The transsexual parade otherwise known as the Victoria’s Secret lingerie show: part 1

zuzana has an amazing body--i am wicked jealous right now. i looked her up-- and you know they lie about her meaasurements on line--all over-claiming she is a 34dd-25-34. yeah sure---more leik 32ddd-23-26. that is my guess. i think they try to masculinze ehr measuremets even. supposedly the average playboy model in the fifties was 37-23-36. so shouldn't this girl be about the same? i think she is short, maybe 5.3/5.2, but i think her body should still be comparable.

Seriously who fives a fuck if she is or not.. What does it matter? You people are so judgmental and stupid.. Get over it.. At least she made it .. Thats all that matter. So stop critisizing her you pathetic foolish ignorant humans UGH you make me sick

Laura: If masculine women with fake breasts are being used when feminine ones are required, you are looking at a big aesthetics disaster from the perspective of the general public, especially lovers of feminine beauty. More importantly, the criticism here is not about the looks of Karolina Kurkova but the circumstances/people that have led to her modeling lingerie in a high profile setting. I have nothing against the looks of Karolina Kurkova or anything else about her, but she is unsuitable for lingerie modeling, and it is not possible to point out her unsuitability without resorting to an analysis such as above.

Different ppl have diff taste, some ppl might actually like wat u all hate, so ur not speaking for everyone.

-I agree with Rachel. Also, I know more women with charateristics similar to the runway models than the women you are posting. Remember that models aren't really meant to just please men, they are to model clothing that normal women might want to buy. I, personally, would rather see clothing on a woman with charateristics similar to mine than some girl from a porn site.

-Plus, you're critizing parts of models that they were born with(broad ribcage, broad shoulders, ect). They're just playing the cards they were dealt and deserve to be as beautiful and successful as the feminine girls.

Please respond; I would hate to think that my impression of this site is how it's really supposed to be:)

Rachel: There is no pretence here that everyone is being spoken for. The issue is lingerie modeling. The great majority of people will agree that manly women with fake breasts are not appropriate as lingerie models; look at evidence that the general public strongly and overwhelmingly prefers above average femininity in women. The male homosexual fashion designers that select manly lingerie models have their own [anomalous] preferences; they are not willing to tolerate anything beyond the minimum amount of femininity that it takes to get the job done. If this minimum femininity can be achieved via fraudulent means, namely breast implants and posing tricks, then the homosexuals will gladly avoid feminine models.

Daniella: Most women, like most men, prefer above average femininity in the looks of women; see the link cited in my reply to Rachel. Therefore, if the selection of fashion models is based on the central tendency of public preferences, then the central tendency among fashion models would be to manifest above average femininity, but this is far from the case. On the other hand, this entry is not about modeling fashion wear; it is about lingerie. As per the discussion toward the beginning of this entry, there is no way the use of manly women with fake breasts can be justified for lingerie modeling unless it is from the perspective of a very atypical minority, which in our case comprises of the gays that dominate the fashion business.

Besides, the source of the pictures of the woman that Karolina Kurkova is compared to, Zuzana, is irrelevant; what matters is how Zuzana looks and that Zuzana’s looks are appropriate for lingerie modeling.

Once again, the criticism here is not about the looks of Karolina Kurkova but the circumstances/people that have led to her modeling lingerie in a high profile setting. Yes, Karolina was born masculinized, but she is not appropriate for high profile lingerie modeling anymore than someone born with poor athletic ability has any business participating in a high profile athletic competition.

I don't really know so much if Karolina Kurova is inappropriate for modeling lingerie for Victoria Secret along with the rest of the Victoria Secret models. Most of the women you show on your site possessing 'feminine beauty' are glamour models and look most appropriate in a 'Hustler' setting - one that would appeal to men instead of women, not every woman would like to have her sexiness associated to the likes of Tara Patrick or Jenna Jamison. Because of that association, for them [glamour models] to be modeling lingerie in a marketing scheme to women would be...to put it plainly, kind of disgusting. High fashion gives the impression of sophistication, and so that is also the impression of Victoria Secret lingerie in their choice of using high fashion models. And that 2nd picture of Zuzana on the right does look a little transvestite based on my experience of being friends with many.

Chris: Your comment shows a complete failure to understand the argument. It would be obviously inappropriate for Victoria’s Secret to use nude models, let alone the porn stars that you have mentioned, as lingerie models. The point is that the company needs to use feminine models. The purpose of this series is to point out the inadequate femininity -- as far as the job is concerned -- of many Victoria’s Secret models by contrasting them with women having the requisite feminine appearance. At this time, one has little choice other than sourcing examples of women with feminine physiques from mostly nude models.

Whereas the nudity of the nude women in the attractive women section is appropriate in a “Hustler setting” but not lingerie modeling, dress women with their looks in lingerie, and they will be well suited to lingerie modeling.

Since a male transvestite is a cross-dressing man, something is wrong with your perception if you believe that there is a transvestite element to the looks of Zuzana. Zuzana has sharp gonial angles and a narrow face, which prevent her face from looking very feminine, but it has already been noted that the face is not that important in the context of lingerie modeling; Zuzana has not been added to the attractive women section of this site.

I feel as though you have it in for the LGBT community; you speak like someone scorned. Tell me, why is it that you hate homosexuals and transgendered women? Obviously, you have many insecurities about your own femininity and choose to take it out on the LGBT community, for whatever reasons...just know that transgendered women are women too and deserve just as much respect. You seem to use transgendered women as a sort of "ugliness" standard, which is completely false in many cases and perpetuates a negative stereotype.

Daniel: What makes you think that I hate homosexuals and male-to-female transsexuals? Male-to-female transsexuals do not generally look like feminine women. Even the rare few that have managed to acquire a feminine face after extensive facial feminization surgery have not been able to do much about their manly hands, waist-hip proportions, etc. If there are Victoria's Secret models who resemble male-to-female transsexuals, then I don't see how pointing this out portrays the latter as some kind of "ugly" standard. Please understand that ugliness refers to physical defects and abnormalities, which are not present among the likes of Ms. Kurkova or the typical male-to-female transsexual.

Firstly, let me say, there are many good things about this website. It points out the short-comings of high fashion models (and there are many) and tries to bring forth a more positive image of women. With that said, you come off as insensitive to transsexual women in that you use the term "transsexual" in a disparaging way...if your intention wasn't to be insulting to transsexuals, why then would you call the Victoria's Secret fashion show a "transsexual parade"? Couldn't you simply state that these women too are masculine? I see what you're saying and your intention probably was not to be offensive, but you are, seeing as the premise of this website is "masculine women are bad" and transsexuals are "masculine women" so by extension, "transsexuals are bad". As for the homosexuals, I stand firm in my belief that you're homophobic, especially since when you're trying to explain the prevalence of homosexuality, you link to a website that is extremely homophobic, and if you're truly not homophobic, then i suggest you take down that link.

