Please note: some images may not be work-safe.
What is sexy?
This site has addressed the nature of feminine beauty at length and will continue to elaborate on it. On the other hand, it is time to address sexiness in some detail, too.
Below, the reader will find pictures of some women that are not taken from the attractive women section, and there are no current plans to add these women to this section. The reader should try to discern what, on average, distinguishes these women from the women shown in the attractive women section. Those who are not lifetime-exclusive heterosexual men should attempt to estimate the sexiness ratings of the following women on the part of such men, on average, compared to the women shown in the attractive women section.
Click the thumbnails for large versions of the images.
Marketa Brymova
From Met Art, watch4beauty (w4b)
Cassia Riley
From DDgirls, Penthouse, sexy Cassia, Chasin girls
Marketa Belonoha
From Domai and Marketa4you. Note her pictures in a library. Put women like her in a college library and even retarded frat guys would be found perusing books on nuclear physics.
Cardinal Cyn/Austin Jorie
From myspace, Palomar agency; the woman is a Burlesque dancer. She appears to be the classiest of the bunch on this page. If anyone has clearer pictures of her, please email them to me.
Brigitte Hunter
From Mya Diamond
Sheila Grant
From Twistys
Maria...
...from MPL studios
Király Katalin
From Twistys; Király was the May 2002 Playmate of the month for the Hungarian edition of Playboy.
Evelyn Lori
From Evelyn's world, watch4beauty (w4b)
Ivette Blanche
From Twistys, Sexy babes
Comments (18) | Notify others
Comments:
Page 1 of 1 pages
first marketa is just average in face and body. caasie has a good figure, cute face but the way she poses(ugh) brigette has a beautiful face her figure has some good pints(her legs). the second marketa looks a smidge boyish. she has a lot of pop(tall, blonde, thin)--but no fizzle(lacks what makes christie brinkley so cute). cardinal is a goodlooking woma--especially for her age. she has a great body, her face would be better if it wasn’t so long. sheila is a lil manly cuz she is so bigboned.---makes her look like a bar wench. maria is not cute(icky body---looks like a lil boy. kiraly’s brows are too deepset. evelyn’s face is ok--but her body is so manly. ivette’s face is too angular… erik--is part of the reason ur having a hard time finding femme mediterannean women because you don’t factor in women from that gene pool tend to have stronger noses, more angular faces?
Posted by Kristin on January 06, 2007 at 10:56 PM | #
shows what bad taste you have, kristin. brigitte is far from having a “beautiful face”. in fact, she’s the ugliest one of them all.
if these women are sexy, then sexy means average.
Posted by madeline on January 07, 2007 at 01:32 AM | #
i think the average cute girl can be considered sexy--not everyone needs to be exotic. key examples would be beyonce, scarlett johansson, jenn9ifer love hewitt--are are viewed as sexy---fir having a regular but pretty(girly) appearance
Posted by Kristin on January 08, 2007 at 11:59 AM | #
Kristin and Madeline: Both of you have neglected the two questions asked in the entry, namely, what, if anything, on average distinguishes these women from the women in the attractive women section and what is your estimate of heterosexual men’s sexiness ratings of these women, on average, compared to that of the women shown in the attractive women section? Your personal ratings are not relevant to understanding what is sexy as far as lifetime-exclusive heterosexual men are concerned.
Posted by Erik Holland on January 11, 2007 at 05:10 AM | #
I don’t believe that they are much less masculine than VS models. They are tall (a genetically-mediated trait that is exclusively caused by high androgen levels during puberty!) Taller women invariably have stronger brow ridges and more masculine-patterned hairlines. Take a look for yourself above.
