Welcome!

See this thread for a critique of some of the arguments mentioned within this site and my response to the criticism.

Please! the article feminime vs. masculine is so stupid! These models are beautiful and not "masculine". High checkbones make women prettier. When you can´t see the checkbones in the face of a woman she is not beautiful, that´s my opinion

I rather enjoyed your article on "Skinny Fashion Models: Why are fashion models so skinny". I found it rather informative, especially in regards to homosexual dominance within the fashion industry and how their influence affects the body types seen on runways. But there was one thing I noticed about the entirety of your site: you seem to deem white feminine beauty as the standard. Your website is dominated by nothing but photos of white women; celebrities and many of the "cheesecake" variety (very poor choice indeed!). The only picture you had of a "woman of colour" was one of Alek Wek with her photo in comparison to a blonde/blue-eyed (and that's all I see on your website w/ the exception of some brunettes) model of "finer" features. In caption, you added, and I quote, "Fig. 16: Models of strikingly different appearance placed next to each other are bound to attract attention." I will put empahsis on "strikingly different appearance"; were you inferring that the blonde is more beautiful with more acceptable features than the very dark model of larger, "unacceptable" features? You mention this use of designers using models of "different appearance" in shows, but your site also lacks the "appearances" of beautiful women of color. I then question what your idea/ideal of beauty is. What do you deem beautiful? From the looks of your website, white beauty is the ONLY accepted standard.

me*myself and*I: Whereas you may find high-fashion models and also high cheekbones in women beautiful, most people don’t. It has been repeatedly shown that the central tendency in a population is to regard women with “more feminine than average” looks better looking. Increasing androgenization results in a higher placement of the cheekbones on the face, the evidence for which I have both cited and shown photographically. Your comment is not very clear, but if you are saying that the high-fashion models that I have shown are not more masculine looking than women on average, then you surely need to go through this site more thoroughly. Most people do not need to look at the anthropological literature that I have cited to note the above average overall masculinization in high-fashion models; it is obvious.

Cee: Since my site primarily focuses on feminization vs. masculinization in women, it is important to not introduce an ethnicity confound since there is an overlap between trait variation due to ethnicity and trait variation due to masculinization-feminization. Hence, the comparisons have to be within ethnic groups. Since most high-fashion models are of European ancestry and a large number of photos of white women are available, it is partly a matter of convenience for me to focus on women of European ancestry. Also, I am primarily targeting a Western audience and hence the choice of white women is most appropriate.

The photo featuring Alek Wek is not supposed to compare her attractiveness to that of the white female next to her, but simply presents an example of striking contrast that I have used as one of several examples to refute the notion that high-fashion models basically function as clothes hangars in fashion shows. In fact, I am not aware of any objective criteria that I could use to compare the attractiveness of Alek Wek with that of the white female. Attractive women are found in all populations, but because of notable differences in physical appearance across populations, attractiveness cannot be compared across populations using exacting criteria. I will clarify this issue in the FAQ section in the future after I add some more data to this site.

You are mistaken about me using mostly blonde women. Most women that I have shown are brunettes. Look carefully…what appears to be blonde hair is often a bleach-, ammonia-, peroxide- or dye-job.

The use of “cheesecake” is unavoidable. It is necessary to show what feminine physique proportions and contours are about. Thanks to the gay domination of the fashion business, there are no sources other than adult-oriented sources where pictures of a large number of attractive and feminine women can be obtained. Nevertheless, I will be trying to obtain pictures of bikini-clad attractive and feminine women from non-adult-oriented sources, and if you know of some attractive and feminine women who might be interested in being featured at my site, please let me know.

are you serious? hilarious. entirely unconvincing pseudo-scientific arguement based primarily on your own personal aestheic preference. judging from the amateur pornstars you chose to illustrate your point, that preference you share with probably many imature teenage boys is utterly common, mediocre and banal.

(thank god the fashion industry is run by gay men!)

(most)of those fashion models are beautiful. while bone structure is certainly emphasised, facial features are quite refined and their bodies are elegant and youthful rather than necessarily mascculine. i find it much more disturbing that your epitome of feminine beauty is 'unavoidably'the kind of graceless cheerleader-girls-gone-wild-type. yuck.
frankly, i'm glad you did not introduce racial factors for fear of reading even more embarassingly muddled and distorted views. ok.well sorry to be harsh but i guess i got annoyed by your website.

Anon: You have not shown how my arguments are pseudo-scientific. The feminine women that I have shown also have youthful bodies; whether one finds their bodies elegant depends on whether one likes feminine-looking women. It is not the case that the epitome of feminine beauty -- according to me -- is a nude model. As I have explained in my previous comment and elsewhere within this site, I do not have much of a choice when it comes to depicting what feminine looks are about.

In these Article "Who find Fashion-Models sexy" you can read which models are masculinized. My fav. models are Ana Beatriz Barros and Adriana Lima, but they are not in these article, but their you can read their name in the ranking (which place).Have they not masculinized faces like gisele bündchen and heidi klum?

David: The article that you mention is not about the masculine women in the list; it is about the masculinity-femininity of the white women in the list compared to the feminine women shown elsewhere within this site. Both Ana Beatriz Barros and Adriana Lima have discernable non-European admixture, and since there is an overlap between trait variation resulting from masculinization-feminization and trait variation due to ethnicity, I have not addressed the looks of the non-white women/women with discernible non-European admixture in the list. On the other hand, neither of these women are particularly feminine; for instance, both use breast implants, which they also happen to need in order to appear more feminine than they are.

I don´t know if Adriana Lima have Breast Implants but i can guarantee that Ana Beatriz Barros don´t have Breast Implants. Not all Models have. For Example: Tyra Banks: All the people think that she have breast implants but she say in an interview that she hasn´t and you can see that ANa BB and Tyra hasn´t, when you see teir pictures when they were younger. So don´t write that all models make plastic surgery!

David: I have not written that all models have undergone plastic surgery. Anyway, do the breasts of Adriana Lima in the picture below look natural to you?

Next, consider the masculine skeletal build of Ana Beatriz Barros in the two pictures below.

When you come across a woman with the skeletal build of Ana Beatriz Barros and see prominent breasts, it is time to examine the breasts more carefully to see if they are natural, and you can answer yourself how natural the breasts of Ana Beatriz Barros are in the picture below.

I have not addressed Tyra Banks, but since you have raised the issue of her breasts, I might as well address it.

Here is a quote taken from goodplasticsurgery.com:

The quote above was accompanied by the following pictures:

Clearly, her breasts look fake. Breasts as large as in Tyra’s top-right picture above are uncommon in women with her build, the masculinity-femininity of which is completely inconsistent with the size of her breasts. In her book, Tyra Banks even mentions a mustache (tends to correlate with above average androgen levels):

Tyra Banks has presumably proven on her TV show that she has natural breasts, but she was not independently evaluated by multiple physicians who were not known to each other and randomly selected by a neutral party, i.e., it could very well have been staged.

Read the following statement by Tyra Banks, in reference to the physician examining her breasts on TV:

But, Tyra Banks apparently also said the following in The Sun:

Now, consider the nose of Tyra Banks in reference to her being “totally against plastic surgery”:

Finally, ask yourself how trustworthy is Tyra Banks with respect to acknowledging whether she has had breast implants?

This isn't a hate comment, this is my opition and what I know from doing modeling myself. I read your sections on why High-Fashion Modles look the way they do. Yes I agree with you that they look unhealthy, but there is a reason why desingers have models look like that for the fashion shows. It's not because that some of the desingers are gay, or not. When I was training to be model in Seattle and the people told me. To be an sucessful fashion model they must be around the height of 5'6 and up. And they must be thin enough to fit into a size 3 pants, and have small asses and very little breast. They pick girls like that, because that is the standard size that the top desingers make their clothes. Instead of making many to fit models of different sizes and diffent shape, all girls need to be a certain hieght, certain bulit. High Fashion Models are only there to show off the desinge of the desinger so whomever wants to make their clothes will make them in different sizes, Also most people in the world are tall and around 5'6 and up ( in desinger's eyes ) And same thing goes with the face. They pick models with high features because, it how the lights hits the face. When the light hits the face. The face must still look pleasing, also the face as to work with the make-up and it also has to be photogentic, and appearling when they take the pictures. (The girls are also showing the desingers artict side selling the clothing.) Also why a lot of the modles are skinny is because the camera addes 10 lbs to the body and they still need to look as thin in the camera as they do on the runaway. Before I forget they must obtain that size 3, if they do not, they might not have a job the next day.