Daniel: This website is partly concerned with pointing out the masculinization of high-fashion models rather than their shortcomings in general. This site is not about bringing forth “a more positive image of women,” but about promoting feminine beauty among models and beauty pageant contestants. It is not the premise of this site that “masculine women are bad,” but that masculinized women are not appropriate in some settings such as high-profile lingerie modeling. Therefore, there is no implication, by extension, that “transsexuals are bad”. I don’t believe there is anything within this site that is “trying to explain the prevalence of homosexuality.” Regarding the “homophobic” site I have referenced to back up some assertions, the burden of proof is on you to justify the “homophobia” allegation by showing that the referenced arguments are based on prejudice rather than facts or else your accusation will remain baseless.

You are all a bunch of mindless idiots. The definition of beauty has evolved with time. These porn models look more like paintings and sculptures you see from the ancient world when being fat was in. Well beauty just like everything else evolves to fit the current aesthetic. In modern times people obviously prefer a slender toned body as opposed to a lumpy one with huge pendulous utters. This you see is not the current aesthetic. No one wants to see a fat cow walking down the runway. The focus should be on the clothing not the cellulite. I guarantee you if you were to have a poll over who is more beautiful a Victoria's Secret model or a porn star 90% of the population would say the Victoria Secret model. If this were not true MEN'S magazines would'nt rate these women as the most beautiful in the world, which they are. One thing you all are forgetting to talk about is symmetry, supermodels are symmetrical and these women whom you all seem to think should be the models are asymmetrical and the very defintion of mediocrity. Their bodies are boring and unshapely and their faces are extremely common and lack luster. And by the way, there are MANY designers that are not gay males, I can name tons, yet you still have these so called "masculine" models on their runways. So quit diluting yourselves with ancient perceptions of beauty because things have changed. Also, these designers are all about money, if they thought that people looking at a fat woman would sell their clothing they would have them on their runway in 2 seconds. The point is NO ONE WANTS TO SEE THEM IN A FASHION OR LINGERIE show boincing down the runway like a bean bag. GET OVER IT!!!!!!!!!

I wonder why Hally seems so angry. Is she one of those people whose figure is like that of a high fashion model? I don't think the perception of beauty in the female figure has evolved much, if it has indeed evolved. As presented in some pages in this site, there is overwhelming evidence that heterosexual men prefer more feminine figures - up to now; almost all of the heterosexual men I personally know most certainly do.

Hally: Zuzana and Anna are not porn models; just nude models. Fat was “in” in the ancient world? You will generally not see overweight women among Greek sculptures and figures from ancient Egypt. Most female figurines from Neolithic Europe depict normal body fat levels, too.

Zuzana and Anna are not “fat cows” by a long shot unless you are referring to the preferences of gay fashion designers, and where do you see cellulite on them? There are also plenty of feminine and attractive women shown within this site without anything approaching “huge pendulous utters,” but they will not be used for lingerie modeling by Victoria’s Secret, let alone high-fashion modeling.

Your perception is seriously warped if you believe that nine-tenths of the population would prefer manly fashion models to feminine and attractive women. Given the prominence of fashion models and the obliviousness of many men to posing tricks, airbrushing and implants, it should not be surprising if some “sexy fashion models” end up well-ranked among Men’s magazines, but have them go through the Victoria’s Secret entries here as well as the rest of the site, and see how many lifetime-exclusive heterosexual men still have a favorable opinion of “sexy fashion models.”

Speaking of symmetry, there is nothing starkly distorted/asymmetrical about Zuzana or Anna. No rule says that masculinized women are more symmetrical.

Of course, there are plenty of non-gay designers, but it is the gays that dominate the top ranks and thereby set up the status quo, which others have to comply with. If gays dominate, then given the high desirability of designer clothing, they can easily get away with using models that people generally do not prefer; their sales would not suffer anymore than the use of unattractive women to sell soap will make people reduce their use of soap.

Listen, I definitely understand your logic here. But you have to take into account peoples differences in aesthetic. Not everyone is going to like women with a large backside and large breasts. Nature loves diversity so of course there is going to be a diverse range in body type and structure. People like different things, imagine how boring this world would be if only one type of woman or man was considered attractive. The definition of beauty most assuredly has evolved. If you were living in 16th century Europe you would prefer a very pale woman wearing a tall white wig with a fake mole on her face. Beauty changes, people change and the world changes and there is nothing wrong with that IT'S GREAT! I'm sorry if I sounded angry, it was'nt really my intention.

I meant 18th century not 16th lol

Hally: I have obviously taken into account differences in aesthetic preferences; this entry, along with others, contrasts the central tendency of the preferences of heterosexual men with the preferences of nonheterosexual (homosexual and bisexual) men. Whereas not all heterosexual men are necessarily into large breasts or large buttocks, they are into femininity. Femininity manifests in diverse forms, including women with small breasts; just go through the attractive women section. The most relevant example of the evolution of beauty over the past couple of centuries that you could provide would be one of shape, especially pertaining to masculinity-femininity, but the example you have chosen is of skin color. Depending on the amount of sun exposure, the three women above could be made to vary from pasty white to light brown, i.e., they do not differ on this count. It is true that pale skin was preferred in Europe in the 18th century, but then lower class people had to labor in the sun and got tanned, i.e., pale skin became associated with higher socioeconomic status. After industrialization, when most jobs moved indoors, lower class people became pale because of limited sun exposure and upper class people tanned because they could spend more time outside, i.e., a tan became associated with higher socioeconomic status. Therefore, the principle that a characteristic associated with higher socioeconomic status will be disproportionately preferred has remained; only the superficial manifestation of it has changed, and not permanently. With the cropping up of tanning salons, dihydroxyacetone and other fake tan technologies, tanned skin will increasingly become dissociated with socioeconomic status.

It's interesting how you say heterosexual men are ONLY attracted to (your perception of) a "feminine" woman. It's a big generalization to say that it's not in the realm of possibilities that a heterosexual man could be attracted to a high-fashion model's body and/or face. I agree with Hally that the world is diverse and that some men are attracted to certain aesthetics while some are not, and I don't think you can possibly speak for every heterosexual man out there as to their preferences. While yes, most men prefer a very feminine body and face, there are exceptions to the rule, and I think you should keep that in mind.

This site reminds me of Ted Kaczynski's (aka The Unibomber) manifesto:

http://www.courttv.com/trials/unabomber/manifesto/

You definitely have waaayyy too much time on your hands AND you are insane.

Veronica: Unlike Kaczynski, I am not hiding my name, am not doing anything criminal and have never been diagnosed with a mental illness.

Daniel: I have not implied what you have stated. If you look up the “sexy fashion models?” page, you will encounter the following:

In other words, I am acknowledging that some men who have narrowly escaped nonheterosexuality may find some level of masculinization in women appealing; these men have to be classified as heterosexual because they have not indulged in homosexual behavior or experienced same-sex attraction. I have also mentioned that a small minority of the majority group, i.e., lifetime-exclusive heterosexuals will have a preference for somewhat masculinized women. On the same page, I have mentioned that slight masculinization is a correlate of the sexiness of women to heterosexual men. Elsewhere, I have shown comparisons (e.g., 1, 2, 3, 4) and mentioned that the more masculine woman shown will be preferred by a number of heterosexual men because of her more European and finer facial features. Femininity is not the only correlate of beauty. I have seen some high-fashion models with fine and chiseled facial features, and notwithstanding their masculinization, their face is a work of art, and this will attract some heterosexual men, but heterosexual men will prefer a woman with above average femininity and fine facial features to a woman with below average femininity and fine facial features.

