Previous parts: 1, 2, 3 and 4. This entry addresses Heidi Klum.
One person nominated this site for the “most bitter website” award because it describes Heidi Klum as masculine. She was flabbergasted, like no doubt some other people are when they come across Heidi Klum being called masculine, which is likely not at a whole lot of places apart from this site. This woman has undoubtedly encountered Heidi Klum being portrayed in an exalted/glamorous manner, as shown in the examples below.
Heidi Klum images (click for larger versions) The image on the left is taken from a GQ magazine edition featuring a section on “Sex Goddesses”; note “...AND GOD CREATED HEIDI...” at the bottom.
Question related to middle image: What about the appearance of Heidi Klum is enviable?
The astounded woman likely did not encounter images of Heidi Klum, like the following, where she looks like a man in drag. Notice that there is no way the drag queen look can be explained in terms of pose, hairstyle or make-up; Heidi’s face is unambiguously manly. Readers who missed Heidi Klum’s manly face in the table above should look again carefully, especially the middle picture, and try to imagine her without breast implants.
Next, look at the following two pictures.
Between the two women shown above, it is obvious who is more suitable as a lingerie model, but the more suitable woman is also the type that is very unlikely to be used by Victoria’s Secret Company!
Heidi Klum has been an active model in her late twenties and she even modeled for Victoria’s Secret in her early thirties, shortly after giving birth. Therefore, it would help to compare her to a feminine woman with a physique leaning toward a mother’s. The woman used for comparative purposes below is Dana Benn from Nadine Jansen’s website.
It should be obvious who has a more feminine face.
Notice Heidi Klum’s wide hips, but even the addition of breast implants does not give her an hourglass figure because of her broad rib cage.
Dana doesn’t have a narrow rib cage either, but do you hear heterosexual men complaining?
The width of Heidi Klum’s hips should not be mistaken to imply femininity since her backside is flattened. Also note that her pelvis is vertically elongated, giving it a masculine appearance.
Inferring femininity from the pictures of Dana’s backside is a no brainer.
Some objections could be raised about the choice of Dana for comparative purposes. For instance, her somewhat saggy breasts could be pointed out as undesirable. However, in the context of mainstream lingerie modeling, she would not be posing nude and will be wearing a supportive bra. The following pictures leave no doubt about the suitability of Dana’s physique for lingerie modeling as far as the general public is concerned.
Note: In the event that some find the abdominal adiposity of Dana in the right image objectionable, she could be made to lose some fat in this region, which would reduce her breast size, too, but still leave large breasts. As a side note, Dana is obviously grotesquely obese from the perspective of gay fashion designers.
Another objection could be that a model should not look like/approach the looks of a mother, and this means that an alternative model needs to be sought, which in our case will be Maria A. from Domai.
The following image shows a young Heidi Klum, before she got breast implants, and although the comparison doesn’t involve the same pose, a more overall manly appearance of Heidi Klum, including a broad rib cage and manly arms, can be easily made out.
The following image features Heidi Klum with breast implants, but once again note that even the presence of wide hips is unable to give her a feminine appearance because of her broad rib cage, robust skeletal frame, broad shoulders, manly face, etc.
More pictures of Heidi’s flattened backside.
Note: The middle picture is also of Heidi Klum.
Heidi Klum is no match for the feminine beauty of Maria.
Next, Heidi is compared to a woman who doesn’t happen to have a high level of femininity, but if someone with her looks is chosen as a lingerie model, one will not be getting a whole lot of complaints from lifetime-exclusive heterosexual men, though almost all such men [and also most women] aware of Heidi’s masculinization and fake femininity will consider Heidi to be unsuited for high-profile lingerie modeling.
The woman shown below is Renee from FTV girls.
Heidi Klum’s rise to major stardom resulted from her Victoria’s Secret and Sports Illustrated work. Before this, she was not a big mainstream high-fashion model, presumably because she came to the attention of modeling agencies in her late teens, when her robust skeletal frame prevented her from approximating the looks of boys in their early adolescence, which likely did not make her very appealing to gay fashion designers, but add breast implants plus posing tricks, and an illusion of femininity can be achieved for the poorly informed masses, which works very well for the homosexuals that dominate the fashion business because they can avoid using feminine women when the job -- e.g., lingerie modeling, Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue -- requires them to do so. Returning back to the woman who nominated this site for the “most bitter website” award because it describes Heidi Klum as masculine, the existence of people shocked by Heidi Klum being called masculine partly justifies the need for this site.
whewre isa the proo that heidi hs implants. her breasts look real. don't see it. secondly--- a lot of women from certain ethnicities have wide flat butts.
Kristin: Read carefully; a link to photographic evidence for Heidi Klum having breast implants has been posted above. Here is another picture of her showing oddly large breasts attached to a masculine frame with little body fat. Besides, Heidi Klum’s buttocks-hip proportions are not normal for white females; the woman is masculine from head to toe.
i am not trying to be blunt---but i have spotted so many northern european women with flat, wide rear ends, that i think she just may not have been as blessed as some other girls. her ribs are narrow in proporttion to her hips, and usually fake boobs have a weird space in the middle put in. german girls in particular tend to have broad flat hips--- slightly bigger boned in the heidi sort of way. and there are a good amt of women with low body fat and sizeable breasts... to some degree the boob stuff is all speculation. no proof.
her face a lil hard. i will admit that.
Kristin: I, too, have seen Northern European women with flattened backsides, but they are not normal. There is variation within any population, and one needs to consider the central tendency in a population in order to determine where a given individual lies on the trait distribution curve. The central tendency of backside protrusion among Northern/Central European women is nowhere as flattened as in Heidi Klum. Heidi Klum also has a much heavier bone structure than the norm among German women. Besides, Heidi Klum is probably a Northern-Central mix rather than a classic Northern European type. The appearance of fake breasts varies, but look at the two photos cited in the previous comment and you should see clear photographic evidence that Heidi has breast implants. One of the photos shows a masculine woman with little body fat except possibly a lot in her breasts, a highly unlikely outcome, but then her breasts are fake.
lastly all the pics where her breasts look very large are heavily airbrushed. they often add on a full cup size with shading.
the girl maria is really cute, but she looks like the 14 year old miley cyrus. you can't really compare a younger girl like her to heidi klum because they are like 20 years apart. as a woman gets older her face gets more masculine.
the woman at the very top with the enormous breats wearing the lingerie is not fit to model lingerie; her breasts can't even be fitted into what she's wearing. they look like two oversized, deformed water balloons. no one would even want to look at that in catalogues or posters (well except for you). that's just gross. i don't think any woman would want to look like that, so it's obviously a bad choice to choose her as a lingerie model.
Actually, given their measurements (hip/waist), both Heidi and Dana have a hip/waist ratio of .70 which is more than most european women ( see your own site - http://www.femininebeauty.info/aesthetics.5.htm) so your conclusions about Heidi's masculinity are off base, frankly. She should appear more feminine than average, with her hip to waist ratio.
...
agreed with morph. although heidi has a masculine face, her body isn't, and neither is alessandra's. her waist to hip ratio is around .7 as well, according to wikipedia (34-23-34)
actually, alessandra has a .67 ratio.
theey often lie about the measurements of models--point blank... ther eis jsut no way alesandar has measurements taht mimic monica belucci's bpdy that much--- c'mon. its liek when they said brigette bardot had a 19 inch waist---lies.