I know, how could people put women on stage that look like nothing. Because in the desingers' eyes they see it as logic for their clothing, in their eyes. "It is better to make one dress. them to make many for other people, who are the same size and shape." They aren't seeing it as unheathy. They see it as what they need to show off their clothes. That's why high fashion modles look the way they do from Fitness modles, and other modles that require a body.

But I will admit, most of the models in catalogs like Victoria Secert don't have much of a body either. They have no legs, their bodies are straight. I would much perfer seeing a woman who is healthy and as muscles and tone body and HAS LEGS! It just makes it more appealing in my mind.

Crystal: I have already addressed your objections, which you seem to have overlooked. It is intuitive that fashion designers would prefer to have their models fit their designs rather than design clothing to fit their models, i.e., one expects a narrow range of physique variation among high-fashion models, but this narrow range could easily be in the feminine and normal weight range. Why is it found in the skinny and masculine range?

Your explanations are inadequate. For instance, if facial masculinization among high-fashion models is supposed to reflect light adequately, then why is it that one often observes pale-skinned high-fashion models on stage? One would almost never see pale skin in a competition -- on stage -- involving fitness models because it is necessary for the skin to be dark/tanned in order to bring out the features. There is also the fact that a number of Northern European high-fashion models clearly have masculine faces in so far as overall face shape is concerned, but have gracile and non-rugged features that could be regarded as pseudo-feminine traits; some examples of such models can be seen here. Gracile and masculinized Northern European models are often used by fashion designers, and why is this the case if more ruggedness would allegedly help bring out facial features on stage? Besides, if one were to use models with gracile but masculine-shaped faces, why not select models with gracile and somewhat more feminine face shapes since this would hardly create a problem with bringing out facial features on stage?

You are right that the models have to be photogenic and appealing to the fashion designers, and they indeed choose women with the looks they find most appealing, i.e., looks approximating those of adolescent boys.

You have correctly pointed out that the camera adds a few pounds. However, if high-fashion models looked somewhat skinny in real life and normal in pictures, it could be believed that the reason they are somewhat skinny in person is so as to appear normal on camera, but high-fashion models typically look very skinny on camera. The explanation of their skinniness is fairly simple: the typical woman that closely approximates the looks of adolescent boys is a young, skinny and masculine woman, and such looks characterize the typical high-fashion model because gay fashion designers disproportionately find the physique of adolescent boys highly aesthetically appealing.

I'm a bit confused by the purpose of this site. If it's to once again comment on how the popular perception of tall willowy super models gives a false ideal to women, then ok. However you critique every form of the female body, seeming only to approve of the hour glass ideal that suits your tastes. So, what is the point of the site other than to announce to the internet that you prefer nudie mag girls and that the fashion industry is run by homosexuals?

Amber: This is a multi-purpose site. The main purpose is to promote feminine beauty, as in increasing the prevalence of feminine and attractive women among top-ranked models and beauty pageant contestants. I would like to promote high aesthetic standards among female models in general. To this extent, I have hardly gotten around to addressing aspects of aesthetics other than those related to masculinity-femininity, but I am just getting started and will address aesthetics more thoroughly eventually. Some of the information within this site should also help protect some young women from believing that they need to be skinny in order to look attractive. There is also some information within this site -- and more to come -- that will help women make themselves more attractive.

You are mistaken about my critiquing every female body form other than the “hour glass ideal.” The range of the highly aesthetically appealing is very narrow compared to the range of physique variation among humans, and pointing out what constitutes the highly aesthetically pleasing does not translate to a criticism of other forms. I am very dependent on pictures of actual people in order to address feminine looks and aesthetics, and toward this purpose, extensive depiction of partial nudity within this site is inevitable.

I am a hetrosexual male. I think there is a lot of good stuff on the site. I will like to make some observations:
1. From your analysis of 25 top sexies women, you left out people like Adriana Lima. Why? She is beautiful even with your own standard and didn't support your point of view. So what if she isn't europeon. The 25 list is probably representative of all men--not just european.
2. All women on your "recommended" list seem to be blondes. Isn't that a wrong message given your charter to "faminism". There are more hair colors than blondes.
3. Your explanation of "boyish" looking supermodels is absurd. Gemma Ward has a face of an angel. I would pick her over Pamella Anderson any time.

Yasir: I not only left out Adriana Lima, but also all other non-white women. I have already explained that it is necessary to control for ancestry when comparing masculinity-femininity and attractiveness, and since I have not addressed masculinized and feminized non-white women within this site, it does not make much sense to address the non-white women in the top-25 sexy list. Even among the 15 white women that I addressed, one -- Josie Moran -- turns out to be feminine, and she doesn’t undermine the conclusion that notably masculinized women are heavily overrepresented in the list, and that the other 14 women would not end up anywhere close to a top-25 sexy list based strictly on looks and the preferences of lifetime-exclusive heterosexual men who are well-informed about what kind of feminine and attractive women exist out there. A high prevalence of notable masculinization is also characteristic of the non-white women in the list.

What do you mean by “recommended list”? If you are referring to the attractive women section of this site, only a small number of the women there are blondes; look carefully and you will see the effect of hair dyes and bleach. In any case, hair color is not relevant to this site. The major focus of this site is on skeletal structure, fat distribution and muscle structure (not yet addressed).

Not all high-fashion models are boyish looking, but the central tendency in their looks is very clear. I have certainly not praised the looks of Pamela Anderson; I would never put her in the attractive women section of this site, and in case you haven’t, better read what I have said about the looks of Pamela Anderson.

How “angelic” the face of Gemma Ward is can be seen in the photos below.

Gemma Ward has unusual facial features, as if the genetics of Asians and Europeans were combined in her, making some parts of her face appear feminine. Nevertheless, note clear signs of masculinization in the form of the extent of nasoglabellar curvature, forehead projection, general robusticity of facial skeleton and high cheekbones. The feminine parts of her face are partly pseudo-feminine features related to the strangeness of her face. The photos below clearly show why male homosexual fashion designers find Gemma Ward’s physique appealing.

Eril: Well, all I know is that men (including myself) download a lot of pictures of supermodels because we find them attractive and not because we want to make some gay designers happy. It doesn't matter if *you* label them masculine.

I know you have tried to explain why you don't include non-white women. But I am sorry it just doesn't make sense. Perhaps, you need to explain it better.

I think fundamentally your arguments are narrow minded. There is more than one definition of beauty. People have differnet tastes. Labeling is pointless. For example, I find all but the first picture of Gemma you posted attractive--and you don't. And, it would be pointless for me to say that if you don't find Gemma's exposed nipple attractive (see above), you must not be a "life-time exclusive hetrosexual man".

Yasir: Fashion supermodels tend to be better looking than many women out there, especially the masculinized ones, and it should not be surprising if a number of men find them attractive, but there are far better and feminine-looking women out there that few people know about, and once the public is better informed, you will see the popularity of fashion supermodels take a nosedive among heterosexual men at-large.

I have best explained the exclusion of non-white women on the FAQ page, which is all that I can do at present, but I will further clarify some issues later on.

You are right that the definition of beauty varies around the world and also within populations, but then populations look different, too. None of this implies that the central tendency of aesthetic preferences in a given population cannot be assessed or have no significance. The great majority of people of European ancestry will find the women shown within the attractive women section of this site much more attractive than the fashion models shown here. Outlier preferences do not undermine the central tendency.