That's so funny!

Your so-called "feminine" girls are the ones that appear in porn mags and rapping monkey videos. It's the slender toned women that represent a more classy, high-end beauty worthy of victoria's secret, haute couture etc. Perceptions of beauty have changed, and most women would obviously rather belong in the 'slim and toned' category, rather than settle for the sloppy porn-worthy bodies. It's all about class -typically, men of low socio-economic status (largest group of porn viewers) will be attracted to the stumpy women with big 'booties' and flab because they are of equal status (ie. living off McDonalds and not exercising) While women who have the means, financially and intellectualy, to eat healthy and exercise will be more attractive to men of higher status. Women don't want to look hyperfeminine like pornstars, they want to have the more slim & elegant femininity (which you call transexual for some odd reason) and not be looked at by men in such a shallow way.

That's the sad thing. Voluptuous women end up in porn mags because they have naturally alluring figures. Yet, they are not being appreciated in the mainstream because of the gay fashion designers who dominate the industry.

Thin models were not chosen because thin equals classy. Thin certainly does not equal classy. They became classy because of the gay fashion designers' taste in models. You can ask any red-blooded heterosexual male around to see who they'd prefer.

Beauty has not evolved, honey. You should read some psychobiology researches on beauty. A lot are available on the internet.

Anna: Porn stars are generally masculinized women, not hyperfeminine ones since feminine women are less inclined toward promiscuity. The nude models shown above are not porn stars and Zuzana is not flabby by a long shot. Eating lots of “junk food” will not give you Zuzana’s physique, especially her tiny waist, since it will add fat in the abdominal region. If you go through the attractive women section of this site, you will encounter women who are mostly slim but still feminine because of their skeletal structures and sufficient fat where they need it in order to look feminine. Do not confound class with sexual orientation. Masculinized women do not end up as fashion models because upper class heterosexual men appreciate their looks but because homosexual men dominate the fashion industry.

I definatly prefer Karolina's tubular body to Zuzana's body with sharp curves even Karolina's face is more attractive than Zuzana's and I am a straight guy

you guys are so pathetic.. those "feminine" people you picked all look weak.. just like those poor little kittens.. nothing special about their faces, no flavor.

Thank you for explaining what is so very compelling about Karolina (and completely lacking in the feminine examples you cite). I guess that masculine features in a beautiful woman only accentuate what is feminine about her appearance. Karolina's look was once dubbed as "jolie-laide" in a Vogue article. This article reminded of that wonderful androgyny that you get in archaic and later Greek sculpture, Leonardo, etc.

Alina: If you find Karolina’s looks compelling, you are among a minority of humans. Most people do not expect to see masculine features in a beautiful woman nor would your comment about masculine features accentuating the feminine elements of appearance make any sense to most. Among past artists, DaVinci was a bisexual, Michelangelo was a homosexual and it is a safe bet that a number of the Greek artists who sculpted androgynous women were either homosexual or bisexual men or were conforming to a trend set up by a great homosexual/bisexual male sculptor.

Who CARES?! This is so pointless! Why are you worrying if these walking mannequins look like trannys, when you could be exposing bulimia in the modeling world or how these fashion models are impossible blueprints for young girls to mold their bodies into. This reminds me of my time hanging out with high school girls talking shit about other girls bodies .

Mako: There is extensive information on eating disorders within this site, including disorderd eating among fashion models. There is also an extensive discussion regarding why girls and women should not regard the looks of high-fashion models as an ideal worth emulating. You have apparently not looked around enough. Please read this site more thoroughly. As to why the masculinization of models such as Karolina Kurkova needs to be addressed, there are numerous reasons: aesthetics in various settings such as lingerie modeling, and the fact that the reason why high-fashion models are typically skinny becomes clearer/obvious when you address the masculinization among them, too.

I find Karolina and the other model attractive. I like models who are thin etc like Heidi Klum and Karolina Kurkova, just as much as girls with a round figure with large breasts and ass.

They are 2 different types of builds, both, for me, equally attractive!

for one thing lingerie models are not suppose to look like porn stars! and they aren't picked for what men find to be the most attractive or most sexual. WOMEN buy lingerie. models should be able to wear very little clothing and not look vulgar. i personally think that the models victoria's secret use are appropriate. with these girls everything is tight and in place and so it's not uncomfortable for women to look at. it's sexy without being graphic. if a woman is too soft, too "womanly" with very full breasts and bottom there is a limit to what they can wear without looking too revealing. when a woman is shaped like a victoia secret model she can wear pretty much nothing and it doesn't make anyone blush. i think that very voluptous woman are beautiful, but they are more problematic to photograph and they are going to look more sexually graphic which is not the point of a lingerie model....it's to sell the lingerie to women! which victoria secret is very good at btw. beauty has to do with symmetry and all beautiful faces have that in common. the most attractive men have some feminine features and vice versa....woman come in all shapes and sizes, and most body types are attractive if they are healthy. so get over how women "should be". sexuality is not as black and white and you want it to be. zuzana is someone who i would not notice the lingerie on, and i wouldn't want to buy it because i see her wearing it, i see her and it makes me think of sex or porn(i'm not saying she doesn't have a nice body)..not "oh that would be cute on me" or "i could wear that for my boyfriend"...victoria's secret models sexuality is not overwhelming, intrusive or threatening...but they are still pleasant to look at. that's why they make sense.

