I haven’t seen clear pictures of Jennifer Lopez’ physique, but given examples like this, I don’t think her body is feminine. Eva Mendes appears to have an average physique that is made to look more feminine in pictures by special posing.
Dana: I have not maintained that all high-fashion models look masculine. I have emphasized the central tendency among high-fashion models. An occasional Cintia Dicker does not undermine the masculine central tendency, and Cintia isn’t as prominent or likely to become as big as Alessandra Ambrosio.
Posted by Erik on September 15, 2007 at 10:41 AM | #
Okay. I am a heterosexual male, and if believing Alessandra is more attractive than your “more feminine” models is in fact wrong than I don’t want to be right. I’d sell my soul to be with Alessandra. THAT’S how beautiful she is. You can say VS fashion models are masculine all you want but many men are still going to say they are extremely attractive.
I have come to the conclusion that you only find predominantly white voluptuous woman attractive and everyone else unappealing in every way. I Also find this site quite shallow. You actually went as far as describing Alessandra as “heterosexual male repellant.” In no way is she repelling to me I can tell you that. I’d PAY to get near her.
What is the purpose of this site anyway? To describe your ideal woman? To get society to conform to your ideal womans looks? The only legitimate purpose would be to help women feel good about themselves. Which it fails to do, because this site just like society is telling women what to look like, not to embrace themselves for who they are. I can tell you’re an intelligent person, so you should know that every man has their own idea of “feminine beauty.” There is no single women deemed “perfection” by all men and never will be. Just like you and I have conflictions of who is beautiful and who is not. Some men like their woman tall, some like them short etc, and it’s always going to be that way.
You pick on fashion models a lot, and it seems you feel they are destroying the world somehow. They are not, they are merely represenatives of the typical/average male fantasy woman in a given society. That is why they are paid millions of dollars, and your “more feminine” models are not.
I fail to see a legitimate purpose in this site. And yes I saw the “discrimination against unattractive women” page, but the rest of this site just makes that page seem hypocriticale.
Posted by Kale on September 20, 2007 at 06:24 AM | #
erik how feminine is cintia dicker?
Posted by joe on September 22, 2007 at 06:36 AM | #
> You actually went as far as describing Alessandra as “heterosexual male repellant.
Posted by Der Wanderer on September 22, 2007 at 04:50 PM | #
Joe: How feminine is Cintia Dicker? Not very feminine.
Kale: If you believe that Alessandra is beautiful, then I hope that you are aware of how she looks sans the help of make-up and digital artists, and if you are aware of this factor, then you are an odd heterosexual man. I know that many men find VS models extremely attractive, but you need to look at how heavily these women are promoted, the dearth of feminine beauty in the media, and up to 20% of men not being lifetime-exclusive heterosexuals.
Read the FAQ to understand this site’s purpose. It focuses on white women because it is targeting people of European ancestry. Whereas heterosexual men do not mutually agree 100% about what is beautiful in women, most prefer feminine beauty and share a similar idea of what it is about.
I don’t believe that fashion models are “destroying the world somehow.” They are not selecting themselves as models. The problems that I am addressing are caused by those who select them, and these are the homosexual designers, who select the models to appeal to their tastes rather than heterosexual men/women in general.
Posted by Erik on October 01, 2007 at 05:15 PM | #
Erik you mean cintia dickers face isnt very feminine as the picture you have cited is of her face or you mean her face and body?
Posted by joe on October 02, 2007 at 12:13 PM | #
Hi, I’m a male-to-female transsexual and I ended up finding this on a google search for “very feminine guys.” I’ve also been searching for very masculine women to use as models/inspirations for some characters I’m going to draw in a comic.
But an-y-ways, I just wanted to say that there’s alot of transphobia here. So what if these women are transexuals? They’ve managed to come along ways in their life. If you would have asked these models if they thought they could be models for Victoria’s secret when they first discovered their gender problems, they would have thought it completely impossible—and yet they managed to do it, somehow. I see that as commendable.
I can understand some sort of...inferiority from genetic women who feel bad that transsexuals look better than them...But that inferriority is only coming because the person in question doesn’t see the transexual as a woman. Then it’s just another woman that looks better than another woman. (And there’s always someone who looks better than you.)
Anyway, I probably won’t be checking back on this since I found it so randomly, but I thought that I’d say something. With something to think about, make it a great day!
--X
Posted by Anonymous on October 02, 2007 at 07:30 PM | #
Erik
is dash an example of extreme femininity? above average femininity,what point of the masculinity-femininity scale does dash lie?
Posted by tom on October 03, 2007 at 03:02 PM | #
erik is gonna be raped. by a guy. jk
he alreayd has been
Posted by wang on October 03, 2007 at 07:50 PM | #
Dear Anonymous. Though I do not agree with erik on some points I have to disagree with you too, since I think that no matter how pretty they look, aberrations to nature are still that, aberrations. I mean, I once saw a man who wanted to be a pig, and he ate like a pig and had a little costume and stuff. And he didnt look bad. But that will never make it natural. So you “just” want to look like a woman instead of what you were born being. Sure, nowadays that sounds normal. But who will draw the line for the future. Are we on the brink seeing some zoophilic parades too?