You have mentioned that you find all pictures of Gemma Ward except the first one that I posted attractive. Well, make-up, posing and lighting can make people look better than they are. This is why I posted several pictures of her to show the high level of masculinization in her. The nipple shot is there to show how small her breasts are. Most heterosexual men will prefer bigger breasts.

I have spent the past hour or so looking over your site. I can't remember at this time how I ended up here, but I'm left feeling somewhat personally insulted. I am a girl of 5'10", 140 lbs, a BMI of 20, 38-27-38 measurements, a waist to hip ratio of .71, a bust to waist ratio of .71, and a bust to hip ratio of 1.0, I have natural 38 C/D sized breasts and I wear a size 8 and have an "hourglass" figure. I suppose you would call this masculine, am I right?

Samantha: The information that you have provided is insufficient. All that I can say is that it is unlikely that you lie close to the extremes of the masculinity-femininity scale. I could describe in detail how masculine/feminine you are if you email me clear pictures of yourself.

Erik: I want to make a few more points here.

1. Regarding the exclusion of non-white females and your comment about it being OK to asses the "aesthetic preferences in a given population", yeah it is fine to do if you want. But your site name is not "whitefeminiebeauty", and the this "white only" issue is never mentioned in the purpose of this site. This is WWW.

2. You make a big deal about models and designers wanting "masculinazation". How do you rationalize some models (Ana and Tyra) getting "fake" and "big" breasts? Clearly, if they wanted to be masculine, they would not want "big" breasts. Big breasts are no way masculine. Why would they go through the trouble of plastic surgery to give up their "boyish" looks?

3. I think it you should admit that your main point is really just a conjecture. And you should stop floating it as something more than that. You don't offer any meaningful evidence. May be I missed it but you don't point to any reliable studies that would support your conecture.

Yasir: This site is not "white only." Whereas the goals of this site are of little to no relevance for non-European populations, some people of all ethnic groups will find some of the contents of this site useful. Just because one section of this site features white women only does not make this site "white only." It never occurred to me to name this site "white feminine beauty," but since you mention it, this name reeks of white supremacism, and I would much rather not attract comments from the deviates who subscribe to this ideology.

Nowhere have I made a big deal about models wanting masculinization; I have said that gay fashion designers prefer masculinized female models. Regarding the fashion models with breast implants, a couple of observations are in order. The central tendency among high-fashion models is to be flat-chested or close. The ones with breast implants are disproportionately involved in modeling swimwear and lingerie, neither of which represent high fashion. If you think about it, somewhat prominent breasts are required for modeling swimwear and lingerie, and the top-ranked sexy models doing such modeling are often so masculine that breast implants hardly make them look feminine and thereby objectionable to the involved homosexual designers. Also, some of the fashion models with breast implants get the implants after they acquire some fame. Since a famous person attracts attention, homosexual fashion designers are expected to tolerate a pseudo-feminine trait in such models in exchange for attracting more attention toward their designs on stage. Additionally, if a model is exactly what a homosexual fashion designer is looking for except for breast implants, he may tolerate the breast implants.

It is also the case that not all fashion designers are homosexual men, and that occasional variety does help attract attention. Breast implants and a more feminine appearance in some fashion models do not undermine the fact that the central tendency among fashion models is to be young, skinny and masculine, thereby approximating the looks of adolescent boys.

There are several key points within this site, not just one main point. All my major arguments are well-supported with citations and pictorial evidence. I will be making my arguments more robust with time. I have cited peer-reviewed journals where necessary. The problem appears to lie with your comprehension given the curious case of your inferring that I have argued about models desiring masculinization. It seems that English may not be your native language.

Yes English is not my native language but that is not the problem. The problem is you keep making stuff up to support your arguments. For example, do you have studies backing your "designers may tolerate implants if the person is famous" point. I don't think so. It is BS.

Since you are starting to make fun of my language, I am not going to be coming back to see your response.

See ya.

Yasir: Not only have you confirmed that English is not your native language, you have also provided another example showing that this is indeed a problem regarding your understanding the contents of this site. Native English speakers would not get the impression that I have made fun of your English in my previous comment; all that I did was to suggest a possible reason why you seem to have problems with some of my arguments.

Anyway, the expectation that fashion designers will tend to tolerate breast implants if the model is famous is completely reasonable and hardly requires citing peer-reviewed journal articles. Also, where would you get the funding for testing such a lame issue, and even if you do get the funding, which high-profile journal would publish it? I saw Sharon Stone strut on the catwalk once. With the exception of her chest, she has never had the looks of a fashion model, and obviously ended up on stage because of her fame. I also recall seeing an-in-the-neighborhood-of-age-30 Eva Herzigova model clothes in a fashion show. Fashion designers prefer teenage girls, and a "geriatric" model by fashion modeling standards will not be seen on stage unless she is famous enough to attract plenty of attention. Therefore, is it unreasonable to expect that gay fashion designers will tend to tolerate breast implants in famous fashion models?

I have noticed the plainness of some fashion models before, but this website demonstrates that the problem
is much more systematic than I realized. This website also made me aware of the popularity of the
male-to-female transvestite look. The power-holders in the fashion industry clearly have an ideological
agenda of some kind.

note: For the record, I am a life-long exclusive heterosexual male, albeit with little sex drive in general. I
prefer breasts and hip regions of substantial size as most males do.

I have done a great deal of study on general [non-human] beauty, general [non-human] vulgarity, visual
human beauty and vulgarity, and visual human sex-specific attractiveness. If anyone [literally anyone, at least
in the english-speaking world] knows about human beauty and it's relation to masculinity and femininity, it's
me.

First, sex-specific attractiveness is not true beauty. True beauty is equally aesthetic to both genders. True
beauty consists of visual or other sensory aspects that facilitate a mindset of fine focus. Beauty is the
opposite of vulgarity, which facilitates a mindset of crude focus. Vulgarity is attractive just as beauty is,
but for ideologically opposite reasons. Although beauty and vulgarity are equally aesthetic to both genders,
there are some manifestations of beauty and vulgarity that can only occur in one gender or the other (for
example, beautiful mathematical proportions that involve the position of the breasts). That means that a
heterosexual member of one gender can, in applicable cases, enjoy the appearance of a member of the
same gender, but in an entirely non-sexual way, just as a person can enjoy looking at vehicles, architecture,
or nature.

There is no question that the fashion models, as contrasted with the selected feminine women, lack
femininity below the neck.

Attractive facial femininity is characterized by [in addition to the absence of masculine features] enlarged
eyes, enlarged upper cheek flesh, projecting lips, and nose concavity. Attractive facial masculinity is
characterized by [in addition to the absence of feminine features] thick eyebrows, a convex and bony nose,
wide zygomaticus [cheek] bones, a wide and deep jaw bone, and possibly facial hair. Based upon those
listed traits, it is apparent that there is substantial facial masculinization in the fashion models, but not as
much as Erik Holland claims.

After looking through Erik's selected high-fashion models and the contrasting 'feminine women', it is
clear that, in the facial features, there is a higher incidence in the fashion models of the traits of true beauty,
and there is a higher incidence in the selected feminine women of the traits of vulgarity (neither the fashion
models nor the selected feminine women possess substantial true beauty below the neck, at least not on the
whole). The traits of true beauty in humans are: parallel lines, geometrical forms (usually rectangular), and
mathematical proportions, in certain areas (3 traits that also exist in classical and neoclassical architecture);
smallness / narrowness in perceived terminal areas, such as the lower front of the face; and convolution in
certain respects (a trait that also exists in roses). The traits of vulgarity in humans are: random form and
proportion, sloppiness, outward convexity, and largeness / wideness in perceived terminal areas. My
preference is that female models have increased femininity AND increased beauty.

Edward: Thank you for your thoughtful analysis, but I will point out its shortcomings. If you have gotten the impression that the power-holders in the fashion business have an ideological agendum of some kind, then this is certainly not my argument. As far as I am concerned, the gays that dominate the fashion business select the typical looks of high-fashion models because they find these looks appealing, not because they want the negative outcomes that are documented within this site.