This just goes to show that even many “glamour models” (let’s call it what it is: girls who enter the porn industry) also seem to exhibit the aggressive nature that may have helped influence their decision of going into a “profession” that most females regard as grossly irresponsible to other women. Most of these so-called sexy women also have narrowed hips and small implants! The classic pose of thrusting one’s hip to the side to compensate for a lack of a natural, rounded projection is evident here as well. You can dice it anyway you want, but much of the glamour ideal is less about masculinized supermodel aesthetics, and more about sexualizing underaged aesthetics. While some Asian cultures have surgeries to receive pubic hair transplants, women here emulate prepubescent aesthetics which have become popular. Tall glamour models don’t necessarily appear tall in the photos without real-world indicators of scale, but in photos and on TV, it helps approximate the more gangly coltish appearance of a 12 year old going through an awkward phase. This ALSO hurts women. Your site is informative, but potentially painful for women, as it is misguided. Perhaps your defensive replies to women who vocalize how this hurts them will eventually morph into understanding what they are actually trying to communicate to you, but you just don’t get it. Like the men who still e-mail you saying VS girls are hot, YOU also just don’t get it. Your site has the potential to help women who often blame themselves rather than the media, but I feel like this site is absolutely more self-serving and ignorant than anything else. You know NOTHING of how the media harms women, for you are the worst objectifier of all! Promoting your “aesthetic standard”...oh, thank you soooo much. Although I can’t prove it, believe me, I am not defending my own ego, as I have a more feminized figure than all of the women above (and that’s not code for “I’m a Secret Fatty"), but your disregard of the points women try to make when they e-mail you is just marginalizing women further. I’m sure you could care less about truly understanding what I’m saying, and will continue defending your own position.
Sorry for not doing your condescending “homework,” oh great educator of women and men!
I must again reiterate that there is a lot of good here, and you could really help women in particular with these illustrations of your contention, but something is still off. You could communicate differently if you really did put yourself in women’s shoes to understand how they feel insidiously victimized by this sick, degrading culture. But your equally marginalizing attitude still shines through.
Posted by Kimberly on January 11, 2007 at 08:40 AM | #
Kimberly: Controlling for ancestry, taller women tend to be less feminine, on average, but there are no problems finding plenty of feminine tall women. Many factors apart from androgens determine height. In addition, the proportion of tall women among glamour models is a lot less than among high-fashion models, almost all of whom are tall.
Your reference to the porn industry is uncalled for here. The women shown above, except for Cardinal Cyn, are nude models and some of them at most involve themselves in dildo insertions or simulated lesbian activity on camera. None of them appear to have breast implants. Hip width in these women is variable, ranging from somewhat narrow (Marketa Brymova) to normal (Marketa Belonoha) and wide (Evelyn Lori, Sheila Grant). Anyway, there are plenty of masculinized nude models around, but this is of little relevance here.
I am not aware of people in some Asian cultures sometimes opting for pubic hair transplants, but assuming that instances of pubic hair removal on the part of a number of Western nude models has anything to do with “sexualizing underaged aesthetics” is absurd. Heterosexual men with a preference for a hair-free pubic region prefer labia that suggest physical maturity rather than a pubic region where the labia are underdeveloped. In nude photography, a number of heterosexual men would not want the labia obscured by pubic hair, which would explain the trimming/shaving off of pubic hair in several cases. Some Western heterosexual men are also into hairy women.
Men don’t still email me about Victoria’s Secret models being hot. I got some such comments after describing the Victoria’s Secret lingerie show as a transsexual parade; this was before I started addressing Victoria’s Secret models, and no heterosexual man has since disputed my assessment of these models.
You have accused me of knowing nothing about how the media harm women. This is far from true. There is a prominent eating disorders page within this site, linked to at the top of each page, that addresses the harm caused to many women by high-fashion imagery. There are people behind the media, and I have identified who precisely are the culprits when it comes to the high status of very skinny high-fashion models, which is important knowledge in that a number of affected women who have come to associate the looks of high-fashion models with “perfection” need to know just whose idea of “perfection” is the skinny and masculine look. Blaming it on the media doesn’t help convince affected women that “perfection” does not lie in a skinny look.
You have accused me of objectifying women. If one had to examine women’s personality, one could have them take an MMPI-2 questionnaire and then examine the answers. I don’t think you would call it objectification. If one had to examine women’s intelligence, one could have them take a WAIS-R test. I don’t think you would call this objectification either. If one had to assess women’s physical attractiveness, then what option is there other than looking at the women? What makes this objectification? Don’t tell me that assessing attractiveness itself constitutes objectification. Attractiveness assessment is required in a number of scenarios, and is imperative if one is to combat the negative influence of skinny high-fashion models since the negatively affected women have come to believe that attractiveness lies in skinniness.
Am I promoting my own aesthetic standards? If the attractive women section were filled with obese women and all comparisons involving fashion models used obese women, would you have left the comment above? A specific aesthetic standard/look cannot be promoted by merely showcasing some women and contrasting them with women of a different physical type. One has to associate the specific aesthetic standard/look with high status in order to make it desirable, and gay fashion designers have achieved this by using skinny models to sell designer clothing to a public that has a strong interest in being well-dressed. What have I done that is comparable? Nothing other than just showing women, sometimes in the form of side-by-side comparisons. There is no way this would promote feminine beauty unless most people already harbored a feminine beauty ideal. This site will have a significant impact at some point, and it will be because most people intrinsically harbor a feminine beauty ideal.