Oh, and thats why calling Alessandra a transexual is really an insult.
Posted by George on October 03, 2007 at 11:59 PM | #
8D: Stop using multiple aliases (e.g., Wang).
Joe: Cintia’s physique isn’t very feminine either.
Tom: Dasha is feminine, not too feminine.
The transsexual: Who is saying that Alessandra is a transsexual? Chances are that none of the Victoria’s Secret models are transsexuals. There is no transphobia here. Male-to-female transsexuals generally do not look like women, and too many VS models have the more masculine male-to-female transsexual look to them, especially clear in their candids, which explains the title.
Posted by Erik on October 04, 2007 at 12:10 AM | #
this site is bullshit.
first of all, that’s the worst pic of doutzen you could have possibly picked. secondly, i think YOU’RE the homo if you’d seriously rather do that fug creature on the right of that comparision. she’s a dough-faced, nasty, down syndrome looking bitch. the girls you post as examples of “feminitty” are fat and out of shape, and their faces are not unique or beautiful… they’re average bordering on ugly. not everyone wants huge udder like tits or mounds of fat on their women, many of us like toned and shapely girls who actually hit the gym and take care of their appearance.
until bitches like the ones you idolize are paid millions to be “boyish” in ads and runways, you can shut the fuck up.
Posted by anon on October 25, 2007 at 04:00 PM | #
anon, Doutzen Kroes would probably appeal to more “lifetime exclusive heterosexuals” than that Neville Longbottom look alike Erik compared her with.
http://i.imdb.com/Photos/Events/6107/DoutzenKr_Georg_14042955_400.jpg
I think Erik is afraid of dedicating one of his “transsexual parade” posts to her because even though he is mentally ill he knows that none of his fugbeasts can compare to her.
Posted by Danielle on October 26, 2007 at 03:34 PM | #
I WISH YOU FUCKING DIE BASTARDS LIKE YOU GOT ANY PROVE THAT ITS TRUE!
Posted by me on November 05, 2007 at 08:54 AM | #
these women are so unattractive and ambrosio is the worst, i cannot undrestand how some men are jerkin off on their pictures
Posted by krisah on November 19, 2007 at 02:41 PM | #
Because a fag cannot understand a man krisah. Let it go.
Posted by George on November 21, 2007 at 04:36 PM | #
I find certain aspects of your argument troubling. First, in the section of this blog titled, “The importance of femininity to beauty in women,” it appears that the studies you reference focus on facial features exclusively, and yet you apply the statistical correlation they have found between attractiveness and femininity in facial features to bodily features without discretion. The section titled, “Feminine vs. masculine features,” references orthopedic measurements of feminine and masculine pelvic structures, but does not address aesthetic preference. The inference that a correlation between attractiveness and femininity in facial features can be applied to bodily features indiscriminately seems to be entirely your assumption.
Second, in Hally’s post on March 12, 2007, she says, “The definition of beauty has evolved with time.” While the rest of her post was less than congenial or intelligent, this statement cannot be refuted. Your response to her post addresses her misuse of the words “fat” and “ancient,” but not the core of her assertion. For instance, a study done by P. T. Katzmarzyk and C. Davis (http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v25/n4/full/0801571a.html) from the School of Kinesiology and Health Science, York University, North York, Ontario, Canada has shown that from 1978 to 1998, 77.5% of Playboy models have been at least 15% below their ideal body weight. Thus, if your claim that Ancient Greek and Egyptian sculptures as well as Neolithic European figurines depict “normal” body/fat ratios is accurate, we can conclude that by today’s standards heterosexual men prefer women that are at least 15% thinner than those of the ancient period. Furthermore, consider Botticelli’s “The Birth of Venus” (http://www.johnmitchell.org/venus.htm). Even your examples of feminine bodies above do not come near the body/fat ratio of this depiction of Venus. Notice that her waist is only slightly thinner than her hips. The vast majority of her body weight is carried in her abdomen, not her chest, and this painting represents the 16th Century’s conception of ideal beauty. The explanation for the preference of larger and paler women during this period is related to class issues. Women who were corpulent and pale were preferred to the peasant class that were generally thin and tan because of their labor. Corpulence and pale skin indicated that a woman was wealthy and privileged, and a preference for this lifestyle translated into a preference for this body type. The examples of feminine bodily structures that you present would substantiate the claim that preferences have shifted towards a thinner female body, not to mention tanner (see Keeley Hazell in part 3 of this series). If Hally had claimed that paintings from the Renaissance and not the “ancient world” demonstrated a preference for corpulence, her assertion would have been more accurate, but there is no denying that preferences have changed and that aesthetic attractiveness is subjective, even for “lifetime-exclusive” heterosexual men, unless you want to claim that Hugh Heffner is not among this group.