Kristin: There is no way airbrushing of the cited pictures is giving an illusion of breast implants.
Madeline: Lingerie models are supposed to be selected for looks that would please heterosexual men. Recall from a previous discussion that women buy lingerie to make themselves more pleasing to their male partners, and these will typically be lifetime-exclusive heterosexual. A young adult attractive non-overweight woman who has breast that are ready to burst out of her clothing is a sight for sore eyes as far as the typical heterosexual man is concerned...praise be to the Gods for creating such women...Amen! Anyway, the woman whom you find objectionable is only offered as a sharp contrast to Heidi’s image above it; she is not compared to Heidi as the other women are. It is curious why you did not comment on Heidi’s exposed image; she looks like a man with breasts/breast implants. Who is supposed to find this pleasing?
As far as what women would want to look like goes, if you are a heterosexual woman, you should realize that it is in the best interests of a heterosexual woman to have looks that greatly please the majority of heterosexual men since then she will be able to attract a lot of men and have her pick; the more the choice, the more selective one can be.
Maria is not 14; she is at least 18, which she has to be or else it would be illegal to show her nude. Maria also looks a lot more mature than 14-year-old Miley Cyrus and clearly has the body of an adult woman. All pictures comparing Heidi and Maria except the first one feature a young Heidi Klum, i.e., the age difference is a couple of years at most, which is not relevant. Note that Heidi’s pre-breast-implants picture, obviously from her early modeling days, clearly shows a much more manly physique than Maria’s. I do not know when Heidi’s picture in the first comparison with Maria was shot, but it is unlikely to be very recent, and may be a few years old.
On the other hand, even though women become more masculine as they age, a feminine woman in her early twenties does not turn into a masculine one in her early thirties. Look around; you will see middle aged women that look a lot more feminine than Heidi at any age in the 18-33 range.
Morph: You ignore clear photographic evidence of overall masculinization, and bring in waist-to-hip ratio to argue that Heidi is feminine. Remarkable! Read the last row of this table to understand why waist-to-hip ratios in the neighborhood of 0.70 in high-fashion models, if truthfully reported, do not imply femininity.
"I too have seen nothern european women with flattened backsides, but they are not normal'
i'd like to know exactly how you can discern what is 'NORMAL' in the female figure?
anything slight of clinically deformed or surgically advanced... is pretty 'normal'
genetics are differen't in different people.
its one thing to say that some one looks more masculine or feminine.. or better than someone else..
but nobody can say what is 'normal'
nobody is perfect.
and with 30extra lbs. Heidi Klum would have a bigger backside like your other models.
Ria: The notion of normality in my previous comment is one of central tendency in the population, as should be evident from the context. Medical considerations are not relevant since women with physical defects will not be used as models in a glamorous setting. Consider an analogy from height. A healthy and naturally tall 6-foot-5 German woman would be an outlier and not statistically normal but will be medically normal. Non-overweight and non-skinny Northern/Central European women do not typically have backsides as flattened as in Heidi Klum, which should be common observation.
If Heidi gains 30 pounds over the frame shown in the pictures, her backside will indeed be more protruding, but her waist will become a lot bigger, too, and she would look flabby and still remain less appealing from the perspective of feminine beauty. Note that both Maria and Renee are on the slender side but have a more prominent backside than a slender Heidi Klum.
"A young adult attractive non-overweight woman who has breast that are ready to burst out of her clothing is a sight for sore eyes as far as the typical heterosexual man is concerned...praise be to the Gods for creating such women...Amen!"
I'm getting the feeling that you created this site just because YOU want to see girls with huge boobs/butts strutting down the runways with hardly any clothing on. It seems like the women you call sexy need a tiny waist, big boobs, or/and a big booty. Since I don't possess any of those should I refrain from feeling sexy and confident about my body? Thanks a lot.
Karen: Go through the attractive women section carefully; you will encounter plenty of women that do not have large breasts; some of them have small breasts and some are even slightly masculine. In this entry alone, Maria and Renee do not have large breasts, and Maria is no doubt very appealing to heterosexual men. Large breasts are neither necessary nor sufficient for attractiveness/sex appeal.
You should not let other people tell you what is sexy. If you like what you see in the mirror, you look good regardless of what others say. If you don’t like what you see, there are some things you could do to improve your looks and hopefully accept what you cannot change.
If you have an interest in what the general public and lifetime-exclusive heterosexual men in particular find appealing in the looks of women, then you will find lots of useful information here, but this site is not about, “look, this is what is sexy...” The major problem that this site is addressing is the lack of mainstream appreciation of feminine beauty, which is not to say that feminine models should be ubiquitous. There are scenarios where feminine beauty would not be appropriate. If one needed a female model for marketing an athletic product, an attractive woman who looks like an athlete would be the best choice, and I would not recommend, let alone insist that a curvaceous feminine woman be used. However, this series on Victoria’s Secret models is just one of many scenarios where feminine and attractive curvy women are required but one observes masculinized women instead. It is inappropriate to use manly women with fake breasts when feminine women with naturally prominent breasts are required and available in large numbers.
As far as my preferences go, lifetime-exclusive heterosexual men are born with a strong interest in feminine beauty and have a right to insist that there be some mainstream appreciation of it. It is shameful that heterosexual men have to turn to adult-oriented sites to find examples of feminine beauty. It should not be this way. Beauty pageants, lingerie catalogs, swimsuit magazines and at least some mainstream modeling agencies should provide examples of feminine beauty galore, but there is nothing close to this scenario. I’ll be damned if I am unable to do anything about this.
This site is about other issues, too. The high status of skinny high-fashion models has created problems other than those involving aesthetics, and these problems can be lessened by addressing the reasons behind why high-fashion models look the way they do and the promotion of feminine beauty.
There's only one problem with all that's written on this website, femininity isn't synonym of beauty. Just because a woman is less feminine than another doesn't mean she can't be more beautiful. Saying a woman isn't particularly beautiful (or not beautiful at all) simply because she's not particularly feminine is nothing but prejudice.
Marta: No one here is arguing that femininity is a synonym of beauty. This site addresses numerous correlates of beauty other than femininity, some examples of which include averageness, overall fluctuating asymmetry and placement of face shape along the overall ancestral-to-derived discriminant. There are correlates of beauty that this site has so far avoided addressing because they are of little to no relevance when it comes to comparing different kinds of models, e.g., skin blemishes.
On the other hand, femininity is a very powerful correlate of beauty in women. Heidi Klum and other manly fashion models do not have any physical defects, skin blemishes or other miscellanous conditions that detract from beauty; what these women lack is femininity, the most important correlate of beauty in women in the absence of physical defects. Therefore, the comparisons such as above almost exclusively focus on femininity, but this should not be construed as femininity being portrayed as synonymous with beauty.
Honestly, I never thought Heidi had a pretty body despite being as thin as she is. I give you that, and the woman she's compared to, Maria, does indeed have a very nice body. Perhaps because I'm a woman, I don't particularly find big, big breasts and the super hourglass figures very desirable, only to a certain degree and Maria fits that perfectly.