i used to work for a very famous victoria's secret photographer(he also did men's magizine GQ, Maxim), he was very straight and loved woman maybe even alittle too much....he worked with vs to find models, and lots of times he even solely chose who he wanted to shoot. so your argument that homosexuals are choosing the models is not valid. also i just wonder if you've ever seen any of the vs models in person. i'm saying if you've ever seen adriana lima in person there would be no way you could say she looks anything like a man, i think she'd make your heart almost stop. Alessandra is pretty. marissa miller has a rockin bod but her face is not gorgeous. giselle is the only one that looks the least bit masculine, and she's still beautiful in person. karolina is stunning because of her height and her hair, but i would agree that she is not really appropriate for lingerie, maybe just fashion and runway(but she is not masculine). I have seen alot of these models in person i can assure you these girls look like girls. but i also think that some of the girls aren't necessarily the best of the bunch either. i loved helena christensen, laetitia casta, Daniela Pestova, stephanie seymour...but finding anyone built like laetitia casta with as stunning of a face as hers is almost impossible. but even so most of these models if you see them in person will leave anyone weak in the knees. and 90% of the girls on your "attractive women" page wouldn't even turn a head. most of thier faces are either average or less than... definitely not the apitame of feminine beauty.
comparing zuzana to karolina is kinda of funny, knowing the ways of photography i can tell you that karolina's measurements are not that far from zuzana's if you took off her DD breasts (C's are actually the perfered size by the majority men). the differences between karolina's body and zuzana's are zuzana's obviously shorter, her legs are shorter..so they look a bit rounder. but their waist to hip ratio is about the same. karolina measurements are 33.5-23-34.5(i know this because i've seen it on her modeling card and they can't lie on those things, we use them for fittings) zuzana's is 34-25-34(and they wouldn't lie about that to make her waist bigger, smaller waists are always more desirable). and zuzana's butt is actually about the same size as karolina's, but the way she's posing makes it look bigger. she's arching her back and sticking out her butt with her legs spread, which is a very common pose with adult photography because it accentuates the butt and makes the waist look smaller. zuzana's giant breasts make her shoulders and waist look smaller than they actually are. you better believe that zuzana's pictures are using photoshop and posing to exagerate her feminine figure. if karolina was posing for an adult site and she had natural dd breast she probably would look even more feminine than zuzana. DD are not appropriate for lingerie modeling because alot of the bras they are selling don't even come in dd and the most common cup size is B (the girls gotta all be able to fit in the clothes). the only girls that look like transvestites are the ones that get so much plastic surgery and wear a ton of makeup like fergie for example(she's trying to exagerate her feminine sex appeal, which is also what transvestites do). when karolina is completely done up maybe she could look like a transvestite(that would be the makeup artists fault), but when she's natural and hanging around she just looks like a really pretty girl. also you pretty much have no sources(except your own opinion) for any of your claims..you have no polls or percentages of what heterosexual men prefer, no research even to back up anything you say. and i don't think the girls you find attractive look anymore feminine at all. from what i see what the girls you like have in common is not ultra feminine features but they all look very anglo-saxon, narrower faces, smaller eyes, pointy noses, thin lips, weak chins, and less than prominent cheek bones. i will say that laetitia casta is the ideal of feminine form and beauty.

Alicia: Zuzana and Anna are not porn stars. There are also plenty of masculinized female porn stars, too. Yes, women buy lingerie, but what for? To put a male partner in the mood. Your response regarding Zuzana’s body, “i see her and it makes me think of sex or porn” is just the kind of response a lingerie-wearing woman would want to generate in her male partner. Therefore, Zuzana’s physique would be appropriate for lingerie modeling.

There is a lot more to beauty than symmetry. Yes, women do come in all shapes and sizes, but this site is not saying how women “should be.” This entry is specifically about lingerie models, and it is argued that they are expected to look feminine and attractive.

Harper: So one heterosexual photographer undermines my argument that the influence of homosexuals is seen behind the selection of Victoria’s Secret models? I have not said that every single person doing the selection is a homosexual. The fact is that homosexuals dominate the top ranks of the fashion business, and their influence is clear when you see the general trend among fashion models. For every Laetitia Casta used by Victoria’s Secret, there are multiple clearly masculinized women used by this company. Laetitia Casta would also have been unlikely to be picked up by Victoria’s Secret if it came across her when she was virtually unknown, but she already had a name as a model for ready made clothing and the company doesn’t have a policy against occasionally using more feminine models.

Laetitia Casta isn't close to a feminine ideal. I do plan on addressing her looks later. Compared to the prominence of her breasts, her buttocks are flattened, and her shoulder-torso-hip proportions are not on the feminine side. There is also an element of robusticity in her facial features, but she doesn’t look masculine.

I have not seen VS models in person, and I doubt they look better in real life than in their glamorous airbrushed pictures (they usually look worse in their candids). I have never described Adriana Lima as looking like a man, but it is clear that she is not feminine. You may like Alessandra Ambrosio, but she isn’t feminine, either.

As far as the measurements of Zuzana and Karolina go, I usually don’t bother with measurements because it is difficult to verify them, but the pictures speak for themselves, and if one sees multiple pictures, then a reasonable inference of physique shape can be made in spite of a posing confound in many pictures. Let us assume that your listed bust-waist-hip measurements are correct for both models. Both women have 34-inch hips, but Karolina is about 6 inches taller and has wide hips, i.e., her buttocks are flatter. Therefore, there is no way Karolina’s buttocks would appear to be as prominent/feminine as Zuzana’s even if they were matched for posing. In spite of Zuzana’s arching her back and sticking out her buttocks, in the first such picture notice her small rib cage, which is responsible for a dramatic feminine look as in making her hips look relatively wider, something that is impossible for Karolina to achieve. Of course, posing is making Zuzana’s physique look more dramatic, but Karolina’s pictures shown are not in anatomical position either. As far as photoshop is concerned, Zuzana’s photos are taken from a low profile publication and are part of a multiple pictures (say 100) per photo series collection, i.e., it is unlikely that someone went through the trouble of photoshop-ing all relevant pictures to make Zuzana look more feminine and consistently so through all the pictures. Karolina’s pictures, except the ones taken on stage, are, on the other hand, most likely photoshopped. Based on your stated measurements, their bust circumference is similar, but Karolina had an A-cup before she got implants and Zuzana has a DD cup. Therefore, Zuzana’s rib cage is a lot smaller, which gives her physique a much more dramatic hourglass look. Slender fashion models usually have a low circumferential waist measurement, but they generally have a noticeably broader rib cage than feminine glamour models, which stretches out their waist in front view.

There is no way that “if karolina was posing for an adult site and she had natural dd breast she probably would look even more feminine than zuzana.” Look at Karolina’s face, her broad ribcage, her broad shoulders and her picture from Vogue magazine. There is a front view comparison above where Karolina’s busts are large, yet she doesn’t look feminine, let alone anywhere as feminine as Zuzana looks.

So DD-cup breasts “are not appropriate for lingerie modeling because a lot of the bras they are selling don’t even come in dd”? Most women would be unable to fit in the clothing worn by the typical high-fashion model, but then the looks of high-fashion models are not supposed to reflect the availability of commonly used dress sizes. Similarly, whereas it is true that the models need to fit in clothes, there is no reason why designers couldn’t specify that their lingerie models be in the C-cup to DD-cup range if they had an interest in using very feminine looking lingerie models.

You left comments about a transvestite look, but this is not what I am talking about; I am talking about a transsexual look. It appears that you have a preference for somewhat masculinized women, especially since you call the women in the attractive women section as weak chinned. Your claim that I have “no polls or percentages of what heterosexual men prefer, no research even to back up anything you say” is abundantly refuted by a great deal of research cited within this site; just follow the links here.

some women may buy lingerie to put a man in the mood, most women don't have trouble getting men to have sex with them...women buy lingerie for themselves because they like to have pretty things, i know this because i'm a girl who loves lingerie..and i work in a lingerie store. the majority of women that are buying the lingerie are buying because they think it's "so pretty" or "so cute"...most women know what their partners like yet women leave the store with very different things than when men buy lingerie. and NO most women do not want their partners thinking about porn when they are with them. porn is demeaning and vulgar, woman don't think of sex that way. i can tell you for sure women are the reason lingerie sells not men. and the main motivation for women buying lingerie is not to make men happy it's to make themselves happy, you obviously have no idea what you are talking about, or anything about women...why do you want to make everyone out to be homosexuals or almost homosexuals ("men who have narrowly escaped nonheterosexuality" )if they find any of these women attractive, which most men do. and if everything you are saying is true than why does victoria's secret do so much better than any other lingerie company. there are lingerie company's that use your taste in models, but they do the worst of them all. and victoria's secret marketing is the exact reason why they are successful, and the models they choose are automaticly successful. the majority of men and women think vs models are attractive and nice to look at in underwear, that's the only reason they are used...people like them and it moves merchandise period.