Third, and this addresses the heart of your thesis, the claim that masculinized women do not represent the ideal body type for lingerie models is entirely assumptive. The mere fact that the majority of lingerie models are at least slightly androgynous contradicts this assertion, because it is not solely homosexual men who select models. For instance, the Victoria’s Secret PINK collection, for which Alessandra Ambrosio was named the spokesperson, is headed by Jennifer Wolinetz. Women have a powerful influence over the modeling industry. Consider the many female designers who select the same models to represent their brands as Victoria’s Secret, not to mention heterosexual men such as Calvin Klein and Tommy Hilfiger. I understand that your response to this will be that Klein and Hilfiger do not represent “lifetime-exclusive” heterosexual men, if there is such a thing, but suffice it to say that there is a diversity of sexual orientation in the fashion industry. It is more logical to presume that the selection of androgynous women as models for lingerie is a business decision and not a sexual one. You have stated that the lingerie industry is targeting heterosexual men with their campaigns. While this is undoubtedly true, heterosexual men are certainly not their only target. Obviously, women are the main demographic of any lingerie company, which you have addressed and accounted for by pointing out that heterosexual women tend to prefer the same feminine features as heterosexual men, at least in the face. However, what you have not considered are the non-“lifetime-exclusive” heterosexual men and women that Victoria’s Secret would want to attract to their brand. According to the studies of Sigmund Freud, Alfred Kinsey, Eve Sedgwick, Judith Butler, and countless others, the vast majority of people are not exclusively heterosexual or homosexual, but instead, gender and sexual preference should be rendered as a spectrum of possibilities, not an either/or binary. Perhaps by selecting an androgynous model type, Victoria’s Secret is attempting to garner themselves a blank canvas to display their apparel in order to achieve the widest possible appeal. If this is the case, then a masculinized woman would be the ideal candidate to model lingerie.
Posted by Billy on November 22, 2007 at 02:34 AM | #
Billy:
Erik claims that Playboy models are “masculinized” because Hugh Hefner is “not lifetime exclusive heterosexual” on the basis of a rumor that Hugh Hefner experimented with bisexuality in the 1960’s and statements by one or two of Hefner’s roughly two thousand female sexual partners who made money by telling stories that Hefner likes to watch homosexual male porn. Erik’s standard of evidence for his claim that Hugh Hefner is “not lifetime exclusive heterosexual” is the standard of a sleazy tabloid: somebody said it, somebody was paid to say it, therefore it is true.
Erik ignores the evolution of beauty standards and claims beauty standards do not substantially change.
I have tried to explain to Erik how technological, economic and cultural changes cause huge shifts in beauty standards. He does not get it. Erik claims that lifetime-exlusive heterosexual men have a natural preference for the female hourglass figure with a small waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) caused by high levels of female hormones and low levels of male hormones, but most of the glamorized female figures in Western art in the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries were obese, not hourglass. Botticelli’s “The Birth of Venus”, which you rightly point out is pear-shaped and has a WHR larger than Erik says heterosexual men prefer, is actually significantly thinner than most of the female nudes in Renaissance art. The hourglass figure Erik claims is a natural male preference did not become fashionable until the industrial revolution made food far more easily available to the masses and greatly lessened the link between corpulence and affluence, thus reducing the social cachet of female obesity. And the popularity of the hourglass figure began to decline in the last two decades of the 20th century when the West achieved such truly extreme prosperity that even the very poor had unlimited food access and significant body fat became associated with the lower class. The modern very thin beauty ideal is the inevitable result of modern mass wealth.
When I tried to explain to Erik that the standard of beauty changes because beauty is generally defined as the look of higher socioeconomic status and the signs of socioeconomic status change, he disagreed and pointed out that in ancient Rome, fair-haired Anglo-Saxon slaves were considered beautiful even though they were at the bottom of the socioeconomic scale. He used one very rare exception as an excuse to ignore an overwhelming rule. In how many times and places in human history have slaves been considered more beautiful than their masters?
Erik’s mind is closed to anything that contradicts his assumptions, even if that means ignoring massive evidence to the contrary. Erik conveniently dismisses any man who disagrees with his ideas of female beauty by making totally unprovable allegations that the man is “not lifetime exclusive heterosexual” or “barely escaped nonheterosexuality” which is a convenient way to shut out all dissent.
Posted by Whipped Honey on November 24, 2007 at 09:18 AM | #
WHAT WOMEN WANT IN A LINGERIE MODEL
Erik, your belief that lingerie models are supposed to appeal to heterosexual men is absolutely ridiculous.
All marketing in today’s complex economy and widely varied mass media is niche marketing. Even products that are bought by the majority of people, such as cars, are marketed to niches. The same car companies have very different television commercials in different regions of the country and on different television networks with different core audience demographics.