Only problem is that Maria's face has is not pretty nor does she exude any charisma. Heidi, on the other hand, does have a pretty face (albeit not beautiful) regardless of the masculinization. She is also full of charisma, which is something that separates her from the rest of the models pack and puts her in a position where she was able to transcend from the modeling industry and become a celebrity in her own right. These are perhaps the so called x-factors that detracts from the obvious subject of feminity at hand.
While I see your point in calling for true feminity in the mainstream media, looking through the attractive women section of your site, I don't particularly see any beautiful girls on there. Not to say that they're ugly, some are decent and cute, but overall they are of average looks. And none of them really have much photo appeal and charisma. But that may partially be due to the fact that they're also amateur shots.
This also isn't to say that models and that of Victoria's Secret in particular are beautiful. As a matter of fact, just looking at their faces, none can be considered beautiful. But they do possess nice bodies, especially those of Adriana Lima's, Marisa Miller, Alessandra Ambrosio etc. Maybe they are masculinized as you say, but for the many reasons that were brought forth to this website, these models market the products that appeal to women. And they are far curvier than most runway models.
Perhaps the only true way to bring forth more 'feminine' models into the limelight is if we can slap society's obsession with the super skinny. We live in a world of perfection, but to tell you the truth, I have never seen a woman who had such a beautiful body and face. It's always either they possess one and not the other or neither.
Megan: I am unable to comment on charisma since in not seeing this in the feminine women shown here, it seems that you are inferring charisma based on looks, but it is not clear what precisely about looks is charismatic to you. On the other hand, if the women in the attractive women section mostly look average to you, then please tell me where you live. Women in your city are probably a rich source of feminine and attractive women...I am just trying to imagine how the above average women look where you live; I need to head over there and recruit models.
On the other hand, women and men, on average, rate women’s attractiveness similarly; see point #5 here. Therefore, your point that the masculinized looks of the models can be understood in terms of their selling to women, not men, is not applicable. You are also grossly mistaken about society’s obsession with super-skinny looks; people overwhelmingly find super-skinny looks socially unacceptable. I suggest that you carefully read about why high-fashion models are typically very skinny.
Um, what is "fake femininity"? And in my opinion, all the women on this page are beautiful in their own ways. I love the variety: thin, curvy, thin and curvy, etc. I especially like Dana. :D But, please stop calling Heidi Klum "mannish." I have only seen ONE guy who has her body shape and he was like 17. Since most people wouldn't mistake her for male, she's not "mannish."
Mar: Fake femininity is an illusion of femininity achieved via breast implants or posing tricks. A woman does not have to be indistinguishable from a man in order to be called masculinized or manly. Heidi Klum's pictures leave no doubt as to how feminine she is.
I'm not sure about your assumptions here. You say that "the general public overwhelmingly and strongly aesthetically prefers above average femininity in the looks of women," and you cite some studies concerning this claim, but the studies themselves don't make specifications regarding the sample used. Thus, as a reader I have no idea what your "general public" is, since I know that ideas of beauty vary vastly between cultures as well as individuals within cultures.
"There are numerous correlates of beauty. It is common observation that people do not unanimously agree about the minutiae of what constitutes beauty. However, some people have defective eyesight/vision and/or a variety of brain abnormalities. Therefore, universal agreement cannot be expected, but one should still consider whether there is broad agreement and how mentally normal are those who deviate from the broad agreement."
Your conclusions in the above quote are ridiculous. You say that people who do not conform to your personal ideas of "male heterosexual" beauty preferences must be mentally or physiologically defective. Additionally, you make sweeping generalizations suggesting that your own preferences in women correspond with those of other heterosexual men, and that these opinions are the only ones worth including in your argument. I find it a glaring indication of personal bias that you fail to include the opinions of persons of varying sexuality, including homosexual or transgendered men and women.
"It is well known that what these gays find aesthetically appealing are looks approximating those of adolescent boys." This is not "well known;" you are again making generalizations that make your overall argument hard to swallow.
"The central tendency of backside protrusion among Northern/Central European women is nowhere as flattened as in Heidi Klum." You do not cite a study of the tendencies of backside protrusion among Northern/Central European women in relation to that of Heidi Klum.
"Women buy lingerie to make themselves more pleasing to their male partners, and these will typically be lifetime-exclusive heterosexual." Homosexual, bisexual, and transgendered women buy lingerie as well, not to mention men who enjoy wearing women's lingerie but are not necessarily homosexual. Also, there is no unified concept of beauty among heterosexual males.
"A young adult attractive non-overweight woman who has breast that are ready to burst out of her clothing is a sight for sore eyes as far as the typical heterosexual man is concerned." This is a personal opinion, and while there is nothing wrong with your preference in women, I disagree with the fact that you apply your own preferences to those of others', and that you attempt to give your argument more authority by citing scientific studies that are loosely applied to your personal opinions.
I can get behind your intention... fashion models are often way too thin and uphold unhealthy ideas of aesthetic beauty in women. My main concern is that you fail to address sexual preferences which are not your own, and assume that male heterosexuality (which is not a unified entity) is the dominant opinion within the "general public" that you don't clearly specify anyway.
Mel: The studies that I have cited “don’t make specifications regarding the sample used”? Have you bothered to look them up? All of them specify what participants were recruited, and the studies assessing the appeal of femininity come from different countries and cultures.
When I talked about some people having defective eyesight/vision and/or a variety of brain abnormalities in reference to the inability to obtain universal agreement, I surely did not imply that those who disagree with me have mental abnormalities. I am not making sweeping generalizations by extrapolating my preferences to heterosexual men in general, but have found my preferences to be generally in excellent agreement with heterosexual men in general, as evident from the studies cited. How have I failed to exclude the opinions of people of other sexualities? This entry itself and a great deal of this site contrasts the differing aesthetic preferences of heterosexual with nonheterosexual men. Besides, there are too few homosexual or transgendered individuals to affect the central tendency of aesthetic preferences in the population, which is what one observes in studies targeting the general population.
The response above is to your using quotes from elsewhere within this site, and you are mentioning them out of context. I do not know where you got the quote, “It is well known that what these gays find aesthetically appealing are looks approximating those of adolescent boys” from. Point out the context and I will respond. I have cited sufficient evidence within this site that high-fashion models tend to lean toward the looks of adolescent boys, which should be common observation for those that have observed enough of them, which in turn is explicable in terms of the gay domination of the fashion business, evidence for which has been documented within this site.
As far as backside protrusion is concerned, I am not going to bother looking up papers where this is documented to back up my assertion about Heidi Klum’s backside. I expect the readers to have observed the trivial items stated or to try to observe them. Ignore the statement if you wish. Heidi’s modeling agency, IMG models, lists her as a 5-foot-9.5 woman with 34-inch hips. Given her height and wide hips, what does her hip circumference, if correctly reported, tell us? The same thing that is seen in the pictures: namely, flattened buttocks, undoubtedly flatter than the average woman of her ancestry.
Homosexual/bisexual men and male-to-female transsexuals (and one could add male transvestites/transvestic fetishists in general) may buy lingerie, too, but Victoria’s Secret is not specifically targeting them. The overwhelmingly vast majority of their customers comprise of heterosexual women, i.e., there is no need for the preferences of the others to be taken into account. Besides, male transvestites and male-to-female transsexuals generally have a strong interest in looking feminine, and will probably appreciate feminine-looking lingerie models.