Alicia: Yes, most women don’t have trouble getting men to have sex with them, but not all women wait for their male partner to initiate lovemaking. There are times when some women feel the need to put a male partner in the mood when he would not normally be. This is when lingerie comes in handy. So the majority of women buy lingerie because they think it is “so pretty”? What do they plan on doing with the pretty stuff? Put it on for social gatherings? Hang it in the closet or on the wall? Put it on inside the home for relatives, guests, children, cooking food or gardening? You know the typical purpose. Your reference to the use of Zuzana as a lingerie model making men think of sex or porn is obviously supposed to be taken as a reference to sexual arousal of the male partner, which is the major goal of wearing lingerie. Therefore, what is the problem with using Zuzana?

What lingerie companies use feminine and attractive women as models? I am not aware of any. They all generally use masculinized women as far as I know, thanks to the gay domination of the fashion business (extends to lingerie business, too). Victoria’s Secret is the big one among them because its has the resources to pay big name fashion models to model for it; big names attract attention. In the absence of a feminine beauty alternative, Victoria’s Secret will do a decent job at sales. Don’t delude yourself into believing that the reason the likes of Karolina Kurkova are used is because most people find her hot. Show the entry above to most people and ask them how “hot” they think Karolina is. Karolina started out as a high-fashion model. Go through the top fashion models section of this site and ask yourself whether the top models are selected because they have the looks the public finds desirable in women. Read more of this site if you can’t answer this question.

first off, you keep saying that victoria's secret uses the models because off their big names, male mags and vs pretty much made all of their careers. with the exception of giselle they didn't get famous for their fashion where "gay men dominate" editorials or lack of..i'm an avid reader of fashion mags..most of the vs models, have never really been big in the fashion world, they are in men magazines, and beauty..that's about it. most of the vs girls don't have the bodies for fashion or runway, they are actually too curvy. btw lingerie companies aren't dominated by gay men, there are actually more successful female lingerie designers...the most popular companies are female owned...to name a few: Only Hearts owned and designed by helena stuart, Agent Provocateur by vivenne westwood, Coco De Mer by Sam Roddick, Trashy Lingerie creative director Bridget Silvestri, La Perla owner Anna Massotti, victoria's secrect v.p.creative marcia mossack. gay men defintely do not dominate the lingerie buisness. Gay men also do not dominate the beauty and men mag or vs or even fashion photography industry either. straight men dominate the photography world for sure....no question.

okay , you prove again you do not understand women or what drives their purchases. when a woman buys lingerie they are buying it implusively and they buy it with no plans at all past that they want. fantasy drives the purchases and not even sexual fantasy. the fantasy of walking out on her veranda facing the mediteranean sea in the morning feeling beautiful in silk and lace with a vanilla latte in hand, or the fantasy of laying in bed in a bungelow in st. thomas listening to the waves and the birds in the background. or going to the opera in nyc in a beautiful oscar de la renta gown and underneath are your silk stockings that match perfectly with you embroidered corset. there might be a man in a fantasies here or there maybe, but it's not actual sex that women are thinking of when they buy underwear usually. it's to add something special to the ordinary. and women love to wear beautiful underwear even if no one ever sees it, they even love to just collect it in their draw even if they never wear it...it's something that only makes sense to women, i guess thats hard for a man to understand.

now for you last question fashion models which are different than beauty and vs models are not choosen for male arousal or to be hot. alot of them are choosen because they have an intesting or unique look and they are tall and thin, they aren't suppose to have womanly curves they are clothes hangers. gemma ward for instance is not a lingerie model and she is not built like a vs model. she would never be picked up by vs. karolina kurkova is the only vs model probably not appropriate for lingerie(i never argued she was) i would admit she's a better fashion model. but the rest of the vsms are defintely appropriate.

last thing the top FASHION models do not need to appeal to the majority of people, they only need to appeal to a minority of woman and men that read fashion magazines and or buy high fashion designer clothes and or live in higher class areas of cities...people like me. models like zuzana would not appeal to those people. and models like her will not appeal to even the higher middle class 16-27 female that is the consumer of the vs product(especially now with their pink line). and the models they use do appeal to that consumer group.

sometimes excessive femininity may have the opposite effect and so a slight degree of masculanization is important

Este sitio es una mierda, el que lo escribio deberia morir o encontrarse un hobby, lamento haber perdido mi tiempo leyendo esto
(This site sucks, the writer must die or find a hobbie, i'm sorry to lost my time reading this crap)

Can you please define what feminine features are, exactly? I would think that femininity is determined by culture. Perhaps you could provide some information on what a woman looks like who has higher testosterone levels than another, in order to prove that the traits you say are "feminine" are not merely cultural ideals. thanks!

Philomela: If you want to tell more feminine features from more masculine features, you should go through the feminine vs. masculine page.

Alicia: Most of the VS models haven’t been big on the runway? I have addressed seven Victoria’s Secret models so far in the series that this entry is the first part of -- Karolina Kurkova, Gisele Bundchen, Ana Beatriz Barros, Alessandra Ambrosio, Heidi Klum, Adriana Lima and Elise Crombez. Among these women, all except Heidi Klum started out and made it big as proper high-fashion models. Victoria’s Secret has also used numerous proper high-fashion models for its lingerie show: Jessica Stam, Yfke Sturm, Caroline Trentini, Heather Marks, Hana Soukupova, Natasha Poly, etc. The fact is that the company uses a lot of high-fashion model types. Of course, a number of these high-fashion models are past their prime for high-fashion modeling, i.e., in their twenties for instance. These older women have lost some of the boyishness of their physiques, sometimes in an extreme manner as in Adriana Lima, making them anywhere from less suitable to effectively useless for high-fashion modeling, and some of have even gotten breast implants.

Are big lingerie companies dominated by women? Just because there are some women or heterosexual men in prominent positions in a big lingerie company, including as owners, does not mean that the choice of models is not being or cannot be dictated in large part by homosexual designers. For instance, a mainstream big fashion magazine would typically have a woman as Editor-in-chief, yet would feature masculinized female models because this is what gay fashion designers prefer, and it is these designers that come up with the products for the magazines to pitch. i.e., the women in charge cannot piss off the designers by using feminine-looking models. The issue of which lingerie company is strongly influenced by homosexual males can be answered by looking at its models. In the case of Victoria’s Secret, there is no doubt regarding noteworthy homosexual influence behind its choice of models.

I don’t buy that fashion photography is dominated by heterosexual men. Besides, the most influential people in the fashion business are the designers; the whole industry revolves around their work.