All marketing is directed to the buyer and no one else, even if the product is in some way used by someone other than the buyer. For instance, food for home cooking is marketed almost exclusively to women, even though half of the people who eat it are men, because in most households the grocery shopper is the woman.
The vast majority of lingerie purchases are made by women, not men; therefore lingerie is marketed to women, not men, regardless of the fact that most women who buy lingerie use it to arouse men. Get this through your head: LINGERIE COMPANIES DO NOT GIVE A DAMN ABOUT HETEROSEXUAL MEN BECAUSE HETEROSEXUAL MEN DO NOT BUY LINGERIE.
WOMEN’S SEXUAL FANTASIES ARE DIFFERENT FROM MEN’S.
WOMEN DO NOT WANT LINGERIE MODELS TO LOOK LIKE MALE FANTASIES.
Erik, your ignorance of female sexuality is so extreme that I have come to the conclusion that your sexual experience is limited to being a john with prostitutes paid to tell you what you want to hear, or very few non-prostitute partners, or you may be a virgin. You dismissed Bailey’s and Chivers’ studies because they reached conclusions incomprehensible to you in your ignorance of female sexuality. You do not understand why women are aroused by rape fantasies, the #1 most popular female sexual fantasy. You do not understand why both hetersexual women and lesbians are aroused by both naked women and naked men because you cannot comprehend that women’s arousal and women’s desire are two different things. You actually believe the male delusion that porn stars enjoy the sex because you do not know the visible signs of female sexual arousal. Any experienced woman who reads your statements about female sexuality is going to realize that you have very, very little unpaid experience with women.
Learn more about evolutionary psychology. Men are most likely to produce the highest number of surviving offspring if they impregnate the highest number of women possible; thus natures programs men to be promiscuous and to desire women who appear to be easily available for sex. Women are most likely to produce the highest number of surviving offspring if they limit their sexual availability to a high status male who is able and willing to provide long-term resources and protection for his offspring; thus nature programs women to be monogamous or semi-monogamous (female promiscuity is either prostitution or emotional problems, not biology) and to desire to appear sexually available only to high-status males and sexually unavailable to the average male. Hence there is a huge disconnect between how men want to see women and how women want to see themselves.
Simply put, women do not want to be what men want women to be. No, pleasing men is not the primary motivator of female sexuality. The primary motivator of female sexuality is the achievement of the women’s own ends; pleasing men is just a means to the end.
Men love the image of the easily sexually stimulated, promiscuous woman easily available to the average male. Women love the image of the highly selective, monogamous or semi-monogamous woman available only to the high status male and unavailable to the average male. Pornography is the most profitable sector of the entertainment industry because it appeals to male fantasy, not female fantasy. The most idolized female celebrities, such as Jackie Kennedy Onassis and Princess Diana, are popular because they appeal to female fantasy, not male fantasy.
Lingerie models must project the image of the Jackies and the Dianas. The image, mind you, not the reality of these women’s private behavior, whatever it was, which is irrelevant.
Lingerie models must look sexually subtle, understated, self-contained, lofty, priveleged, rarified, and - most important of all - HARD TO AROUSE.
Meaning that it would take a very exceptional and worthy male to arouse her. That is why they are so careful to avoid any facial expression suggestive of arousal. The Victoria’s Secret people know damn well that if they start using models who make the catalogue look like tasteful soft core porn, they will instantly lose 95% of their female customers.
Erik, I expect your response to this post will be along the lines of “That can’t be true!” Like most younger men today, you have so little comprehension of female sexual psychology that whenever confronted with truths about women that conflict with male fantasies, your response is to close your eyes and put your hands over your ears.
Posted by Whipped Honey on November 24, 2007 at 10:29 AM | #
Whipped Honey-I whole heartedly agree with what you have said. I have only a few more things to add, which occurred to me sometime after I submitted my first post.
Erik’s argument depends entirely on the bigoted argument that homosexual men are in capable of discerning the difference between their own sexually charged aesthetic preferences and that of their market. His entire thesis rests upon the assumption that lingerie models are chosen by homosexual men who cannot put aside their own set of preferences in lieu of another. However, he does not levy the same charge against heterosexuals such as himself. He has obviously demonstrated his ability to rationally assess the aesthetic appearance of women who do not match his personal preferences and to interpret whose preferences they would likely appeal to. What would make him think that homosexual designers would not be able to do the same? If it were in the best interest of their business, these designers would be more than capable of setting aside their own preferences to rationally assess the aesthetic appeal of more feminine models. Thus, if they are not doing so, it is because it IS NOT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THEIR BUSINESS. Any argument that asserts that “they do not know better” or that “they cannot help it” is bigoted.
As for the constant charge against dissenters of this site that they must not be “lifetime exclusive” heterosexual men, by Erik’s own statistics, which are derived from a self-reporting data collection method and thus highly incredible, 4 out of every 5 men are “lifetime exclusive” heterosexuals. With such an overwhelming majority of men included in this group, it is highly unlikely that every man contributing to this forum who has disagreed with Erik is a non-"lifetime exclusive” heterosexual, but instead Erik is ignoring proof positive that his argument is faulty.