As far as the typical heterosexual man preferring women with well-endowed breasts goes, do you believe that I am extrapolating my own preferences to other heterosexual men? Ask around and see for yourself. I am not a big breasts fan, and knew as a kid that I was different from my heterosexual peers in that they were all into big breasts, whereas I was not much concerned about breasts but was very particular about a tiny waist and feminine hips and backside. Nowhere have I argued that all heterosexual men are 100% in agreement about female beauty, but the evidence clearly shows broad agreement.
This comment isn't relating specifically to this entry but to your general assumption that if a woman is thin with a masculine body and large breasts, then they must be implants. I have a high waist-to-hip ratio and an 'unfeminine backside' as you put it, but I wear a size 32E. It's completely possible and natural, if kind of unforunate.
Michelle: My assumption, and a reasonable one at that, is that a thin and masculinized woman is unlikely to have naturally large breasts, not that it is impossible for her to have naturally large breasts. You have said that you have a high WHR, an unfeminine backside and a 32E bust. This is certainly easily possible. But, are you thin as in this picture of Heidi Klum? There is photographic evidence, cited above, that Heidi Klum got breast implants at some point.
"As far as what women would want to look like goes, if you are a heterosexual woman, you should realize that it is in the best interests of a heterosexual woman to have looks that greatly please the majority of heterosexual men since then she will be able to attract a lot of men and have her pick; the more the choice, the more selective one can be."
Hear that women? You should make yourselves pleasing to men. Get on it!
Erik, can you evaluate this very real cultural phenomenon without being such a despicable sexist asshole?
Sure, you're taking the evolutionary perspective ("I'm helping you to have your pick of men!") but you're not understanding that these sexist notions of mutilating one's body to "please men" are demeaning and a cultural PROBLEM, not an inevitability. Men would be doing the same thing if they would only wear tight clothes, show some peen-cleavage, etc. They don't do this because it's not culturally imposed on them to the extent it is perpetuated for women. In fact, there are social pressures for men to do anything BUT what women are expected to do: spend hours upon hours, as much money as is available, and a lot of self-esteem worrying if they are showing enough skin, and in such a way that it shows off the elusive ideal shape they're chasing.
If the majority of men are not complying by chasing an exalted physical standard, that forces women to go on other factors for mate-selection, thereby forcing her to lower the value of looks in her process.
I don't agree with the exaltation of manly-women, but I also don't agree with this presumed compliance with the degrading status quo.
I take back the despicable sexist asshole comment. It is so mean, although called-for! Anyway, I have to agree with one of your last comments about how so many people are shocked to hear that Heidi or any VS girls are MASCULINE, even though it's scarily obvious, thereby proving the desperate need for this site and increased awareness of the issue. But why do you vehemently deny that people other than homosexual men have been socialized to embrace this new ideal when you're arguing with me about misogyny, though you keep seeing evidence to the contrary? You take that evidence you tell me doesn't exist, and then turn around to use it to justify your website's mission. It exists! It's real! And it's anti-woman!
One last thing, I promise: why does a vertically long pelvis imply masculinity, when that's actually a sexually dimorphic trait (skewing toward femininity)? I'm not arguing that Klum is feminine! We agree on that. But this one trait...
Look at the most virilized women, like Gisele, and her pelvis size from the back is tiny--more like a boy's. The female pelvis is wider AND longer to accommodate childbirth. Even women with exceptionally "accommodating" ones didn't make it out of childbirth alive approximately half the time before the advent of modern medicine. Perhaps her vertical elongation is outside the female norm, but not necessarily due to masculinization? Or is it that you see it as an indicator of masculinity because it emphasizes that her overall torso is large and long, like a male's?
Kimberly: Whereas regarding me as a “despicable a**hole” is a matter of personal opinion, the sexist part has to be justified, and in all your comments, you have yet to justify it. Description is not prescription. Describing what is in the best interests of women interested in heterosexual men is not to say that these women should do anything.
In selecting men, women are not forced to lower the value of looks because “the majority of men are not complying by chasing an exalted physical standard,” but because women tend to have high standards for a suitable partner, which involve multiple desirable traits, and in reality most men will not meet these standards, forcing women to compromise. The men who meet these high standards have a lot of women after them and will naturally choose the best looking ones, which explains the pressure on women to look good. In other words, women are primarily responsible for the pressure they feel to look good.
I do not accept “that people other than homosexual men have been socialized to embrace this new ideal” because, to repeat once again, controlled laboratory studies show that most people harbor a preference for above average femininity in women notwithstanding this alleged socialization, i.e., there is no such socialization in the first place. What you are looking at is not socialization, but the inability to see the extent of masculinization often seen in fashion models given the dearth of feminine beauty in the limelight and posing tricks, implants and airbrushing among models.
Whereas the female pelvis is wider, it is also vertically shorter, not vertically longer as you have assumed. A vertically longer pelvis is not helpful since it will increase transit time to the outside world. Your statistic about death during childbirth prior to the availability of modern medicine is undoubtedly grossly exaggerated for most human populations.
I'm the one who posits information without evidence to support it?! Sorry my childbirth generalization was off; again, I didn't realize you were the only one allowed to make sweeping generalizations, Mr. feminists are lesbians and feminine women don't fuck and homosexuals are mentally ill and their depression is not due to social factors because I say so and here's some circular reasoning to back it up.
I'm just mirroring the master, I guess.
"The sexist part has to be justified, and in all your comments, you have yet to justify it." Perhaps you could reread the comment? "Description is not prescription." So, trying to procure my pictures to tell me how I could make myself more attractive to men is not the definition of prescription? That agenda is a theme here, and backpedalling in the name of science doesn't fool any reader who has looked at this site with their eyes more than half open. You always contradict yourself when need be.
Visitors can read more about Erik's agendas and failures in scientific method/logic here:
http://books.google.com/books?id=Y4lZd-rTIxEC&pg=PA70&dq=erik+holland&si...
http://www.amazinginfoonhomosexuals.com/christianity.htm
Kimberly: The following insanity from you has never been argued by me:
You accuse me of contradicting the “description is not prescription” statement by pointing out that I have tried to procure your pictures to tell you how you could make yourself more attractive to men (in a different entry). This is incorrect. Here is my statement:
Nowhere is it implied in the above statement that I could help you attract more men by telling you how to make yourself more attractive. Therefore, there is simply no contradiction at all. In case you haven’t figured out the most obvious manner in which I could help you, I had planned on doing it by posting your pictures, not by advising you about altering your looks.
Besides, the description vs. prescription issue was specifically that describing what is in the best interests of women interested in heterosexual men is not to say that these women should do anything. Additionally, if an individual woman were specifically interested in a prescription regarding how she could improve her looks and sought it from me, my advising her as an individual would not in any way be contradicting the assertion that the description in the specific entry you have referenced is in any way a prescription.
Don’t accuse me of harboring malicious agendas and failing in scientific methodology/logic without justifying it. Do not comment here unless you are willing to comply with the rules for a reasonable debate.
So central and northern
Euopean women are generally masculine in build? How are they different from
Eastern European and southern European women?
I'm of Swedish,German-Austrian,Norwegian descent. I'm built just
the opposite of Heidi Klum. I'm tall and big boned like
a Germanic woman. But in large femminine boned. Not in Heidi Klum's way at all. My bust is 341/12-35- waist is 251/2 my hips are 42. I see al ot of central northern
European woman built like me.