You talk about beauty in terms of visual or equivalent stimuli that facilitate a mindset of fine focus, and its opposite, i.e., vulgarity, in terms of visual or equivalent stimuli that facilitate a mindset of crude focus. It is not at all clear what you mean by a mindset of fine/crude focus. If this is philosophical then it has little to do with this site since the beauty addressed here is that of the female physical form and [the neurological aspects of] its perception involving comparison with reference templates and stimulation of the reward centers of the brain. There are also individual differences with respect to what people consider beautiful and vulgar, and these differences need to be accounted for in a philosophical discussion such as yours.

You mention that attractive feminine features of the face include the absence of masculinization, enlarged eyes, enlarged upper cheek flesh, projecting lips, and nose concavity. The problem here is not specifying the reference frame. Beyond a certain level of lip projection or nose concavity, for instance, you will end up with abnormal and less attractive looks.

You identify the components of beauty as parallel lines, [usually rectangular] geometrical forms, mathematical proportions, convolutions on some counts, etc. This is less related to the actual nature of beauty than it is to an attempt to describe beauty with precision, i.e., mathematical rigor. There have been numerous attempts to achieve such rigor, but the results have been population-specific, largely applicable to Europeans and at most closely related populations, which should not be surprising given that the analysts have been of European ancestry. Besides, the ideal proportions arrived at do not necessarily have a biological significance.

It is well-known that the great majority of people within a given population find a narrow range of physical variation highly aesthetically appealing, and because of the narrowness of the range, if one looks hard enough to find some patterns and proportions, it should not be difficult to find them, but the problem is that the greater the number of such attempts, the greater the chance that one will find some proportions of possible significance, which would make it difficult to be confident that the proportions arrived at have some deep meaning.

The softness and curvaciousness that characterize femininity do not lend themselves to simplistic description in terms of straight line segments and angular geometric forms. This surely does not mean that they are therefore less attractive than more angular and defined forms. Now, European faces are distinguished from non-European faces in terms of greater angularity, and it also happens to be the case that masculinization results in greater angularity. Therefore, a preference for angularity related to Europeanization can be confounded with a preference for angularity related to masculinization. However, regardless of whether your preference for angular facial features is related to Europeanization or masculinization or both, this preference is because of the way your brain has been shaped, not because more angular features lend themselves to simplistic description.

I have not yet addressed aspects of aesthetics other than those related to masculinity-femininity, but I will eventually address them for European populations to clarify some of the points above.

"the gays that dominate the fashion business select the typical looks of high-fashion models because
they find these looks appealing, not because they want the negative outcomes that are documented within this site."
-If the homosexual males that dominate the fashion industry were motivated merely by personal
attraction, then they would be working with actual adolescent males. The real thing is far better
[in the eyes of homosexual males] than these female pseudo-males. Even if they worked with females
[which they do], the results would not be nearly so systematic. They would also have the courtesy to
have regard for heterosexuals, regardless of their personal attraction. Have you ever heard of the
television show 'queer eye for the straight guy'? At the very least, the homosexuals that are allegedly
responsible for the status quo of fashion models have an absence of honesty and conscience.

"You mention that attractive feminine features of the face include the absence of masculinization, enlarged eyes,
enlarged upper cheek flesh, projecting lips, and nose concavity. The problem here is not specifying the reference frame.
Beyond a certain level of lip projection or nose concavity, for instance, you will end up with abnormal and less attractive
looks. "
-There is obviously a perceived 'medium face and body' to which comparisons are made for both
masculinity and femininity, and extreme deviance from that perceived medium form prevents comparison,
and thus attraction, and that is assumed in my list of feminine facial traits. You and most other people also
typically omit the same obvious facts when speaking of attractive features.

"[beauty vs. vulgarity] has little to do with this site since the [attractiveness] addressed
here is that of [femininity]..."
-As I said:
"After looking through Erik's selected high-fashion models and the contrasting 'feminine women', it is
clear that, in the facial features, there is a higher incidence in the fashion models of the traits of true beauty,
and there is a higher incidence in the selected feminine women of the traits of vulgarity"

"It is not at all clear what you mean by a mindset of fine/crude focus."
-False; it is not at all clear to YOU. Still, I will elaborate. They are emotions and fundamental manners of
perceiving. I can use some synonyms and associations. Fineness is related to desire to do right, beauty,
clarity, and constructiveness; crudeness is related to desire to do wrong, vulgarity, blindness (obviously
not referring to physical optic blindness), and disruptiveness. To go into more detail, fineness is divisible
into the 2 multiplicative factors of subtlety and definition, which are the corresponding opposites of the 2
multiplicative factors of crudeness, which are forcefulness and seepingness. Forcefulness divided by
seepingness equals sharpness, which is the inverse (reciprocal) of softness. I hold the aforementioned
description to be more than sufficient for a person to know the fundamental manners of perception that I
am talking about when I say 'fine focus' and 'crude focus'.

"This is less related to the actual nature of beauty than it is to an attempt to describe beauty
with precision, i.e., mathematical rigor."
-I have stated in my previous post that beauty is characterized by the abstract property of fineness
(causing fine focus), which is obviously the defining property of the general traits of human physical beauty
that I listed.

"There are also individual differences with respect to what people consider
beautiful and vulgar, and these differences need to be accounted for in a philosophical discussion such as yours. "
"There have been numerous attempts to achieve such rigor, but the results have been
population-specific, largely applicable to Europeans and at most closely related populations, which should
not be surprising given that the analysts have been of European ancestry."
"Now, European faces are distinguished from non-European faces in terms of greater angularity, and it also
happens to be the case that masculinization results in greater angularity."
-I clearly have never mentioned angularity in general, but only geometrical forms and particularly rectangular
forms, which are facilitated by the specific corresponding straight lines and angles. If certain beautiful traits
or vulgar traits are more common in one race than another, or more common in one gender than another, it
is of no relevance. The general physical traits of beauty and vulgarity themselves, which I listed, obviously
possess form properties that are independent of their perception, and those form properties are directly
translated into their corresponding abstract mindset in the brain, as opposed to being translated first into
different form properties by the brain. I even mentioned that the same abstract visual properties exist in
non-human forms, and that such occurrence in non-human forms likewise facilitates the corresponding
mindsets. Saying that such perception of beauty (fineness) and vulgarity (crudeness) is culturally subjective
is thus no more logically consistent than saying that people of one culture will perceive a soccer ball as
spherical and another will perceive it as cubical.

"...simplistic description
in terms of ... geometric forms."
"...more angular features lend themselves to simplistic description."
"...your preference for [geometrical] facial features..."
-Clear statement of the opposite of the truth, that geometrical forms, particularly rectangular forms, are
not less simple, but MORE simple than the simple formless outward facial convexity promoted on this
website (of course, the female body below the neck does not contain rectangular forms as the face does,
though it can contain mathematical proportions). It is also clear false portrayal that I had stated that
simplicity is a trait of beauty. It also ignores the many other traits of beauty that I listed. There is also the
repetitive false portrayal that I have stated that angularity in general is beautiful, as opposed to geometrical
forms specificly. There is also the discrediting of objective analysis as personal preference. Such false
portrayal behavior indicates that Erik's opposition to the beautiful geometrical facial forms and his
promotion of crude outward convexity on this website is intentional.

Edward: You write that if the gays that dominate the fashion industry were motivated merely by personal attraction, then they would be working with actual adolescent males. Do you think gay fashion designers could get away with parading boys in their early adolescence? Besides, if they are going to market clothing to women, it is in their best interest to have such clothing modeled by women instead of boys. There is no need for them to take into account the preferences of heterosexuals since the desirability of designer clothing is such that even if unattractive models are used to model them, people would not want designer clothing any less. Hence, gay fashion designers select models with the looks that they find appealing. It is hardly reasonable to expect them to be honest about why they select skinny and masculine young women, which is that they like the looks of adolescent boys. I am aware of the TV show that you talk about, but it is hardly relevant here since it has nothing to do with women.