You could easily prove that your physique is more feminine than those of the women above by emailing your pictures to me. I am always looking for women with feminine physiques, and I could use your pictures if you are willing. Besides, your comment suggests that you don’t like the feminine beauty promotion part of this site, which would be strange for a feminine woman unless she happened to harbor very high standards for herself and this site simply reinforced these very high standards. If this is the case, at least you cannot blame me for your own internal high standards.
Instead of asking me to communicate differently in order to better help women, it would be more useful to me if you specified how. Anyway, I will address the sexiness of the women above at a later date.
Posted by Erik Holland on January 12, 2007 at 08:05 PM | #
This page disappoints me. The rest of your site seems very well argued - but here you just throw in a few women and proclaim that they are sexier than others - on what basis? Your personal taste? Please tell me how you selected them. From what I can see it’s mostly in attitude, expression, and poise - teasing the camera, maybe, and confident.
You suggest that the reader try to discern what makes these women sexy, by which my guess you mean sexually appealing to lifetime exclusive heterosexual men - but have you yourself actually come up with what that is? I find it very curious that you offer no basis, science, observations, or even theories. Is this a personal preference? It seems to me that since sexiness has to do with appeal, sexy can be something different to a whole lot of different guys - feminine, on the other hand, is well-defined here and I think you do a very good job discussing it. Some men may like more feminine women, and some may not - but in who’s taste do you define sexiness? I’m not sure how you plan to qualify your discussion of sexiness, though.
Posted by a reader on February 21, 2007 at 02:33 AM | #
Read the entry carefully. Nowhere is it said that the women shown above are “sexier than others.” You have been asked two questions, which you should attempt to answer.
Posted by Erik on February 21, 2007 at 08:08 PM | #
Fair enough, but you do say “distinguishes these women from the women shown in the attractive women section,” - which implies they are sexier, but this could be a misunderstanding.
I have already answered your question about what I see different about these women. I’m not obliged to do more. You have not, however, answered my questions. How are you defining sexy, and are you attempting to define a universal or sort of scientific basis for sexiness, as you have for femininity (well-argued and nonjudgmental, I believe). Isn’t sexy different depending on personal taste? Is this page a sort of experiment and you want reader feedback before you say something, are you just musing, or do you have a point? You are of course not obliged to answer, but I’d like to know what you’re getting at.
Posted by a reader on February 21, 2007 at 09:28 PM | #
To talk about “what distinguishes...” is not to imply that these women are sexier. The question asked is “What is sexy?” and this is to say that the focus is on what constitutes sexiness. Therefore, “what distinguishes...” is in terms of physical features pertaining to sexiness.
The distinguishing elements you have pointed out, such as attitude expressed or posing are of little relevance because the women in the attractive women section could be made to pose similarly; the women there are shown in a bunch of poses, too. The relevant question is whether under similar posing the looks would on average be similar between the groups, and if not, then what are the distinguishing elements?
It is not the intent of the entry above to explicitly define sexiness, but to see what people think sexiness is from the perspective of lifetime-exclusive heterosexual men. I will have more to say later.
Posted by Erik on February 22, 2007 at 03:16 PM | #
Many here are attacking the post and the photos displayed on this site. I am not one who condones nude photography however I will say this - These women are by no means masculine. There is such an assault on tall women by both sexes and I am glad a point was made that tall is beautiful. You can hurl insults about these women shown but really think about the crap they’ve more than likely endured by people such as yourself. They receive comments by men and women. How would you like it if people viewed you as being less feminine because you were “tall”. (They can’t help that they were born that way) You are basically saying that short is better. Frankly I have seen attractive tall and short women as well as ugly tall and short women. It shouldn’t matter what height someone is. One is blind and idiotic to say these women on this site are ugly. I am a straight woman (older)who is sick of hearing tall women get bashed.
Posted by leslie johnson on April 21, 2007 at 07:07 PM | #
Leslie: What pictures are you referring to as being attacked? This site shows a variety of women ranging from masculine to feminine, and nobody is attacking them all. I generally ignore height in assessing attractiveness and have shown numerous pictures of feminine and attractive women who happen to be tall to dispel the belief that the masculine looks of high-fashion models are an artifact of their height.
Kimberly: I need to correct myself on one count. I found out that Marketa Brymova has done some porn work, and am not pleased to learn this.