Here are osme women in my opinion who are also beautiful feminine all way. Brigitte Bardot
Hedy Lamarr
http://images.google.com/images?svnum=10&um=1&hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&safe=a...
Grace Kelly
http://images.google.com/images?svnum=10&um=1&hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&safe=a...
Audrey Hepburn
http://images.google.com/images?svnum=10&um=1&hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&safe=a...
http://midnighttosix.typepad.com/midnight_to_six_rare_vide/images/bardot...
http://www.leninimports.com/bardot_gallery_21.jpg
http://www.leninimports.com/brigitte_bardot_gallery_37.jpg
http://www.thegoldenyears.org/bardot.jpg
Elizabeth Taylor
http://images.google.com/images?um=1&tab=wi&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=elizabeth+t...
Elisabeth: Who has said that central and northern European women are generally masculine in build? These regions are filled with plenty of feminine-looking women. Northern, eastern and central European women are closer to each other than they are to southern European women (except for North Italians who are disproportionately of northern and central European descent). Whereas women north of southern Europe tend to be taller and heavier boned, they also, on average, have finer facial features, larger breasts and a higher incidence of your awesome waist-to-hip ratio.
One of the points of this entry is that Heidi Klum is described as a German beauty, but this is a disgrace to German beauty as you should very well know.
most of the women you are tearing down do not have implants, and ironically almost ALL of the women you exalt have huge implants!! Are you not aware of this?? 'natural' figures I think not...
I think Heidi looks great! I am naturally thin, too--with large natural breasts--I don't look out of porportion! Heidi does not either! I am not against fatter models, but the ones you picked are just oridinary looking girls with implants (except the last one who has no breasts) that you got from some porn website!! EXPLOITING YOUNG GIRLS!! --people also do not want to see yellow teeth!
Saskia: I usually avoid women with breast implants. An advantage of using nude models is that you get to see them bare-breasted from multiple angles, and it is typically clear who has breast implants and who doesn’t. Dana Benn does not have breast implants and it does not appear that Maria above has them either.
Whereas slender women can have naturally large breasts, the odds are low if the woman also happens to be masculine. Once again, if you look at this picture of Heidi Klum, it is obvious that her breasts are out of proportion with the slenderness and masculinization elsewhere. Additionally, the pictures here leave no doubt that Heidi Klum got breast implants at some point.
None of the three women that are properly contrasted with Heidi Klum -- Dana Benn, Maria A., Renee -- have been taken from porn sites. Renee is taken from a site that displays women inserting artificial objects inside their private parts but nothing more extreme...you may consider it to be porn, but the women are volunteering and not being exploited. As far as yellow teeth are concerned, this is an exaggeration, and you have to consider that the low-profile sites featuring nude models typically do not have the resources and couldn’t be bothered with getting a professional artist to airbrush sparkling white teeth on to the pictures.
"Renee is taken from a site that displays women inserting artificial objects inside their private parts"
..and that is not porn? wow, does the whole white power worship thing make you crazy and delusional? lolz.
pornography: any sexually explicit writing and/or picture intended to arouse sexual desire.
btw:
that beautyanalysis.com site is totally rite. and u r totally wrong.
white powerz, yay neonazism,
8D
8D: Your definition of pornography is so inadequate that regular Hollywood movies with sex scenes or pictures of bikini-clad women in provocative poses (some would consider it sexually explicit) will qualify as pornography. A proper definition must include “uncensored depiction of sexual behavior.” As far as artificial object insertions at the FTV girls site goes, this is fake sexual behavior and not readily classifiable as pornography, though some would consider it pornography.
Quit posting this “white power” stuff. I know that you have a morbid fascination with it, but this is not the place where you should be letting others know about it.
Is the beauty analysis site right because you say so? What are the reasons Marquardt is right and I am wrong? Marquardt’s mask is that of a masculinized woman, and it also has a problem with mandibular profile, nasion placement and earlobe proportions...the mask is simply invalid.
Wow, you seem reasonably intelligent and eloquent at times and totally nonsensical at others. Most of the time that you show a picture and say someone has "obvious augmentation", the image is very very far from convincing. A few facts you need to consider:
-ALL professional fashion photos are HEAVILY photoshopped, ESPECIALLY in the breast/cleavage area
-virtually ALL professional fashion photography involves HOURS of work using make-up, lighting, padding, tape, to sculpt the body to fit the popular image.
-women's breast sizes can change a great deal with age and weight, several cup sizes is not uncommon
-implants are generally pretty obvious to see: our medical skills at plastic surgery just aren't there yet, particularly in the area of breast implants. At "best" (ie most natural looking), you can get something like Dita von Teese. Implants can look somewhat natural when either fully clothed, or when fully nude (they have to be really good ones though, and photographed correctly). It's VERY difficult for fake breasts to look at all natural when in a bikini, as the tightness tends to push the implant against the skin on one side or another.
Just for starters, you posted two links to pics of heidi klum above. In one, theres an image of her with very small breasts on the left and larger ones on the right. It's not proof of anything. On the left, she's clearly 10 or even _15_ years younger than on the right (she's 34 now). On the left, she's wearing a rather simple unflattering bikini top, and on the right, its a very tight one, possibly even with padding. On the left, she's probably a lot thinner too (she was very thin in her early modeling days, much less so now). And maybe most importantly, do you not realize, genius, that she has had THREE CHILDREN and the picture on the right looks fairly recent, ie post-birth. The other heidi klum pic, well, I don't even know what to say. I just don't see a shred of a hint of implants in it. The left pic has definitely had the side of her breast photoshopped a bit to emphasive the curve, and the right pic is just completely normal.
In another section you posted "obvious nose job proof" of gisele bundchen. I'm not saying she hasnt had a nose job, she kinda looks like she might've, but the pic is the worst proof available for two reasons: the "before" pics are both at a more frontal angle, without make-up, and candid shots (ie probably without any/much photoshopping, notice they didn't even remove the freckles, which is usually the case). The "after" pics are BOTH from a more profile view (which will obviously diminish the width of the nose and emphasive the pointiness), BOTH with heavy make-up, and both professional fashion photos (ie definitely photoshopped).
Furthermore you post this gigantor chick, Dana for example, saying "oooh its ooobvious who is better suited as a lingerie model". Well, I've never seen a lingerie catalogue use a tubby EEE boob-sized model like Dana, while heidi klum and similar models are in every lingerie catalogue. That alone is proof enough that you are quite alone in your opinion. Dana looks pretty horrible in the lingerie pictures, while Klum makes me run to the lingerie store and spend $200 on presents for my wife. Dana simply cannot carry clothes at all, her body is just way too outta control. She would make a horrible lingerie model. Proven by the fact that people don't use women like her for lingerie catalogs.
You need to look into how fashion photography is done.
One of your dumbest mistakes and greatest proofs of your lack of having an eye for whats real and whats fake is the fact that the second large picture, of heidi klum baring her breasts, is a total FAKE, even a 15-year old pimply teenage boy can see that. It's even a quite BAD fake, look at the zipper area of the sweater and the shape of the breasts. If you can't even see that, geez, stop pretending to be the expert.