Lingerie is more than mere underwear. Whereas some women may buy lingerie for the purposes you list, the fact is that lingerie is typically bought with the intent to using it as a prelude to sexual activity. Therefore, the preferences of heterosexual men are the most obvious consideration behind the choice of looks of lingerie models, and most men and most women judge female attractiveness similarly, preferring above average femininity in the looks of women, i.e., feminine women are the most appropriate choice as lingerie models.

You tell me that fashion models are “not chosen for [heterosexual] male arousal or to be hot [to heterosexual men],” and I agree, but this entry is about lingerie modeling. The reality is that high-fashion models are chosen to be “hot” and interesting to homosexual male fashion designers, who prefer the looks of boys in their early adolescence. The “clothes hangar” argument is extensively refuted within this site; start here.

It is obvious that since expensive designer clothing is beyond the affordability of most individuals, women modeling such clothing do not need to appeal to the majority of the population. But are there reasons to believe that upper class individuals, the majority of whom are heterosexual, prefer the looks of top fashion models? Lifetime-exclusive heterosexual individuals, regardless of their social class or whether they are men or women, prefer above average femininity in the looks of women. Don’t kid yourself that the 16-27 female group that buys Victoria’s Secret products does not prefer above average femininity in the looks of women as in the physique of Zuzana. Most studies that I have cited documenting higher aesthetic ratings of women with above average femininity on the part of women have used college students, most of whom are well-within the 16-27 age range.

The reason why high fashion models are masculine has nothing to do with homosexual men making decisions, it has everything to do with the fact that androgyny is charismatic- as a woman, I prefer both slightly masculine women and slightly feminine men in terms of their beauty because they exude a certian power, competence and 'otherworldlyness'. The women you are endorsing for their femininity look much less intellegent/powerful (I'm not saying they are, just that it's the way they look). As a woman, I happen to prefer men with some femininity- rockstars, for instance (in my book) are hands-down the sexiest men because they exude so much of that androgynous charisma. I prefer tall, slender men with some feminine features to their face- like fashion models.

Maybe the thing that throws you off is that fashion models are not representations of sex, but rather, representations of power and ideal beauty- so their sexuality _is_ more remote. However I find that when you actually get to know someone personally who has that degree of beauty, their sexuality is even more powerful than your average man or woman.

Another thing, the girls you endorse look like they _want_ you to like them, that is part of what constitutes that visual 'femininity'; fashion models have the look of women who could care less, that's a big part of their appeal.

A woman does not have to have a huge ass and fat hips and big tits to be femminine. Karolina still has a femminine waist to hip ratio.She's jsut thin. Her bone body structure is all very femminine. She;s jsut very slim thats all. I'm a straight guy ad I still prefer Karolinas face and body too.

If Zuzana ever has the misfortune of reading this trivial pursuit(tm) of a blog, I'd hope she takes these comments for what they're worth. Nice chatting with you folks but that's my two cents of blah, blah, blah and now, I think I'd really like to get the hell out of this website. Damn you Google(tm)!

Jenna: There is a tremendous amount of data showing that the typical masculinization of high-fashion models reflects a gay influence. I have cited a great deal of evidence showing that most people have a strong preference for above average femininity in the looks of women. You may prefer androgyny in women and find it charismatic, but your preferences are atypical.

On what basis are high-fashion models representations of power? Many of these women do not even have the power to eat as much as they desire lest they gain weight and lose their job. If you believe they represent “ideal beauty,” you once again are part of a minority.

The glamour models that I have been posting would not be looking like they want others to like them if they weren’t often posing in a seductive manner, but then they are being made to pose in this manner.

Chris: Nowhere have I implied that a woman needs to have a “huge ass and fat hips and big tits to be femminine (sic).” The femininity of a woman needs to be judged by her overall looks, and if you believe that Karolina has a feminine body structure, you shouldn’t be wasting your time with this site. You also need to stop posting in multiple entries that you are a straight man and prefer the clearly more masculine fashion model. Thank you for letting us know about your preferences; there is no need for you to repeat it.

Erik

I know my tastes may be more in the minority, but I also know plenty of women who prefer feminine fashion-model looking men, these men are just more threatening and less approachable. I believe firmly that androgyny has charisma, take David Bowie, or his wife, Iman, people like that have glamour and that is what the fashion world is about. When I say that fashion models represent power, I only mean that their masculinized faces and tall slender phisques exude a certian intelligence and out-of-this-world inacessibility. I know you chalk this all up as a mistake that has been spawned and perpetrated by the minds of gay men, but gay men comprise a huge portion of the art world and many are very intelligent and visionary, take Andy Warhol for instance, a veritable giant. Maybe the vocabulary they are using is less about what appeals to your average man sexually, and more about iconography. Fashion plates are iconic, that is different from being sexually accesible. All of the great fashion models have an androgynous look- take Twiggy- sexy, maybe, maybe not, charismatic and iconic, yes, Kate Moss, same. Why do you think the Calvin Klein ads were so compelling? I remember specifically seeing those for the first time and being shocked, not only at the sexuality, but at the boyishness of Kate Moss- she had glamour- rockstars have glamour- that whole concept is how fashion sells itsself, not through cuteness. The more average, feminine women you posted are cute, but cute has little power to sway an audience if not accomanied by some degree of 'fierce'- what about Angelina Jolie, how many people would not say she's beautiful, yet she could be one of your high-fashion models- she's tough.

One last thought- the fashion world is like the art world in that it is all about being 'cutting edge', what is thought to be cutting edge is increasingly what is thought to be dangerous- women who look dangerous are generally somewhat more masculine, hence the 'masculinization' of fashion models. It's not just about what is biologicaly innate and perhaps what you think is immutable, it's about the evolution of our psyche as a culture.

You have a very rigid view of what is considered beautiful and you are very presumptuous when you try to dictate what most people whould find attractive. In every society the elite class decides what is considered beautiful and they tend to fit the definitions of beauty more than the lower classes. If the women on top are generally tall, thin, tan european women with "masculine" features then are going to be considered more attractive then their shorter, thicker plebeian counterparts. Karolina is lithe, tan, blonde and her features are more striking and commanding than Zuzana's. Zuzana is a short thin, average girl with big boobs.

Angelina Jolie is probably the most beaiutiful women in the world, and she is very androgenous looking. I think the most beautiful people have traits of both sexes, which is more natural than being on the extreme side of the spectrum. Also, women have testosterone which gives them their sex drives and also virilizes them. A more "masculinized" woman flags a man that she has a very high sex drive...so go figure.

God god, these women you compare them to are DISGUSTING,FUGLY,FLABBY,FAT,SAGGING BREASTS!
PLEASE SENSOR THEIR PRIVATE AREA DOWN BELOW!!! THERE THE MOST DISGUSTING VAGINAS I'VE SEEN!

Jenna: We are not talking about men. Anyway, I know that a number of women like cute men, where the cuteness refers to facial features that are not masculine, and some feminine element may be present. I suppose you mean to say that these cute men are less threatening and more approachable instead of what you wrote. However, do you like men who have effeminate/androgynous physiques? Heterosexual women who are into cute male faces would typically prefer men with a physical build that is above average in masculinity.

I know that homosexual men tend to be overrepresented in artistic endeavors, but this does not mean that their artistic works are necessarily of aesthetic merit to the general population. It is not unusual for the art coming from homosexuals to display the mental illnesses more common among them...sadomasochistic elements would be a good example.