This entire argument is based upon misapplied statistics, incredible statistics, bigoted assumptions, a denial of logic, and a denial of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Anyone who buys into it will fall within three categories: the sexually inexperienced, the homophobic, or the uneducated. Erik is obviously not the former of these three, so he must be one of the first two.
Peace. I’m out.
Whipped Honey: stay cool.
Posted by Billy on November 24, 2007 at 05:05 PM | #
Billy:
“Whipped Honey: stay cool.”
Billy, stay cool yourself. I agree with you 100%.
“Anyone who buys into it will fall within three categories: the sexually inexperienced, the homophobic, or the uneducated. Erik is obviously not the former of these three, so he must be one of the first two.”
I am certain Erik is sexually experienced; either he has had only prostitute partners paid to tell him whatever he wants to hear, or very few partners, or he is a virgin.
Erik is homophobic.
Erik’s “Information on Homosexuals” website
Erik’s “The Nature of Homosexuality” book
To give you an idea of the level of his vitriol, Erik’s “Information on Homosexuals” website blog entry entitled “The Latvian attitude toward gay pride: How do Latvians deal with gay pride? They shower homosexuals with human feces, eggs and rotten food!”
Erik’s “Information on Homosexuals” website blog entry entitled “Gays Harassing Straights” describes gays in Provincetown, Massachusetts, USA, calling straights “breeders” and “baby makers” and one man committing an unspecified act of assault against a woman who signed a petition to ban gay marriage in Massachusetts, the only American state where it is legal.
Erik thinks that if gays merely call straights “breeders” and “baby makers” and commit one homosexual commits one unspecified assault against one heterosexual, that is “harassment”, but if a whole crowd of Latvians “shower homosexuals with human feces, eggs and rotten food!” that is not harassment but rather something to report as fun and amusing!
Posted by Whipped Honey on November 27, 2007 at 06:39 AM | #
Whipped Phoney:
Erik, your ignorance of female sexuality is so extreme that I have come to the conclusion that your sexual experience is limited to being a john with prostitutes paid to tell you what you want to hear, or very few non-prostitute partners, or you may be a virgin.
Look who’s talking: the deranged lesbian who likes being whipped !
Lecturing us on women’s sexuality… that’s rich.
Your stupid theory doesn’t hold any water, and is unnecessarily long-winded too, spare us the BS. You’re just an heterophobic lesbian who hates the idea of straight women “marketing” themselves to straight men. All your “theories” boil down to that, say it clearly and be done with it. Women buy lingery to “market” themselves to straight men, so it does make sense to use a straight man’s idea of a woman to market lingerie. Your talking outrageous BS, as usual.
And your stupid theory on the dichotomy existing between *arousal* and *desire*, that didn’t hold any water either, BTW. The only thing that proves, if anything, is that most women are too irrational to judge other women’s looks, they are too brainwashable and are easy prey for social fads and peer preassure. That’s why a site like this is needed, thank you for reminding us =)
Erik’s like/dislike of gays is irrelevant.
Screw the homos, I demand my right, nay, I’m TAKING my goddamned right to dislike them, WTF.
And his take on Homophobia is quite spot-on, you failed to mention that.
It’s a communist plot run by proxy.
It works like this.
Mr. Homo-enabler :
Ooooooh ... so you don’t like homos, huh?
Well, then you are INSANE, you need to be REENGINEERED in order to “fix” that “problem” of yours.
You, and the WHOLE OF SOCIETY.Ooooooh ... so you don’t care anymore about the poor homos?
Well, now we’re going to parade them dowm the streets, NAKED.
I see ... you are still not “cured” enough, you need another “fix”Ooooooh ... so you got used to that, huh?
Now, we’re going to lecture YOUR CHILDREN on the joys of sodomy on YOUR SCHOOLS paid by YOUR TAXES.So you thought that you were free of “homophobia” huh?
Think twice
<Ad Infinitum>
They NEED “homophobia”
They create it
Posted by Der Wanderer on November 27, 2007 at 08:39 AM | #
Dude, this is obviously ur opinion. the supermodels who make the top 25 are collected from magazines such as maxim, fhm, and stuff. these are heterosexual male mags. the women u have put on this site to compare to supermodels like alessandra ambrosio, are ugly. they have no defining features, alessandra is of italian (latin) and polish (slavic) decent; making her very sharply featured. not broad featured such as a man is. plus alessandra seems to have b cup breasts, and if ur comparing her to how she looked when she started, SHE WAS 15!!! my point is why would a supermodel decide to get only a b cup breast implant? cuz she didn’t they’re real.
i think you’re a perv because u have these “women” from teen sites which look like they’re all but 14 years old. hence the rounded features. they look like little girls. is that what u like? sorry eric, not me. i like women...even if u do say they resemble men.