You talk about a perceived medium face and body that are used to compare masculine and feminine features and then say that I have omitted this fact when speaking of attractive features. The latter is not true. If you go though the feminine vs. masculine page, you will encounter an average skull and its transformation resulting from masculinization and feminization. On the other hand, you have not referenced any such average, and have assumed that what you perceive as the average is shared by others, too.

Your referencing fine/crude focus in your first comment is not only unclear to me, but it would not be clear to others, too. Now that you have elaborated on what it means, you confirm my suspicion that it is philosophical. Some people will see the vulgar, the wrong and the offensive in the physical form of high-fashion models, whereas others will perceive the same in the form of the partially nude glamour models that I have shown. However, the perception of the physique does not change the form of the physique, as you do acknowledge, and I am focused on the form of the physique. You appear to curiously assume that what induces a fine or crude focus in you does the same for others.

You mention that you have not mentioned angularity in general, but the geometrical forms that you have talked about best lend themselves to describing angular forms, not curves. It would certainly help if you referenced some diagrams that show what [usually rectangular] geometrical forms, mathematical proportions and parallel lines define a beautiful face, but you have not done so. On the other hand, I have cited variation in skull shape resulting from masculinization vs. feminization using more sophisticated methodology that is well-suited to describing complex 3-dimensional forms, namely geometric morphometrics, which assesses the form in 3-D space, transforms it to a 2-dimensional grid, and explains shape variation in terms of deformation of the 2-D grid. Crude facial measures in terms of rectangular forms and parallel lines cannot describe a complex curvaceous 3-D form as well as geometric morphometrics can. If you wish to dispute this, let me see you back up your statement by citing diagrams of ideal facial proportions based on rectangular forms, angles and straight lines, and also provide examples of actual people that satisfy the proportions. You can do this at your home page and paste the link here. I have not argued that beauty and vulgarity are completely culturally subjective, but one has to be naïve to believe that all cultures share the same concept of facial beauty.

I have not portrayed your argument as simplicity being a trait of beauty, but the crude measures with which you would define beauty do not lend themselves to well-describing complex 3-D structures, and it is apparent that you prefer a simiplistic description rather than a more complex description as achieved by geometric morphometrics. You say that crude/formless outward facial convexity is being promoted at this site. This is just absurd. An example of something that lacks form in its whole-body appearance is water; it takes the form of the container, but there is obviously some form to the faces of the women that I have shown. Additionally, the mid-facial region of high-fashion models featured here is, on average, more prominent than in the glamour models shown. So who has a more convex facial profile? Once again, you need to come up with diagrams to illustrate what you mean and show what objective criteria can be used to validate the facial proportions as ideal or very beautiful.

I agree with you on many points.

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

And their bodies even more so.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A large forehead, and large eyes.

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

Nathaniel: I added the image to your comment and removed the three subsequent entries since two had nothing but non-functional links and one had the link to the image. The XHTML code for displaying the image is:<img src="{url}" alt="image" />
Replace {url} with the url of the image and do not include the brackets; you can replace the word image with a more descriptive term. An example would be:
<img src="http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/834/beautiful1xc.jpg" alt="beautiful women" />
Your choices are fine. The faces that you like are a lot more feminine than those of high-fashion models, on average. On the other hand, notice that in at least two cases, and likely all four, the thicker lips are artificially achieved by heavy make-up. European women generally tend to have thin lips, and if I had to select between a fine-featured model with thin lips vs. a less gracile model with thicker lips, it will typically be the former. The glamour models that I have shown are not supposed to represent ideal looks. It is human to have imperfections, and what needs to be considered is the overall package.

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

Thank you for editing my posts.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have many questions about this site, but I'll just ask this one for now... why are the models picked for the site and touted as true examples of beauty obscure women from relatively obscure pornography sites? Now, I understand your argument for the nudity -- that isn't my issue -- it's just that, if the actual preferences of most men are the question, and the definition of actual aesthetic beauty in your opinion, why not use a popular men's magazine like Playboy, FHM or Maxim as a determinant? There are polls all over that consist of who men believe the most sexually appealing women are. If the women that these lists actually consist of differ from fashion models in any discernible way -- which I believe they do, at least from the neck down -- wouldn't the aforementioned resources be a more convincing display of actual male preferences than virtually unknown softcore porn models chosen by you and you alone?

Virgil: High-fashion models are best compared to other models rather than non-model celebrities. The looks rather than the obscurity or fame of the glamour models shown here is relevant. Whereas FHM, Maxim or equivalent periodically come up with top-50 or top-100 sexy lists, based on polling millions, there are several problems with these lists. Using objective criteria, it can be shown that a good number of these women are not particularly feminine. It can also be shown -- mostly objectively -- that whereas these women are better looking than most women, many of these women do not qualify as great beauties, but I haven’t yet gotten around to addressing the relevant scientific literature. In a number of cases, such as that of Charlize Theron, the face is good but the body is unimpressive, and I can only use the face of such women for illustrative purposes. Then, these lists are typically not strictly based on looks alone; personality factors are also part of the ratings. A good personality has a halo effect on one’s looks, making one look better than one is, which is a problem for this site since it focuses on looks. It is also the case that sometimes not enough pictures of some of these women in bikinis are readily available for a proper evaluation of their physiques in three dimensions. Additionally, many people appear to compare female celebrities with the women they see around them, which would make the celebrities appearing in the top-sexy lists good looking in comparison, but I evaluate these women using high-standard realistic aesthetic criteria, several of which are not met by even the women that I have shown within the attractive women section of this site, let alone most of the women in these top-sexy lists. And, a serious problem with top-sexy lists based on public opinion is that many men in the general population are not sufficiently aware of tricks of photography, posing and make-up. This can lead to overrating of the looks of female celebrities. These are some of the reasons why contemporary top-sexy lists are generally not a good source of women that can be used to showcase feminine beauty.

Before I set up this site, I figured that Playboy magazine would be a good source of feminine and attractive women, but after going through hundreds of its models, I was disappointed to see the high prevalence of masculinization and fake glamour in its models. This is an issue that I will likely elaborate on in the future, but for now it suffices to say that over the years Playboy Inc. has gotten intertwined with the fashion business.

But if men truly preferred "feminine" women, wouldn't they be prominently showcased in publications whose bread and butter is heterosexual men? Either men don't find feminine women that unanimously appealing, or your definition of aesthetic femininity is flawed, somehow.

Additionally, the popularity of the models is a factor, if your definition of aesthetic feminity correlates closely with what the majority of heterosexual men desire. If they wanted to see more of an especially feminine model, she would become popular in the world of nude modeling, a world dominated by and solely dedicated to fulfilling the aforementioned men's whims.

Virgil: Several women that I have featured in the attractive women section are well-known in the world of nude modeling, though their popularity does not approach that of many Playboy models, which is a big publication. The internet popularity of some of the women that I have featured is also limited by their refusal to get involved in hardcore pornography or their having posed nude only briefly. As I have mentioned previously, the high prevalence of [actual] masculinization in Playboy models is related to its intertwining with the fashion business, but Playboy does attempt to make its models look as [artificially] feminine as possible given that it most extensively caters to heterosexual men. Fake glamour and breast implants are not unusual among Playboy models, and these women often look good to many men. For instance, consider the case of Pamela Anderson who is far more popular than any of the women featured in the attractive women section of this site; she rose to fame after posing nude in Playboy. Read what I have to say about her looks and compare her looks to that of the attractive women that I have featured. The first photograph of Pamela Anderson on the page linked to above makes her look decent, but look at the rest of her pictures. Many men out there are not aware of tricks of photography, make-up and posing, and do not see through Playboy’s typical fake glamour and artificial femininity. This site partly attempts to better educate these men. Therefore, the issue is not a discordance between myself and heterosexual men in general with respect to what constitutes feminine beauty, but a difference in ability to distinguish fake glamour from genuine glamour.