What is compelling about Calvin Klein ads? A manly Natalia Vodianova posing in a seductive manner? Babies in underwear?

Angelina Jolie could not have become a successful high-fashion model because she is not masculine enough. If “dangerous” looks are required, a skinny look certainly does not fit the bill. And, what is more dangerous looking than a woman with a physique that is curvaceous enough to attract lots of men yet a masculine element, too, more so in her face than physique, that suggests that the woman does not lean toward demanding commitment before she is willing to engage in intimate behaviors? Do high-fashion models generally have such looks from the perspective of the general population? You are also digressing toward high-fashion modeling when this entry is focusing on lingerie modeling.

Danielle: I certainly am not dictating what people should find attractive. I am simply pointing out what most people find attractive. It is not the elite in general that are responsible for picking the looks of high-fashion models; the responsibility lies with the male homosexual fashion designer elite. Notwithstanding the high status of high-fashion models, only a minority of individuals end up regarding the masculine looks of high-fashion models as desirable or else you would not observe a strong public preference for femininity in the looks of women in controlled laboratory studies.

I don’t see how you can describe Zuzana as thin and average. Besides, at 5-foot-5, she is not short.

BS walks...: I suppose you meant to sign off as “BS talks...” Angelina Jolie is getting older, but if you look at her pictures as a young adult, in most of them she does not look “very androgynous.” There are many factors apart from testosterone that are behind sex drive in women. I have already mentioned that slight masculinization of women is a correlate of their sexiness to heterosexual men for the reason that you have described in a crude manner, but these sexy women look more like the women here than masculine fashion models like Karolina Kurkova.

Nasty crap: No vaginas are being shown here, but if you can see flab and ugliness in the women used for contrast purposes, then I suppose you could be seeing vaginas, too.

Erik

are you saying angelina jolie is feminine looking?

women are women and no woman can win!

btw- erik, your model selection sucks. gemma ward, caroline trentini, and lily cole are all PLENTY feminine looking (at least facially). doll face is IN.

http://www.style.com/slideshows/fashionshows/S2007RTW/CHANEL/DETAILS/008...

THAT is not a man. lol. failz. D:

-white power,
8D

Gemma is so sweet

ps. Zuzana is a buttaface with a gigantic fivehead, beady eyes, thin lips, clown makeup and big fake tits. She will NEVER be better than Karolina. She's a sloppy skank and I can smell her through the computer screen.

http://www.jordanisyourhomeboy.com/photos/angelina-jolie-04.jpg
http://www.711net.com/store/angelina_jolie_images/angelina_jolie008.jpg

Erik, you are so full of shit! Angelina Jolie physique is quite androgenous. Her waist to hip ratio doesn't come even close to those you say here are femine. Her jaw and hairline is also "masculinalized." Even more so than some of this fashion models you have mentioned. What happens is that if you dare say Angelina Jolie has manly features, people will see right through the bullshit that is this site. You wont be able to blame homosexuals for her popularity with most men and even women. We all love Angelina's looks and are captivated by them. If she looked more traditionally femine when she was younger it was because of her facial "baby fat" that most women lose as they age, not because of her amazing bone structure.

And by the way, I didn't get a chance to answer in another page your ignorant assertion that women with Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (CAIS) are not biologically male from a scientific point of view. CAIS women (who are more femine than most biological females due to lack of testosterone sensitivity) ARE biologically male from a scientific point of view. Read a book before you post crap you know nothing about. Sex in human beings is defined by the sole presence or abscence of a Y chromosome. Eg. X=female XX=female XXX=female XY=male XXY=male XXYY=male etc. That is the reason why Complete Androgen Insensitivity (XY karyotype) is described as MALE PSEUDO-hermaphrodism.

You are so pathetically homophobic that you require women to look almost like Jessica Rabbit cartoons so you can feel confident in your heterosexuality. Pitiful!

erik

is zuzana on the extreme end of the feminine scale? is she too feminine or is there any masculine element in her as i cant see any.

everyone I know and many people that post comments on various blogs find Angelina Jolie EXTREMELY UGLY, 'sausagelipps', 'hemorrhoid lipped', 'vaginalina', 'vagina on face', and so on. I agree sooo much. If she looks feminine, than I didn't learn anything from this site, her face looks rather manly, her looks are dirty. But, maybe, the only trait that contributes to that is her jaw. Still, she has tender eyes.

Karolina Kurkova is not only manly but HORSE face. Whoever says that is interesting, and better than any normal,cute feminine face, needs help.
Being anomalous is not very interesting, being nothing special is good,if it means that there are no deviations. ("feminine people look weak, like poor little kittens, nothing special, no flavor".... well, the nick of the author of that comment says something about him. Kittens are weak, are tender, and the very essence of insuperable perfection,BREATHTAKING BEAUTY. That DaVinci noticed it too, I agree with him on that)I would always wish to have cool cat, pretty cat face , rather than "interesting", "special" horse face or testosteron face

It is so sick to think and comment that these naked models are ugly, and not see that fashion models are much uglier.
Dollface models as Heather Marks and Gemma Ward are prettier than the rest of their fellow models, but I see them more like cute boys, they have slightly longer faces and stronger jaws, but that is not visible on every photo. Take into account also big feet and palms, looong limbs,...

I see a lot of cellulite on Karolina, funny, she only has bones and cellulite, and a large hole between her legs.And how can Zuzana be fat, when she has much thinner upper body than Karolina, except for breasts. Even her hips look smaller than Karolina's hips. She is shorter and that
attributes to her ratios and round and soft looks. And a woman should be such.

http://health.dailynewscentral.com/content/view/0001851/43/

Do you have that link already on your site, Erik? I see a lot of such news lately. A little contribution to the assertion of "powerful looks" of femininity. Woman looking manly is plain sick-looking, that is not looking powerful or intelligent. Same is pertaining to their tallness

bron-

i bet you have a small penis. :)

8D
I bet you are pederast

Joe: I am not saying that Angelina Jolie looks feminine, but there is no way she has “very androgynous” looks. Zuzana is not at the extreme end of femininity, though she does have above average femininity. On the other hand, she has sharp gonial angles and her face is on the narrow side, which altogether don’t render a very feminine look, but this is due to factors other than masculinization.

8D: I haven’t been saying that high-fashion models look like men, let alone that all of them do. A small minority of high-fashion models have faces leaning toward feminine norms. However, Gemma Ward isn’t one of them. Take a look at the first 4 pictures of Gemma here and compare them with your picture of Gemma. Gemma Ward looks doll-faced in only some pictures, which is an artifact of her flattened features and angle of photography. There is a masculine element in her face that is consistent with her masculinized physique. Similarly, look at the face pictures of Caroline Trentini and notice the masculine element. I haven’t addressed Lily Cole. Lily Cole comes closest to a doll face among your examples, but her squared chin and forehead shape (right above eyes) detract from a doll look.

Danielle: This article does not focus on facial features. It focuses on the body, and there is no way Karolina is beating Zuzana with respect to having a lingerie modeling-worthy body. Besides, Zuzana has natural breasts.