SEE how heidi klum goes from post-birth sagginess to perky supermodel! (Hover mouse over image to see the original):
http://www.briandilg.com/imaging/projectRunway.htm
TREMBLE at the power of photoshop!
http://demo.fb.se/e/girlpower/retouch/retouch/index.html
Someone get this guy a clue, please.
Oh yeah and get over this "masculine/feminine" topic. What is your point with all that anyway? These days, slight masculinity is considered sexy and attractive, for the simple reason that men these days do like independent, stronger women. The wimpy housewife cooking in the kitchen and rearing the children just isn't considered hot anymore.
All you're proving with that whole topic, which you seem to be obsessed with (are you a closet homophobe?), is that masculinity in women is more popular these days than straight, pure femininity.
Just like slight femininity is popular in men.
Snafu: All professional fashion photos are not heavily airbrushed. Many fashion photographs comprise of pictures of models on the runway, taken by professional photographers. Do you believe they are airbrushing them all? Still photography aimed toward marketing campaigns/ads are most likely to be photoshopped, but many fashion shoots clearly reveal near-flat-chested women (and this is how they are in their candids, too). So what exactly about their breasts/cleavage has been photoshopped?
Agreed that still fashion photography usually involves laborious work, and that women’s breast size can change with age and weight, and that breast implants are usually easy to spot, but these points have nothing to do with your comment.
Let us go over the pictures suggesting that Heidi Klum has had breast implants at some point.
I also linked to evidence that Gisele Bundchen has had a nose job. The angles are not the same, but the pictures in conjunction with numerous others that I have shown plus candids that you could find on the internet show that her nose is more refined compared to her earlier self. If the candids and her professional photos, taken close to each other, consistently showed a nose shape difference, it could be assumed that her professional pictures typically show a digitally reduced nose, but this is not true. The first comparison at the link shows freckles in both pictures, though less on the right. I probably have larger versions of some of these pictures, and her picture on the lower right is likely a backstage picture.
You have failed to realize the context of posting Dana Benn’s pictures. The context is that Heidi Klum modeled for Victoria’s Secret in her early thirties, even shortly after giving birth. Therefore, one comparison involves a woman (Dana) with a mother’s looks, and Dana is better suited for lingerie modeling than mommy Heidi/older Heidi by virtue of being more feminine and curvaceous.
You ignored Maria A., who has the right physique for lingerie modeling. Using someone like Maria would be most appropriate, but masculinized women are often seen as lingerie models, and this reflects the influence of the homosexuals who dominate the fashion business, not what most people find appealing.
I didn’t comment on the breasts of Heidi Klum where she is shown bare breasted. I commented on her face. The fake-looking breasts do not suggest that the picture is a fake because there is evidence that Heidi has had breast implants, and competent artists would make the breasts look natural or substitute natural breasts. Do you have evidence that her face has been photoshopped to make it look more masculine? Note also that I usually censor the nipples because the educational message being imparted should not be sidelined by prurient desires, but didn’t bother doing this for this picture. Why? Obviously because the vast majority of people would not find the picture sexually appealing. This was the point of the picture, and it wouldn’t change even if the breasts looked natural.
Your example of post-birth sagginess to supermodel transformation is not relevant because I have not been using Heidi’s recent pictures or pictures from a very elaborate set up where a digital artist would be expected to come up with natural-looking breasts.
Read the intro and FAQ to understand the point of this website. What this site has shown is that masculinized women are popular with the dominant influences in the fashion world, not the general public. There are plenty of heterosexual men who like independent, strong women, but you only need to look at video game female characters to realize how heterosexual men would prefer them to look like.
I don't agree with your opinion on who is suited as a better lingerie model, I mean, these supermodels are promoting the product, not their bodies! if you use glamour models, everybody would be so distracted with their abnormally large boobs and crave over them rather than pay attention to the product which is why they spent millions for just a fashion show of it.
if they use supermodels like Heidi Klum, which, unlike that girl, who hasn't abnormally large boobs, they would be more alert on the product rather than her chest! ofcourse they would be distracted by the face in which "HEIDI KLUM!" is written all over it, but they would be more gladly buying the product!
plus, a high cheekbone means sophistication and beauty, if your face is just like some other girls, puffy, round and stuff, you'd just be normal, and, doesn't have much people to pay attention with (not that I'm saying other kinds of faces are ugly) but prominent high cheekbones, is just..... well, kind of nice isn't it? Angelina Jolie has high cheekbones, yet she doesn't look manly at all to me, Keira Knightely has, but she is just as femme as every girl.
lets just accept the taste of the one who picks.
Pwnee: The supermodels are supposed to be using their bodies to promote the products, but they don’t have the requisite bodies. I don’t believe that Dana Benn is anywhere close to an ideal choice for lingerie modeling, but I wanted to contrast older/mommy Heidi with a woman with maternal but more feminine looks. Something like Maria’s physique would be a good choice.
I agree that somewhat defined cheekbones help in the attractiveness department, but just compare Heidi to Maria overall and ask yourself who’s looks are better suited to a lingerie model? Both Angelina Jolie and Keira Knightley have a masculine element to their face, but Heidi beats them both and ends up as a high-profile lingerie model!
Erik-
I believe your theory--that homosexual men are drivers behind the female modeling industry, and because of their innate attraction for men tend to prefer women with like masculine features--has only reached halfway to completeness, and is flawed without a full analysis. Also, you do not offer any quantitative evidence or numerical survey that female modeling industrry is driven by and dominated by homosexual men; I will presume that is true (for your benefit).
The other half of a complete theory is its inverse and would be to analyze male models and their similarities to female features. Arguably, the average man does not look like a (top) male model, likewise, the average woman does not look like a (top) female model. Below is Mathias Lauridsen, who apparently is the #1 current male model. Next to the image is Alessandra Ambrosio. Their faces are strikingly similar in shape, angles and feature placement "...With high cheekbones, facial narrowing, low-set brows and an angular jawline..." As a student of plastic surgery, "facial" beauty in general is defined in those aformentioned qualities (you defined, http://www.femininebeauty.info/sexy.fashionmodels.1.htm). It is incorrect to say that these features pertain to male-only attributes and if females have those attributes then they are "...unambiguously masculinized." Vice-versa with female-only attributes (less anatomic features: breasts, pectorals, etc.). These female models who have chosen to compare ahve qualities what society has deemed as beautiful. Likewise, it is the same qualites that deem male models as beautiful. Irregardless of the claim that the modeling industry is driven by homosexual men.
http://models.com/model_culture/50topmalemodels/images/mattgu1.jpg
AnalyzeThis: There is an article that mentions many of the biggest labels in the fashion business, and they were established by homosexual men. The aforementioned article took a lot of the information from a special issue of The Advocate, which is a major publication catering to the GLBT community, and this special issue proudly acknowledged the gay domination of the fashion business. I also cited an NY times article on the gay domination of the fashion business.
Male high-fashion models tend to have faces that are normal to masculine with respect to masculinity-femininity, but their physiques often lean toward those of boys in their late adolescence. So you see the influence of male homosexuals there, too, but the homosexuals obviously cannot get away with using males that look like boys in their early adolescence.