Posted by Erik on April 23, 2007 at 02:57 PM | #
Erik, i like your site and your opinion does make a point.Why do you think that the fashion industry is so successful promoting these women as being beautiful and most of all, why in hell are they so popular among men, if according to science they are not what they would prefer and consider beautiful and sexually appealing. It is very contradictory that some models like Heidy Klum and Giselle are said to be beautiful and femenine when they really are not.
Posted by Elizabeth on July 21, 2007 at 04:18 PM | #
Eric what do you think of Angelina Jolie vs. Jennifer Anniston? And Jeri Ryan?
Posted by elizabeth on July 21, 2007 at 04:52 PM | #
Elizabeth: I prefer Angelina Jolie to Jennifer Aniston (too masculine face). Neither of these women are classifiable as feminine, but the masculinization in a young adult Angelina Jolie made her look sexy in many of her pictures (only exceptions for me were some pictures where the gonial region of her jaw was prominently displayed).
I believe Jeri Ryan has a good physique but I don’t like her face that much because of elements such as a broad nose.
Posted by Erik on July 26, 2007 at 02:07 AM | #
I think actress Paz Vega looks like clearly like a man and don’t understand how peopel think she is so hot. In this pic and so did all my firends, mom and other users on the internet thought she was a tranny. A very masculinized women imo
Posted by Bruno on July 29, 2007 at 01:09 AM | #
Erik: I think it is clear that you believe that these women are sexy, and are hoping that other people will affirm your point of view. If you say otherwise you are being disingenuous. They are however distiguishable from the women in the “attractive women” section. Whilst it cannot be argued scientifically that slightly masculinized women are sexy- from self-reflection and from social interaction I would tend to agree. The idea is sound psychologically. The average man simply could not see himself sleeping with a hyperfeminine woman, whose faces are somewhat neotenic, appearing innocent- as easily as he could a woman who appears more aggressive, and whose sex drive he would perceive to be more compatible with his own.
This notion does not degrade women who appear sexy . As physical appearance may not denote character. Also who is to say that sex with no strings attached ( minus diseases) is a bad thing, as long as it hurts no-one? I also believe that women who pose nude out of choice are not degrading themselves- it is other people that degrade them by suggesting that what they are doing is obscene(madeline). This is disrespectful to them. In addition ust because a man finds a woman sexy physically, does not mean that he is objectifying her, and discounting all of her other valuable attributes. That is nonsense. While some women may feel this I can say that is foolishness. To suggest that a man cannot respect a dominant woman is absurd.
Madeline, These women, are nowhere near as masculine as any top high- fashion models. Also it is contradictory that you would suggest that women who are tall, masculinized and aggressive in appearance, could be considered as sexualising under-age aesthetics due to a little bit of depilation, which could even be for the purpose of hygiene.
Erik might not know the myriad ways which the media affects women, and I’m sure you don’t either, as simply one woman. Many of your gender might even disown you as a little bit, unrational(that’s a euphemism). Besides the website is clearly called feminine beauty and it’s purpose is clearly to promote femininity, to redress the imbalance in our culture where feminine appearing women are not idealised. Femininity can only be defined as a gender average. And this being so the promotion of feminine beauty would be much better for the average woman’s self esteem than hypermasculinization. Whilst obviously nobody, male or female wants to be judged in terms of worth as a human being solely by their appearance, this website cannot focus on absolutely everything that concerns women. How could it? Erik doesn’t claim to be a mind reader. If one wanted to suggest that beauty itself is not important a case could be made for it. If someone wants to do that, all power to them.
This is a site with information from the point of view of a heterosexual man, for people who want to know about what a heterosexual man on average finds attractive physically. It addresses the negative influence on young women of the fashion industry as a footnote. It doesn’t suggest they aren’t important it just isn’t a website on eating disorders, women’s health or psychological problems . It is aimed at removing the illusion perpetuated throughout society that women who are far removed from the norm of femininity are the ideal of beauty.
Posted by Brendan on January 18, 2008 at 11:28 PM | #
apologies Madeline. Replaced all Madelines, in my previous comment with Kimberlys. Hopefully Kimberly has returned to her home planet by now.
Posted by brendan on January 18, 2008 at 11:35 PM | #
Page 1 of 1 pages
Next article: Self/body-esteem problems in relation to the promotion of feminine beauty
Previous article: The transsexual parade otherwise known as the Victoria's Secret lingerie show: part 6