Posted by Old Skool on November 28, 2007 at 11:40 PM | #
I AM A LESBIAN? THAT’S NEWS TO ME!
“Look who’s talking: the deranged lesbian who likes being whipped !”
Look who’s talking: the sane heterosexual woman who LOVES being whipped for the flesh impact and the fantastic endorphin rush euphoria.
“Lecturing us on women’s sexuality… that’s rich.”
Right; you, a man, know much more about female sexuality than I, a woman.
“Your stupid theory doesn’t hold any water”
My “stupid theory” is EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY and sorry if science is offensive to those who prefer superstition.
“and is unnecessarily long-winded too”
How much do complex scientific issues have to be simplified and condensed so they don’t hurt your brain too much?
“You’re just an heterophobic lesbian who hates the idea of straight women “marketing” themselves to straight men.”
I am a heterosexual woman who loves the idea of straight women “marketing” themselves to straight men; I support the legalization of prostitution and I occassionally enjoy heterosexual pornography.
“Women buy lingery to “market” themselves to straight men, so it does make sense to use a straight man’s idea of a woman to market lingerie.”
A straight man’s idea of a woman is not a woman’s idea of what she wants to be. If psychosexual gender differences are too hard for you to understand then you are better off not reading my posts because my posts will only confuse and anger you.
“And your stupid theory on the dichotomy existing between *arousal* and *desire*, that didn’t hold any water either, BTW.”
Please do not distort my words. I said there is a “difference”, not a “dichotomy”, between women’s *arousal* and *desire*; women’s only, not men’s. Dichotomy means mutual exclusivity; difference means possible disparity. Of course a woman can both be aroused by and desire the same stimuli, but she can also be aroused by that which she does not desire. Women are more aroused by music than by pornography because women can be aroused by songs while it is not even possible to feel desire for a song.
“The only thing that proves, if anything, is that most women are too irrational to judge other women’s looks, they are too brainwashable and are easy prey for social fads and peer preassure.”
Men who want to believe that women see sexuality just as men do tell themselves any sign of a difference must be because women are “irrational” and “brainwashable”.
“Erik’s like/dislike of gays is irrelevant.
Screw the homos, I demand my right, nay, I’m TAKING my goddamned right to dislike them, WTF.”
Anyone is entitled to dislike whatever he or she pleases. Erik’s dislike of homosexuality is his right and is relevant to this website because it influences his distortions about homosexual fashion designers.
“And his take on Homophobia is quite spot-on, you failed to mention that.”
Homophobia is an inaccurate word; I should have said Erik dislikes homosexuality.
“It’s a communist plot run by proxy.”
How is homosexuality a communist plot when:
1. Homosexuality existed long before either communist theory, let alone communist practice, existed.
2. Every single communist government in world history outlawed homosexuality, and some, like the Soviet Union, officially claimed that homosexuality did not exist in their country.
3. The most homosexuality-tolerant societies in the world are also the most capitalistic societies in the world: America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the Western European nations.
“So you thought that you were free of “homophobia” huh?”
I am free of homophobia, in either the literal or the popular sense; I neither fear nor dislike homosexuals or homosexuality. That does not mean I support public nudity or the use of public schools to teach children about any paraphilia.
Posted by Whipped Honey on November 29, 2007 at 06:13 AM | #
Der Wanderer:
You are making the same illegitimate assumption as Erik. LINGERIE COMPANIES ARE NOT MARKETING THEIR PRODUCT TO MEN! If you can understand this, then you can understand why designers do not choose models according to their fulfillment of heterosexual male aesthetic preferences. Selecting women who fulfill the fantasy of heterosexual men would be a deterrent to heterosexual women. Women do not select their wardrobe based on its ability to arouse men (at least not exclusively). They select it based on its ability to fulfill their ideal self-image, which is the same reason anyone selects their wardrobe. The image of the soft-core porn star is hardly the ideal for most women. For instance, the most revealing and sexual items VS sells are also their most expensive items: garter belts, hosiery, lace, bustiers, etc. A lingerie ensemble like this can easily be more than $100 even at its cheapest. Victoria’s Secret is playing to the cross section between female sexuality and luxury, not sexuality and availability or male fantasy, and this all plays into notions of female empowerment. Even in a sexual context and ideal female self-image must be imbued with empowerment, which translates into sexual exclusivity. The model most fulfill this embodiment of sexual exclusivity, which in our day and age is extremely thin (most likely because of associations between gluttony and lust) and “fierce,” which is usually expressed with a hardened look and furrowed brow, almost a glare. On several seasons of America’s Next Top Model, you will find that the panel of judges differentiate between men’s magazine models and high fashion models. The main reason that this difference exists is because men’s magazines cater to male fantasy and high fashion caters to female self-idealism and not their sexual fantasies.