But if they are never going to meet these women in real life, why do men need to be educated on real vs. fake glamour? Why does this ability need to be honed? Is gracialization the quantity/proliferation of "fine" features? And if you concede that Playboy does cater pretty much to exclusively heterosexual men, why is this masculinization present in their featured models, why haven't sales dropped significantly as a result, and why would they allegedly be influenced by the fashion industry?

Virgil: The reason that people in general need to have their aesthetic sense honed is that this will help promote feminine beauty among female models in general and beauty pageant contestants. People with a more sophisticated aesthetic sense will be less open to being swayed by what they see promoted as good looks unless they recognize -- using objective criteria -- that the looks are indeed good; they will also mostly demand female models who are good examples of feminine beauty.

There is not a whole lot that can be done about the looks of high-fashion models, but high-fashion models can be made to occupy their own niche, i.e., fashion shows and fashion magazines, and have less of an impact on society.

Yes, gracilization is another word for fineness.

Regarding Playboy Inc., it had a headstart in terms of being a pioneering publication, but it would have been poor marketing on its part if it had stuck to publishing a men’s magazine only. Thus, Playboy Inc. has diversified itself, and using its models to sell clothing or other fashion merchandize makes good business sense. In this regard, Playboy magazine would need to be within or close to the norms in the fashion world. Additionally, among female models, high-fashion models have the highest status. Thus, Playboy models have veered closer to the physical norm among high-fashion models over the years, and Playboy typically underreports the weight of its bunnies/centerfolds to be more compliant with the norm among fashion models. Whereas Playboy models have gravitated closer to the looks of fashion models, there is obviously a limit to this process, and it is highly unlikely that Playboy bunnies will eventually look like high-fashion models. Given Playboy's attempts to artificially feminize the looks of its models, who remain more feminine-looking than high-fashion models, and insufficient education on the part of many men, Playboy magazine is not going to see sales drop notably. Besides, Playboy magazine features content that caters to a diverse audience, and it has many women readers, too, a number of whom go through the magazine to understand what interests men.

Playboy's becoming a real part of the fashion industry by selling bunny t-shirts... additionally, they're willing to sacrifice the reputation that sells the shirts in the first place by hiring less sexually desirable centerfolds? How do you know that the weights of Playboy centerfolds are underreported? And "many" female readers is probably a stretch... are there any surveys to back that up? Given the obesity levels of the average American woman, do you really believe that excessive exercise and unnecessary dieting among healthy women are prominent issues? And is beauty indeed objective? The very criteria that you use to define beauty seems to be subjective, placing Northern European -- and by approximation European in general -- women at the top of the facial beauty category by virtue of the higher prevalence of gracialization among them. Many of the women in your "attractive women" category look not just youthful, but childlike (in the facial area), and I'm not sure if that's exactly what most men and women see as ideal. Perhaps you could find a survey of sorts that proves that the majority that you claim finds these women -- or women that look similar to them -- attractive and ideal.

Virgil: The central tendency of Playboy playmates has shifted toward the masculine over the years, but there is still variation in looks, and some of them are feminine. I will provide an example of how some level of increased masculinization doesn’t notably hurt Playboy’s appeal to heterosexual men, especially given the ignorance of several of them that I have mentioned previously, but first I will answer your other questions.

Evidence regarding the underreported weight of Playboy centerfolds is mentioned on the eating disorders page. I do not recall where I read about the female readership of Playboy.

Yes, excessive exercise and unnecessary dieting on the part of some women with a medically normal body fat level are problem issues of significance; see the eating disorders page.

There is a lot that is objective about beauty. In an entry titled the importance of femininity to beauty in women, you will find a table showing criteria such as averageness, low overall fluctuating asymmetry and femininity as well-documented correlates of beauty, all of which can be objectively assessed. There is a lot more that I haven’t yet gotten around to addressing. You should go through the entire site before asking questions.

Gracilization is merely one component of beauty. More gracile does not necessarily mean more attractive.

A combination of femininity and youth (late teens to early-mid twenties) make some of the women appear to have what you call childlike facial features, but most of them look like they are in their twenties, and I have not claimed that they have ideal looks; the women shown will be seen as more feminine and attractive on average than fashion models by the public at-large. The aforementioned link cites evidence that femininity is the most powerful correlate of beauty in women in the absence of physical defects, which supports my selection of attractive women.

Now, to answer your first question. Consider the following four pictures of Tiffany Toth, who is the March 2006 Playboy Cybergirl of the month. Does she look like a feminine woman except for breast implants? Does she have a feminine waist and hip region?

Now look at the following three pictures and see how feminine her rib cage, waist, hips and face are.

Tiffany Toth is clearly not among the more feminine women out there, but crafty posing, make-up and breast implants can make her look more feminine than she is. In any case, she is better looking than many women, and if Playboy shifts toward more masculinized women such as Tiffany Toth compared to the women that it featured in its early years, its sales are not going to drop notably for this reason.

She's not very curvaceous, I'll give you that, and her breasts don't suit her frame... as a result they look obviously fake and porn star-esque. However, an hourglass figure isn't the only way a female can have a feminine body. A pear-shaped physique is also uniquely feminine, and so is a petite frame like Miss Toth has, sans implants. Just how many men do you see that look like that? What about when actual supermodels like Stephanie Seymour, Cindy Crawford, Naomi Campbell, Elle MacPherson, and Rachel Hunter have posed for Playboy? Did sales drop as a result, and were Playboy's offices flooded with calls, letters, and e-mails from indignant "lifetime heterosexual" males? If so, why does Playboy continue to feature actual fashion models and pay them much more than the average centerfold?

Virgil: For a woman to look more masculinized than another woman, she doesn’t have to look like a man; learn about the subtlety of masculinity-femininity by going through the data mentioned on the feminine vs. masculine page.

As to why Playboy would pay big bucks to the likes of Elle MacPherson and Rachel Hunter compared to more feminine non-celebrity nude models, naked celebrities sell and celebrities will not pose nude unless they are paid well. Naked celebrities primarily sell because of their celebrity status; their looks are secondary.

But naked celebrities that men find unattractive wouldn't... for instance, I heard threats to cancel subscriptions when the idea of putting Rosanne Barr in Playboy was bandied about -- probably as a rumor. I really don't think that Playboy would seriously consider having Whoopi Goldberg or Calista Flockhart model for them, celebrity status, or no. If the money that they pay the models wasn't going to be reflected in sales, they wouldn't pay them that much. Even as someone with a mother who did go on starvation diets, used caffeine pills and amphetamines, considered wiring her mouth shut and eventually turned to bulimia in a desperate pursuit to take 20 pounds off of her 145 lb., 5'5 frame, I know that she's an anomaly, and the amount of mentally and physically healthy women who do so are small. The real reasons that eating disorders have gained such prominence in the media are that 1. it's a sexy issue and 2. anorexics have a very high tendency to commit suicide (making the death rate from it higher than any mental condition, barring depression), not in that order. I'm a Psych major, and I was shocked by how small the percentages really were in comparison to the attention that it gets in the public eye. I'll ask you an additional question: what evidence would possibly convince you that heterosexual men are attracted to supermodels, if their obvious willingness to look at them naked in magazines that cater to them won't?