Whereas cheekbone placement, face width, eyebrow position and jawline contour are relevant to beauty, “high cheekbones, facial narrowing, low-set brows and an angular jawline” are not the elements of facial beauty in women as far as most people are concerned, and whereas any of these features by themselves will not make a face look masculine, their combination, as in Alessandra, will.
If your claim is true, your sweeping generalization is false. The 8 of the 9 guys behind me watching college football--who are all heterosexual men--prefer the looks of the "masculinized" female lingerie models you chose to compare. A second poll was taken and 9 of the 9 guys stated that if they worked in the modeling industry--replacing homosexual men that currently dominate it--they would choose the exact same women the homosexual men did--there is no difference here..based purely on sexual orientation (homo/bi or hetero). If you can offer a larger panel (than my 9) with contradicting evidence, then please do so. And if you do find something (unlikely), then I suppose we're all unaware of our homosexuality.
Go USC!!!
oh, and along with the female masculinized lingerie models we'd like to get with are these fine ladies...
Eirk--
This article completely disproves your entire site on what is deemed attractive to heterosexual males. As a true scientific researcher, I advise that you shouldn't make starkingly broad generalizations without scientific studies or evidence to back you up. Also, it's not a good idea to refer to yourself as a reference--that's just hearsay in the scientific world. Although, you make a convincing attempt at it with supporting references, it's nearly laughable.
The real psychology is that it's hard for you to come to grips with the truth of the fallacy of your site because you have obviously devoted a lot of time to this theory. And I expect that you will continue to do so. Just as the stubborn as the 2004 Bush voters who maintain their support for him. The misconception of your site results from clearly incorrect reasoning. Credit must be given, however, for bringing up a rather interesting, yet false, hypothesis. Thanks for stimulating my mind for a moment.
Eyes Can't Resist Beautiful People
The study is detailed in the September issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
Whether we’re looking for someone to date or sizing up a potential rival, our eyes irresistibly lock on to good-looking people, a new study finds.
Participants, all heterosexual men and women, fixated on highly attractive people within the first half-second of seeing them. Single folks ogled the opposite sex, of course. But those in committed relationships more often eyed beautiful people of the same sex.
“If we’re interested in finding a mate, our attention gets quickly and automatically stuck on attractive members of the opposite sex,” explained study leader Jon Maner of Florida State University. “If we’re jealous and worried about our partner cheating on us, attention gets quickly and automatically stuck on attractive people of our own sex because they are our competitors.”
Maner's research is based on the idea that evolution has primed our brains to subconsciously latch on to signs of physical attractiveness in others, both to find a mate and to guard him or her from potential competitors.
But this evolutionary trick is not without potential romantic peril. Even some people in committed relationships had trouble tearing their eyes away from attractive members of the opposite sex. On the other hand, fixating on attractive people of the same sex as rivals could contribute to feelings of insecurity.
Maner found that men prone to jealousy kept a close eye on attractive potential rivals.
“When it comes to concerns about infidelity, men are very attentive to highly attractive guys because presumably their wives or girlfriends may be too,” he said.
Maner's experiments, which flashed pictures of attractive men and women and average-looking men and women in front of participants and measured the time it took to shift their attention away from the image, surprisingly showed little difference between the sexes.
“Women paid just as much attention to men as men did to women,” Maner said.
____________________________________________________
Support article below, implies "masculinized" characteristics based on their simplicities compared to feminized characteristics (which in the plastic surgery world are more complex) are preferred among most people.
Beauty Boils Down to a Simple Average
By Sara Goudarzi, LiveScience Staff Writer
posted: 28 September 2006 08:35 am ET
Johnny Depp may be easy on the eyes, but in reality he is just easy on the mind, a new study suggests.
While eyes are the vehicles for receiving visual images, the brain decides how attractive those images are. Attractiveness appears to be related to how easy you can wrap your brain around a face.
"A stimulus becomes attractive if it falls into the average of what you've seen and is therefore simple for your brain to process," said study author Piotr Winkielman, of the University of California, San Diego. "In our experiments, we show that we can make an arbitrary pattern likeable just by preparing the mind to recognize it quickly."
The average effect
Often times, we are shocked when someone who appears quite average is deemed beautiful by society. This phenomenon, known as the beauty-in-averageness effect, was illustrated by previous research in which a composite of 16 faces—essentially an average of all those faces—was deemed more favorable than any of those faces individually.
Prototypes are easy for the brain to process as measured by the speed with which people are able to characterize what they're looking at, the researchers suggest in the current issue of the journal Psychological Science.
"What you like is a function of what your mind has been trained on," Winkielman said.
Why the typical rule
An explanation behind why the average beauty gets a second look is that averageness is a sign of health and fitness—a quality that attracts the opposite sex for successful breeding. Unusually protuberant eyes might be a clue to disease, for example—and so is a kind of shorthand for the value of a potential mate, the researchers said.
But this explanation fails when it comes to inanimate objects or animals of other species that provide no mating potential for humans.
Winkielman and colleagues set up an experiment in which they used objects free of reproductive benefits: dots and geometric patterns. They prepared each participant's brain by getting them used to a prototype and then asked them to rate variations of the same pattern.
"As predicted, participants categorized patterns more quickly and judged them as more attractive when the patterns were closer to their respective prototypes," the researchers write. "Critically, the less time it took participants to classify a pattern, the more attractive they judged it."
The researchers repeated the experiment but this time hooked up electrodes to the faces of the participants to detect if they smiled or frowned when they saw the images. Once again, images that were similar to the prototypes induced a more positive response.
"The mental mechanism appears to be extremely simple: facilitate processing of certain objects and they ring a louder bell," Winkielman said. "This parsimonious explanation accounts for cultural differences in beauty—and historical differences in beauty as well—because beauty basically depends on what you've been exposed to and what is therefore easy on your mind."
Tom and Crew: The proper comparison in the article above is Heidi Klum vs. Maria. There is no way most heterosexual men are going to prefer the looks of Heidi Klum to Maria’s, and the evidence for this can be found in numerous journal citations (featuring a panel of judges >> 9) within this site.
Your USC ladies will all be rejected by the homosexual designers for being too fat, among other things.
Analyze This: I don’t see how your referenced articles refute my arguments. The article titled “Eyes Can’t Resist Beautiful People” cites evidence for quick judgment of beauty. I haven’t said that it takes a long time to judge someone’s attractiveness. Your next article, “Beauty Boils Down to a Simple Average,” cites evidence that averageness is a correlate of beauty, which does not translate to your misinterpretation that masculinization is a correlate of beauty given that in the plastic surgery world it is less complex than feminization.
A long time before you left your comment, I cited a meta-analysis (analysis of multiple studies) that reported averageness being a correlate of beauty. This meta-analysis also showed that as far as most people are concerned, the extent of femininity is a much more powerful correlate of beauty than having average features, and most people strongly prefer above average femininity in women (not masculinization). Your interpretation is clearly incorrect.
It is obvious that there is a conflict between both averageness being a correlate of beauty and some forms of deviation from the average being a correlate of beauty, but this simply means that there are bounds to the extent of deviation from the average that will remain beautiful.
The interpretation of averageness in the second article is naïve. Whereas easier processing can partly explain a preference for averageness, there are other reasons such as avoidance of outbreeding depression, and as the meta-analysis shows, beauty does not boil down to a simple average. There is yet another major correlate of facial beauty that you will encounter within the section that addresses aesthetics in international beauty pageants, namely placement along the ancestral-to-derived discriminant, which again is about deviating from the average on multiple counts.