As for your right to dislike homosexuals, no one can deny you that. They can call you a bigot and rightly so, but they cannot deny your right to be a bigot. Your claim that homosexuality is a communist plot leads me to believe that you have no understanding of communism. Your concern that the “joys of sodomy” will be taught in school leads me to believe that you never went to school. When did a school ever teach the joys of the missionary position either. The fact that you think Erik’s “like/dislike” of gays is not relevant to this discussion leads me to believe that you do not understand Erik’s argument. Erik claims that homosexual designers are unable to differentiate between their sexually charged aesthetic preferences and the aesthetic preferences of others, as if homosexuals are simply figures of homosexuality and have no interests or understanding apart from their sexual desires. This is absolutely relevant to his claims and is one of the major (though not sole) logical faults in his argument. Homosexuals’ interaction with the polis in recent years has revolved around equal rights, and yes, they would like main stream culture to understand their lifestyle because understanding leads to acceptance. You may feel that understanding and accepting the gay lifestyle is offensive, but that would make you a bigot. Just as the Nazi party who did not want to understand and accept the Jewish community were bigots, and just as the Ku Klux Klan who did not want to understand and accept the African American community were bigots. On hindsight, we look at these organizations with disdain and disgust. Someday we will look at you in the same way.
Posted by Billy on November 29, 2007 at 09:44 PM | #
Anon (posting on Oct 25, 2007, 4 PM): Retards like you can’t even come up with a legitimate insult. You call Doutzen’s picture the worst that I could pick even though in it she is all made-up, and one doesn’t observe any odd expression, freckles, zits or the like. So what makes it a bad choice? Obviously the fact that her facial masculinization is clear in it. Even Danielle below you realizes this, and both her picture choices show hair hiding parts of her face, camouflaging her masculinization, as has been the case with many pictures cited by her. Then you call me a “homo” for preferring a more feminine look and describe the feminine women shown as having “huge udder like tits or mounds of fat.” Great job.
Danielle: What do you mean I am afraid of discussing Doutzen Kroes in the context of Victoria’s Secret modeling? I am not done with the series, and I need to be addressing many issues apart from lingerie modeling by Victoria’s Secret. Besides, my argument has never been that they all look transsexual, just that a lot of them do. Doutzen is not feminine but she doesn’t look like a transsexual either.
Me: Who is me? What do I need to prove? I am not saying that Alessandra is a transsexual but that she looks like a male-to-female transsexual, and the proof is in the pictures.
Krisah: Understanding men jerking off to Alessandra is easy; they are typically not of the heterosexual variety.
Old Skool: LOL! Supermodels are not collected from Maxim, FHM and STUFF. They may sometimes appear in them, but they are made famous by the fashion industry. I don’t believe I am using pictures of Alessandra above from when she was 15. If a flat-chested woman wanted to get breast implants, some would want to make it look as natural as possible and hence would get small implants. The women I have been showing are 18-plus and with rare exceptions, they look it, and the exceptions are typically used for purposes such as showing that a feminine and slender girl who looks 16 going by her face would be rejected in favor a slender 16-year-old who looks masculine.
Posted by Erik on November 30, 2007 at 02:45 PM | #
Billy: Your comments have been spread over a week, yet they do not indicate that you have made an effort to read enough of this site. Please do so before leaving further comments.
No discretion in inferring a preference for feminine physiques?
If one only had data regarding femininity preferences in reference to face shape, then extrapolating it to body preferences would not be unreasonable because sex hormones have a global effect. Women with more feminine faces will generally tend to have more feminine physiques. What are the odds that there is a preference for above average femininity in facial features but not in physique? What purpose could a preference for above average femininity in facial features serve? The latter is answered by evidence on the eating disorders page as well as in a study on face shape and estrogen levels, where it turns out that above average femininity is correlated with better fertility and fecundity. So if facial femininity is a cue to these variables then does one not expect the physique to also be a cue to these variables and a preference for feminine faces to co-exist with a preference for feminine physiques? These considerations do not require any data on whether feminine physiques are preferred. However, data in this regard are provided elsewhere within this site; it is simply not possible to present all relevant information on one page. For instance, many studies have revealed a preference for below average waist-to-hip ratios in women (leaning toward the feminine side) on the part of both men and women. One of the articles addresses confounds related to WHR and attractiveness at this blog, and this article provides links to pdfs of many of the citations. Some of these pdfs cite a preference for prominent breasts in women, too, which one hardly needs to cite. So don’t accuse me making a mere assumption.
Change in beauty ideals
No one named Hally has commented on this article. You took the comment from elsewhere. Neither Hally nor you have made a convincing case for change in ideals, and I will repeat again that my argument has never been that there has been no change. The Katzmarzyk and Davis paper you referenced has been cited at this site since when it was set up (~2 years ago). I have addressed the issue in much more detail in an article on twentieth century trends in shapes of high-fashion models, Miss Americas and Playboy Playmates of the Year. The issue you raised is the body weight of Playboy centerfolds, but I have long pointed out that the researchers that have documented this trend have relied on reported weight, not measured weight and if only they had bothered to look at enough centerfolds, they would realize that their weight are underreported and useless for analysis.