Virgil: When it comes to naked supermodels, you have to see the issue in context. For instance, consider the case of Anna Kournikova. She is popular among men, not because of her Tennis skills, but because of her looks. Although Anna Kournikova is far from a feminine-looking woman in comparison to the feminine women that I have shown, she is more feminine and better looking than most other prominent female Tennis players. Therefore, among the more famous women out there, you would expect her to be among those who are more popular among men. If Anna Kournikova were a nobody and tried her luck with modeling, she would not get very far in terms of endearing herself to a large number of men. Similarly, fashion supermodels tend to be somewhat more feminine and often better looking than most high-fashion models, and it should not be surprising that their make-up enhanced and carefully posed physiques with [often] breast implants are comparatively seen as eye candy by several heterosexual men, especially those not well-versed with tricks of make-up and posing. Therefore, the possibility of seeing such supermodels naked will surely excite a number of heterosexual men and will translate to good sales. Less attractive nude celebrities will also sell well, but if the celebrities are widely seen as unattractive as in some of the examples you mention, then their nude photographs will not be appreciated, though plenty will still look at them. Playboy magazine has tried to maintained some class by not showing the extent of nudity as in Penthouse, Hustler and equivalent, and for it to maintain a classy image, it is unlikely that it would want to feature nude celebrities widely considered as unattractive, though the tabloids will show semi-nude celebrities, regardless of attractiveness, and this is one reason why tabloids sell.

In other words, I am aware that many heterosexual men find supermodels such as Heidi Klum attractive, but given the dearth of feminine and attractive women among prominent models and the relative lack of education concerning tricky posing and make-up on the part of many men, what do you expect? If I can help it, the likes of Heidi Klum will be seen as far less attractive than they are presently by heterosexual men; this will happen once people are better educated about feminine beauty. I will add that Heidi Klum is better looking than many women out there, but in the absence of gay [fashion designer] influence, there is no way she would have acquired her high status and would be almost a nobody in the world of modeling.

You are correct that only a small percentage (< 5%) of women suffer from either anorexia or bulimia, but sub-clinical eating disorder symptomatology characterizes a greater proportion of women, and this is a major reason why anorexia and bulimia get prominent attention. About 2-5% of people with anorexia commit suicide, and I do not know whether this qualifies as a high suicide rate among the mentally ill.

If you concede that "many men" find them attractive, doesn't that make them attractive? And what about the prevalence of ultra-thin women in the porn industry? While their biggest star, Jenna Jameson, probably has what you'd call "feminine" facial features, her reputed measurements are 34D-23-34 at 5'6'. She has large breast implants and slender hips, and so do most other popular women within the porn industry. Given that the number of homosexual men working in heterosexual porn is probably statistically negligible, how do you explain the fact that the faces and figures of most popular American porn stars look similar to those of fashion models with the exception of huge, unnatural-looking fake breasts tacked on, and a diverse array of heights, skewed towards the more petite?

Virgil: The fact that some people in the past believed the earth to be flat did not mean that the earth was indeed flat. Similarly, heterosexual men who are not aware of tricks of make-up and posing, and also not aware of the existence of many women that are much more feminine and attractive compared to fashion supermodels may find these supermodels attractive, but just as most people have been successfully educated about the true shape of the earth, this site can make most heterosexual men correctly rate the attractiveness of fashion supermodels.

Regarding the looks of pornstars, few women are willing to pose nude and even fewer still are willing to participate in hardcore pornography. Thus, a pornographer is limited by the number of women available and cannot be very selective. Additionally, whereas women who participate in hardcore pornography are typically non-prostitutes, they are similar to prostitutes with respect to inclination toward promiscuity.

Women inclined toward promiscuity tend to be more masculinized than less promiscuous women, which makes sense since testosterone is a well-documented correlate of libido. I have cited some research in this regard on the skinny fashion models page, and can extensively cite literature on this issue if you dispute this point. Therefore, pornstars would actually tend to be disproportionately masculine, and the rough rule is that women who are into the harder forms of hardcore pornography -- such as sadomasochism and some other disgusting sexual practices -- are, on average, more masculine than the pornstars or nude models who refuse to participate in the more extreme forms of pornography.

Therefore, heterosexual men interested in hardcore pornography get to see some of the more masculine women performers and pick the best looking ones as their favorites, but the best looking ones among these women are often not among the more feminine women in the general population because of the aforementioned reason.

There is also the case that an inclination toward unusual sexual interests is more pronounced among nonheterosexual men. Based on random, population-based samples, 15-20% of men in Western societies are not lifetime-exclusive heterosexuals, and men who are not lifetime-exclusive heterosexuals but at the same time not exclusively gay will disproportionately genuinely prefer somewhat masculinized looks in women as well as be disproportionately interested in pornography.

In a nutshell, when it comes to pornstars, the number and type of women available as performers limit a pornographer, feminine types are especially underrepresented due to unwillingness on the part of these women, and some portion of the variance in the high status of some masculinized female pornstars does not reflect the preferences of lifetime-exclusive heterosexual men. On the other hand, fashion modeling is much more respectable, which means that a large number of women will be willing to be fashion models, which in turn allows the possibility of selecting mostly feminine and extremely attractive women, but no such thing is seen in the fashion world, thanks to the gay domination of the fashion business.

I reiterate, what evidence could possibly convince you that heterosexual males' affinity for fashion models isn't a widespread delusion on their part?

Virgil: I will be convinced that most heterosexual men are not deluded about the attractiveness of fashion supermodels if you proceed as follows. Find a few hundred lifetime-exclusive heterosexual men, picked at random, and ask them to name the best looking women they are aware of. Then tell me about all the fashion supermodels named and let me provide pictures of these women that are clear enough to show their masculinity-femininity and allow an evaluation of their attractiveness. I will also provide similar pictures of some feminine and attractive women. Then you have the men evaluate all the pictures and ask them how attractive do they still find the fashion supermodels.

After this, you find another randomly selected group of lifetime-exclusive heterosexual men and randomly assign them to two groups. Ask the first group to rate on a 1-100 scale the pictures of some prominent fashion supermodels [that I will provide]. Then have the first group rate pictures of feminine and attractive women that I will provide on a 1-100 scale. Reverse the presentation of these two groups of pictures for the second group.

If these experiments show that fashion supermodels are not seen as less attractive after exposure to feminine plus attractive women and remain well-appreciated by most of the lifetime-exclusive heterosexual men, then I will believe that most heterosexual men find fashion supermodels genuinely attractive.

Hmm... you you'd have an experiment done, the likes of which would involve your personal definition of feminine and attractive women and would probably be unprecedented. If you or anyone else could come up with a purely scientific definition of "feminine attractiveness" that applies across races -- because some "lifetime heterosexual" men don't find white women in general attractive -- it may be possible. It could also possibly procure credits for me... but it would need funding. And we'd have to add pictures of the "attractive" women without their photographic bells and whistles as well. While the girls in both your "attractive" pictures and 50's cheese cake pinups definitely have more to work with -- for the latter, a lot more -- there's "crafty posing" and lighting employed there, as well. In modern shots of any model, you also have to worry about airbrushing and digital retouching. I've seen it done on my own studio photos before, so I'd assume that it's old hat when the image is counted on to generate profit. A blemish here, some celullite there, a deep line or furrow, peach fuzz on the top lip, a prominent old scar, stretchmarks -- all of these things can be concealed through technology, and they would make a big difference in the evaluation of any woman. Clear, full body photos of many supermodels that are untouched may not even exist.

What I will ask is, is there any industry that you are willing to concede that shapes -- no pun intended -- women's images that are dominated by heterosexual men? I've mentioned both softcore and hardcore pornography, "lad mags"... what about professional sports cheerleaders, or women in beer ads? What about in other countries, where homosexuals are almost universally shunned, like Russia (since you insist on a European origin)?

Virgil: This site is not about my personal definition of femininity and attractiveness or else why would you or anyone else care about its contents? Masculinity-femininity can be assessed objectively and applies across populations, and there is a lot that is objective about beauty, too, but whereas some correlates of beauty apply across populations, exacting aesthetic criteria are population specific. Therefore, the experiments will have to control for ethnicity.

Regarding airbrushing, this applies to skin blemishes, and is of little relevance to this site because the focus here is on shape as it results from skeletal structure, muscle structure and fat distribution. It is true that photos of glamour models also employ posing tricks, but the sources of these photographs typically provide a sufficiently large number of pictures from multiple angles, which allow an assessment of the body in three dimensions, and if the model is really good looking, then no posing tricks are necessary, and this is usually obvious. Similarly, one can often find enough photos of prominent fashion supermodels to reasonably assess their shape in three dimensions or resort to screen captures of fashion shows if necessary.