What do you mean by referring to myself? If there is an argument that others have not made or one doesn’t know that others have made it, then it is acceptable to cite one’s own previous arguments on the topic.
haha holy shit, is this a joke?
posting softcorn porn of fat trashy hookers, saying they're beautiful?
.. what the fuck? ahahahahha google serves me well
Gretta: It looks like a joke to you? Ignore Dana Benn; she is just there to provide a maternal-looking comparison. Does Maria, the woman used for the main comparison, look fat? Maria and the other two women are nude models, not “hookers.”
Heidi Klum is far from masculine, in the *one* picture you have to say she looks drag queenish it's pretty obviously the, well, dragish makeup. The eyebrows are too dark and go out too far and the false eyelashes just add to that.
Her face/body is much more attractive than all of your porn girl examples. "Dana" is almost laughable for the fact you believe she is better suited for lingerie modeling than Heidi Klum.
Bored surfer: Heidi's make-up is making her look more feminine than she is. The masculine look is the result of her face shape. Regarding Dana, if one had to use a mother/a woman who looks like a mother for lingerie modeling, then Dana is more suitable than mommy Heidi. In reality, a woman like Maria would be the right choice. I mostly avoid porn girls. Maria, Dana and Renee are nude models.
Yeah... the second photo is a fake.
Heidi Klum ist ein mann ! http://www.femininebeauty.info/images/smileys/shock.gif
http://imgboot.com/images/Lammero/heidiklum.jpg
I mean... a handsome fellow http://www.femininebeauty.info/images/smileys/gulp.gif
heidi klum is so hot
she makes me masturbate
awyes
Erik......You really find that melone boobs hookers are pretty?? lol
Just to offer some support for the guy who wrote this article - I too find Dana Benn FAR more attractive than Heidi Klum. And I feel mildly offended when people claim that nobody would want to look at or look like Dana Benn, or even that she looks gross(!). She's clearly a more than average attractive girl, if it's at all possible to say anything objective about such a thing. I can understand that she's not to everyone's taste, but people should realize that that's just their subjective view, and that it would not be unnatural to find her very beautiful and sexy.
As for the rest of the claims made made in the text... *shrug*. I didn't really read it that closely, and I have no opinion about the fashion industry. (Except that it's obviously homo.)
What I do not like that is this site ridicule and make the embrassment of the fashion models. erik, u have your right to do anything to preserve white people but why should u do like this by ridicule the other people?
such as heidi klum and Giselle, how can u say that they do not have the typical classic european face? they are not european then? well, u can not judge that they look bad like other race and do not fit european beauty? This not fair when any women are notlook the same way u like u said they are not classical european beauty? and then which look the same way u like then u say they have classic european face??
all nations have their positive side and negative side.
many people find fashion models are attactive and prettier than your glamour models because the fashion models look more like the active and intelligent women,take care of themselves well,and exersize their body, eat the nutrition food.
the body like heidi klum is not what every girls can effort to have.
Erik, I think it's a kind of biase to say aishwarya rai and heifa is overweight? why don't u use the word to mention them as curveous then? whenever, your model, Dana Benn seems to look very much fatter than aish and heifa don't u see?
I Think Heidi is attractive and Alessandra too...only too thin, wich makes their face look more masculin (you can see their bones trough their skin). I agree with your opinion about Giselle and Kate. But I don't understand whats masculin about Adriana Lima's face...(maybe her body is that). In summary I didnt get to know what makes you think somebody is feminine...the ideals were always different in every generation. Just watch some paintings from the past...do you think Mona Lisa's face is feminine? Or Rubens paintings...fat, small breasted women...
I strongly agree about your points about feminine beauty- I'm a hetero female, and I find hourglass figures VERY appealing, if I saw a woman on the beach with a small waist and genrous round hips I would be appreciative of the aesthetic appeal it has, more than a bony girl with a large waist.
But after reading a while from this site, it makes me even more self-conscious. I will never have a small waist or small rib cage. The problem is with men. They should learn to look past that- women are not to blame if they are born larger than others, they still want to feel attractive and loved, or they will go through their lives miserable, thinking they are unfairly missing out because of their genes. And yes, I feel miserable sometimes, but lets stop rubbing it in, eh?
I would have to say that most of the negativity I've see in this page has been from women towards women. Some women have wider ribcages than others. Some have less fat. Some get breast implants. Get over it! There is no definitive "attractive" benchmark and everyone is different. Obviously Heidi Klum must be doing something right, she's still working isn't she?
Ok... so i've been following this article for quite some time. For the record, I am a young straight man. Quite frankly, the women on here that are posting to knock down other women, GET OVER IT... don't be jealous just because they make their living looking good... I mean, what's the point in bashing down victoria secret models? Does it make you feel better about yourself when you're rudely mocking the profession of some of the most revered women in the world? Like i said, get over the fact that YOU didn't get to do this... As for the women on this site who are ridiculing men for idolizing these beautiful women, again, stop being jealous! Not all men are so shallow as to expect ONLY this for a women when they get married. I'm not going to lie, it's a nice dream, but dreams are only called dreams because they aren't reality. So if you are a woman who thinks that a man won't love you because you don't look like this, YOU are wrong. YOU Are the ones who are at fault, not the men because YOU are the ones lying to yourselves... In my life I have learned to look past the superficial beauty of women who think they NEED to be beautiful, and instead I look for NATURAL beauty. If I am one man who can look for this, I know there are probably MORE men who DO look for this. So women, stop giving up so easily and stop disrespecting these models and their profession. I would love to go head to head with any stubborn woman who disagrees with me on anything I've said, because I am up for the challenge to prove to you that not all men are looking for carbon copies of the women on these pages.
Thanks for your time,
-Eric
P.S. men on this site... I know what you're doing... go get a real girlfriend... >.>
Heidi looks like a man end of story.
like omg you are truly disturbed!
I see you just have a different taste than the majority of ppl in this world, that is all!
you are putting up pictures of Heidi and girls who cannot even compare in beauty to her! while I don't think heidi is the most beautiful, she definitely is not manly! this is crazy.
you are putting Heidi up next to some real "beauties" lemme tell ya! haha my eyes first automatically go straight to Heidi's face before these averaged faced looking girls!
in fact, hieidi;s features may not be the best but her bone structure is out of this world amazing! that is what I love about her face. she has very beautiful bone structure. so when did it become beatiful to have a face like playdo, just put together fast. sculpted faces look like a work or art and that God spent a little more time on their faces (thus why these women become supermodels and every man wants to date them and every girl wants to look like them!
you cannot even become a model unless you have bone structure and abnormally high cheekbones, thats what sets models apart from the rest of the average girls in this world, they actually have faces that look so sculpted and beautiful and so perfectly well put.
your point is not proven bc I think most people coming on here are going to think Heidi is a 10 while these other girls you are posting look like Heidis poop
those women you picked to compare heidi ith are just gross , the first one especially , i would never turn my head for such a 'woman' and she actually looks like a man - like a drunk rednosed , fat man with hair yuck... heidi looks much more feminine , a real woman should be fragile , not a fat assed and cow-titted whore looking creature.