I agree that there has been a change among Playboy centerfolds over the decades; they have become more masculinized, but this by no means proves that there has been a shift in public preferences. To understand this issue, the best example is of the masculinization in high-fashion models’ faces, clearly at odds with majority preferences...the top models do not reflect anything close to the central tendency of the optimal preferences of the public, but then public preferences do not determine what women get to be top high-fashion models. Playboy was founded by a bisexual male, Hugh Hefner, and he has simply brought the models in line with his tastes over the years, suffering in sales somewhat but not greatly because Playboy was a pioneering magazine that enjoyed a very comfortable headstart over its current competition, making Playboy Inc. well known and rich, and also the fact that feminine beauty is hardly in the limelight.
Playboy magazine is also useless for assessing shifts in heterosexual men’s preferences in a quantitative manner because over half the centerfolds from the 1990s onward have sported breast implants, making their bust measurements useless, yet many researchers are oblivious to this. If you are a heterosexual man and you click on the Hugh Hefner link above, one look at the Playboy centerfolds shown and it would be obvious that the person making the selections is not a heterosexual man.
How does one know that Botticelli’s Venus represented the ideal held by most people? It is a popular myth that excess body fat was desired in women in medieval Europe; the reality is that obesity was stigmatized and tiny waists preferred.
Don’t bring in a tan. I have already addressed it; a tan is not a shape variable and is pretty much readily reversible as opposed to body shape variation along the masculine-feminine discriminant.
Once again, I am not insisting that there has been no change in public preferences across time, but you have not made a decent argument for change pertaining to the chief issue at hand, namely masculinity-femininity, within the past couple of decades/centuries. You, like Hally, have brought up the issue of change to somehow argue that the public’s preferences are responsible for the fashion models’ looks, but this is simply not true. Read more of this site.
What are lingerie models supposed to look like?
It is not mere assumption on my part that lingerie models are supposed to look feminine. In the first part of this series I addressed the basic use of lingerie. Women generally use it to put their male partner in the mood. So what would be the basic marketing consideration? Obviously, “buy this lingerie and acquire this woman’s sex appeal [to heterosexual men].” So a lingerie model is expected to be feminine. Additionally, why do a number of Victoria’s Secret models have breast implants, and why does the company pose them in a manner to make them look more feminine if there is no need for them to look feminine?
The majority of lingerie models being masculinized simply reflects the homosexual domination of the business. Yes, there are plenty of non-gay designers, including some in powerful positions, but the gay domination sets the status quo; others have to comply with it. It is patent nonsense that “women have a powerful influence over the modeling industry.” Read the following from Rebecca Johnson in the April 2007 Vogue Shapes issue:
“It’s the paradox of the model,” said Natalia Vodianova, one of the few models who have been outspoken on the issue. “You’re supposed to be projecting this image of fun and health. If you talk about having a problem, you know it’s going to affect your career, so you don’t say anything. The girls talk about dieting all the time, but they never talk about the problems.”
If people don’t talk, it’s hard to know the true extent of the issue or where it begins and ends. “Why are the agents even sending these girls?” Donna Karan asked at the CFDA forum on the topic this part February. Answer: because those are the girls who are getting booked. “I know one of my girls has a problem,” one anguished agent asked, “but every designer in town wants that girl in their show, so what am I supposed to tell her? If I tell her she can’t work, she’ll just go to someone else.”
In the passages above, Ms. Johnson is mentioning some examples of people being reluctant to talk about the pressure they are under to have very thin models. Note the comment by Donna Karan, a big name among fashion designers. Does her comment suggest that women have a lot of power in the industry? She appears to be or perhaps pretends to be oblivious to the reason why models have to be very thin.
Calvin Klein is not a heterosexual. He has not been forthcoming about his sexual orientation, but he appears to be some type of bisexual who mostly leans toward pederasty.
I have not stated that “the lingerie industry is targeting heterosexual men with their campaigns”; lingerie is sold to women, not men. I said that “a lingerie show directly or indirectly caters to heterosexual men” since it is clear what the typical purpose of lingerie is. In your reply to Der Wanderer, you stated that “women do not select their wardrobe based on its ability to arouse men (at least not exclusively)...” however, this article isn’t about a wardrobe; it is about lingerie.
Are the vast majority of individuals not lifetime-exclusive heterosexual and is this the reason that lingerie companies go for androgyny in their models? Sigmund Freud conducted no scientific studies regarding the prevalence of homosexuals and bisexuals; he just had conjectures. Alfred Kinsey deliberately oversampled homosexuals and bisexuals and still ended up with a majority exclusively heterosexual statistic. I am not aware of Judith Butler ever publishing any scientific surveys on the prevalence of nonheterosexuality; she is a postmodernist, not the kind of perso