To answer your last question, when you look at professional cheerleaders or women in beer ads, some of them are feminine and attractive whereas others are not. Given the association of high fashion with high class, the looks of fashion models trickle down to other models in the mainstream media, but if I can help it, this will change. I am not aware of mainstream modeling in Russia, but chances are that the chief exporter of Western culture around the World, i.e., America, influences mainstream modeling there.

Well, I don't necessarily "care" about its contents, per se... I just find fault with your definition -- which I do believe is subjective -- and your theory as to how beauty standards have become less closely correlated to your preferences. In addition to that, I enjoy arguing. If your photos had been voted on by a randomly picked group of heterosexual males, or picked by scientists as representative of some kind of universal ideal, I'd give the former more credibility. The latter is pure speculation. In your theoretical tug of war over women's image between male homosexuals and male heterosexuals, heterosexual men would have to win due to their higher numbers, greater buying power, greater magnitude of control over the media, and greater power to affect what straight women do. Say that the vast majority of straight men decide to express a primary interest, both in reality and fantasy, in women over 200 lbs, and the fashion industry holds steady with their "ideal" of a svelte woman. What are women of average weight interested in finding a date going to do... continue to try to slim down to please fashion designers/approximate fashion models and fight over the few men that desire them, or drive to the nearest Krispy Kreme immediately, in order to stay in the running? Why do so many women get fake breasts -- which are definitely not included in the "ideal" fashion model image? Because a desire to physically please the straight men around them trumps input from other groups, for the most part. And airbrushing isn't just about blemishes... it's about flaws in general. You can also use it to take away unsightly bulges that get in the way of that curvaceous, ultra feminine silhouette. So you can't name one beauty-related profession, or one profession that concerns the images of women and is controlled by heterosexual males that's dominated by feminine women, in any Western country?

Virgil: If you don’t care about the contents, why even bother with any definitions? Unlike you, I don’t like arguing, but I have to defend this site. There is nothing subjective about masculinity-femininity, and I have cited enough anthropological data in this regard. Though there is some subjectivity when it comes to beauty, a lot about it is objective; I have cited literature on objective correlates such as averageness, fluctuating asymmetry and femininity; there is more to it, which I will cite eventually.

You talk about a universal ideal. What is this? I have certainly not implied any such thing, and have clearly talked about the differences between homosexual and heterosexual men, and have not implied that all men within a specific group share the same exact preferences. What is relevant here is the central tendency in the population, and the central tendency is clearly to prefer feminine-looking women.

Regarding the photos, get some exclusively heterosexual men to go through this site and see how many do not prefer the feminine women a lot more than the fashion models, including the "sexy" fashion models shown.

For you to say that heterosexual men will win over homosexuals because of their greater numbers and buying power when it comes to influencing women about what looks they should have is absurd in light of the evidence that the fashion business is dominated by homosexual men. Few women go through publications where heterosexual men publish images of women they like, as in Maxim or more hardcore publications (which cannot become mainstream), and I have already talked about negative changes in Playboy magazine. Women are bound to be more influenced by what female celebrities wear (top-notch high fashion) and what they see in the form of dominant fashion imagery. Therefore, the gay influence is particularly strong. As to why some women get breast implants, these women generally have small breasts and most do it due to a feeling of inadequacy, which in many cases stems more from an innate aesthetic sense rather than societal influence. Besides, only some women get breast implants; most don’t. Additionally, whereas high-fashion models tend to be flat-chested, breast implants are not unusual among fashion supermodels; see the "sexy" fashion models page.

You attempt to give an example of the stronger influence of heterosexual male preference in determining desired body shape in women by invoking a scenario where heterosexual men overwhelmingly prefer obese women but gay fashion designers prefer skinny women. Well, if heterosexual men generally refuse to touch non-obese women, then most heterosexual women would attempt to become obese, but your example is a hypothetical scenario and is not seen in the real world.

The fact is that there are some women who are almost clueless about aesthetics and there are others who have a strong intrinsic aesthetic sense. The former are the ones who are most susceptible to being swayed by the dominant aesthetic imagery they see around them (high fashion imagery) and can be helped somewhat by this site, whereas the latter are the least likely to be swayed by such imagery. But, as I have mentioned previously, this site strongly focuses on aesthetics. Most humans aesthetically appreciate feminine-looking women, and if I can help it, you will see the ascendancy of feminine and attractive women among the ranks of models and beauty pageant contestants.

You mention airbrushing to get rid of unsightly bulges. Well, this is something that only high-profile publications would bother with if their models have unnecessary fat in some places. The sources where I am getting pictures of attractive women from do not bother with this stuff; they are able to find some decent-looking models.

To my knowledge no beauty-related profession is dominated by heterosexual men. Heterosexual men are interested in seeing beautiful women, but are rarely into professions such as hairstyling, fashion designing, make-up or other cosmetology stuff; among the men who take up such jobs, most are homosexual. Additionally, most professions have nothing to do with selecting female models.

Update; posted May, 2007: The explanation of the masculinization trend among Playboy centerfolds above is very inadequate. Based on information on Hugh Hefner that I came across later, a better explanation was provided here, and the ultimate explanation provided here.

I found your site to be very interesting. . . including the odd arguments you seem to have gathered. It's your site, and your personal opinion, so I won't argue :P.

Actually, the most amusing argument I've seen is the one further up the page with the comment about the exposed nipple being a turn-on, and if you don't think, then you're homosexual. . . . I would like to inform all men who think this way that I am straight, and found it revolting. If I want to see a bare flat chest exposing nipples. . . I'd remove my shirt and look in the mirror.

Actually, I can honestly say that I agree with most (if not all) of what you are saying. Throughout the day I get bombarded by these fashion models. Turn on the TV, there they are in their undergarments. Flip through a magazine, there they are nearly naked. Log on to a web site, there they are. . . well. . . naked. I take a look at them and I often ask myself, "How in the world can that possibly be beautiful."

I won't dive into the masculine/feminine argument. One thing that I will say is: the designers should at least try to highlight that person's natural beauty. It would certainly be more pleasing that the current practice of spackeling their faces to fill in cracks, then painting on it with rediculous amounts of makeup, and dressing them down to nearly nothing, bringing attention to their less attractive features (which I would have though to be counterproductive for the fashion world anyway).

I see these women, and find them to be the most unattractive women I've ever set eyes on. . . and the scary thing is that they look simply ugly with all of that makeup on, that I am afraid to see what they look like without it.

Then I see my girlfriend, who I can honestly say I see and the prettiest woman in the world. She's not one of those huge chested Playboy models, and yet she still has that femininity (much more than even the models previously mentioned) about her that absolutely takes my breath away.

There is one thing that I would like to see. I would like to call all men to step away from ogling these models, and take a real good look at the woman they're with. . . the real women. After all, there's something about her that drew you to her at first, something that, in your eyes, says "sexy."

Let's face it, the fashion industry is useless as far as it goes beyond anything other than desinging clothing, anyway. What's the need to have a fashion model wear as little as possible in the first place?

Well. . . . I'll probably draw enough fire upon myself as it is with my ramblings ;). . . .

Neat site ;).

Ok im just refuring to every one you said looked liek a man
when they clearly dont you must have very low self estem to put down buetifukl people most likely becuase you are a fat fucking cunt with nothing better to do just becuase soem one has big reats doesnt mean they have had implants you wannabe whore
like seriously none of those women look like men and they are all very beutiful like i think you should put a picture of you up there so every one can puke
and your most liekly fat so your jelous of those girls for havuing amazing bodies
honeslty readsing all the stuff you put you seem like a jelous 13 year oidk girl
now go shove you inner beuty up your ass
p.s.
you have none other wise you wouldnt be concernd about how other ppl look

and actualy most fashion designers are staight