B.S. walks: Angelina Jolie does not have androgynous looks. You posted a picture of her in her 30s and it seems to be a recent picture where she has lost a lot of weight and has veins popping out. In this picture she has a masculine element to her face, but is not describable as androgynous. A picture of her in her 20s would be preferable. In the second picture, watch what happens when the gonial region is digitally altered.

After the digital transformation of the gonial region, she is not describable as androgynous. Masculinization transforms many parts of the face, but in Angelina’s case, it seems to have strongly affected the jaw but did not have much effect elsewhere. How is this possible? The answer is that masculinization isn’t the culprit. Angelina has some Native American ancestry, which shows in her jawline. Native Americans have more massive jaws than whites. You have to control for ancestry when addressing how masculine someone is and avoid assessing non-white women in reference to white norms.

If you were to show your second picture to a random sample of whites, most will tell you that they don’t like how she looks in it. People who like her looks have pictures like these in mind: 1, 2, 3 (note masculine element but not to a degree that would make one want to describe her as androgynous). Angelina’s physique isn’t very androgynous either.

Your assertion that sex in humans in defined by the sole presence or absence of a Y chromosome is easily refuted. Haven’t you heard of intersex individuals, namely people without a sex? All intersex individuals either possess or don’t possess a Y chromosome. So how is it possible to have people without a sex? Simple. Sex is defined based on concordance of external appearance with sex chromosomes; this concordance is found in a little over 99.98% of humans. Sex has historically been conceptualized in terms of physical appearance, and the sex chromosome requirement is only a decades-old addition. It is unlikely that physical appearance will be discarded with respect to defining sex given that it is what the general public takes into account to assign sex. Someone with an XY karyotype but also CAIS is not a biological male; this person does not have a sex.

I do not require women to look like Jessica Rabbit, and even if I did, this would have nothing to do with homophobia but with a preference for exaggerated feminine curves.

Bron: The study addressed by the daily news central article was added to this site a long time ago in the form of an article titled “estradiol and face shape in women.” By the way, 8D is a woman.

so is bron

erik what does angeline jolie look like if not feminine? and have you any examples of women on the extreme end of femininity if zuzana isnt one of them and do you believe this is the most desirable?

Intersexed people are not people without sex. It's ridiculous to think that just because this people don't fit our narrow notions of sex that this makes them sexless. While I think that CAIS women shouldn't be identified as male, this doesn't change the fact that chromosomal sex is how sex is defined by most of our schools and laws.

The reason most scientist define sex by the presence or absence of the Y chromosome is because this sex chromosome carries the SRY gene. The SRY gene instructs the undifferentiated gonads to become testes. Testes produce testosterone which virilizes the fetus. If a a fetus is insensitive to testosterone, the fetus will fail to virilize and retain the qualities of the primary sex, which is female.

Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome ranges from partial to complete. While a person with Partial Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (PAIS) can look phenotypically male, a person with the complete version will look phenotypically female.

Looking androgynous is not the same as looking like a dragqueen. And I don't necessarily find the digital manipulation of Angelina Jolie's jaw any more attractive than the original pic. If anything, her image loses more strength and this change makes her look less exotic.

bron:

no, u r a pedarest. and a whore. that too.

8D:

It wasn't me inquireing about someone's penis,but you. So it would be you categorizing as whore, and ignorant one, too, pederast can't be female. Are you debil?

Erik, thanks for a provocative and very well-researched website.

To your comments about the homosexual designers influencing the fashion industry and therefore selecting androgynous models--I absolutely agree. However, I would add that the feminine women shown on your website are not the norm for American women, many of whom have a mix of multiple masculine characteristics such as small breasts, thick waists, large shoulders and rib cages, etc, in addition to some feminine features as well. Very feminine models, while clearly the optimal choice for fashion modeling, are relatively rare in terms of their representation in the overall population. Although more masculine women would vigorously deny this, many envy and hate feminine women because they represent an ideal that more masculinized women can only dream about.

Therefore, I would speculate that one reason the fashion industry gravitates toward more masculine models is to appease these more masculinized individuals and to increase sales. However, the fashion industry clearly has gone much too far, as the norm for masculinized models is now as far off the mark for the average woman as the very feminine women are. The truth, which represents most women, is somewhere in the range of women who fall between the two outlying extremes.

Joe: Angelina Jolie is on the somewhat masculine side, just not as masculine as “B.S. Walks...” originally implied. Attractiveness is not a linear function of the extent of femininity. Beyond some level of femininity a woman’s attractiveness would diminish. Finding pictures of women that are overall extremely feminine is not an easy task, but you can see an example of a feminine woman with breasts representing an extreme of femininity (Anna Song 1, Anna Song 2) that would look better (I am guessing most would agree) if she had smaller and more proportionate breasts.

BS walks: A definition of sex that unambiguously classifies a little over 99.98% of humans into either of two sexes is not a narrow notion. There are only two sexes among humans, and intersex individuals do not belong to either sex. Intersex individuals do not have a sex, period. In other words, sex cannot be conceptualized in terms of the presence or absence of the Y chromosome alone because all intersex individuals either have at least one Y or no Y.

Speaking of SRY, sometimes it may be non-functional on Y, but you would classify someone with such a Y as a man even though it wouldn’t look like one. Alternatively, what if someone with XX has a mutated gene that mimicks SRY? By your definition, this person is a woman but it would look like a man. Don’t you see that both these examples are of intersex individuals and that these individuals do not have a sex?

The digital manipulation of Angelina Jolie was not in reference to attractiveness but to your assertion of her looking “very androgynous.”

Sionnach: The use of masculinized high-fashion models does not appear to have anything to do with appeasing masculinized women and increasing sales. Marketing considerations suggest that the best policy is to appease the most people, which means using women in the average to attractive range. If avoiding jealously is an issue, then the models should be closer to average, and if pleasing aesthetically is the issue then the models should be closer to attractive or very attractive. Attractive looks in women are also one of feminine beauty as far as most people are concerned. Therefore, for the purposes of marketing, the average to feminine range would appear best, but the observed range is clearly on the masculine side of average.

Gay fashion designer are simply selecting models they find visually appealing and getting away with it because they dominate the fashion business and are using the models to sell highly desirable items.

It is not meaningful to talk about a mix of masculine and feminine features in the same woman. Sex hormones have a global impact. Controlling for other factors, a given sex hormone profile will not be shifting some parts of the body toward feminization and others toward masculinization. If you see a small-breasted woman that is overall feminine, is it meaningful to say that her breasts are masculine? If you see a large-breasted woman who is masculine overall, is it meaningful to say that her breasts are feminine? The norm is not a mix of masculine and feminine features but of average features.

Intersexed people, which are more common than transsexuals, are in the middle of the sexes, not sexless. Do not dismiss them as sexless just because they are a small minority.

Personally, I find the VS models much more attractive than the women erik/a finds attractive. If that makes me and most males I know a little bit gay, thank you for letting us know. Erik/a, you sound like a very bitter woman.

Erik:

Thanks for your feedback. So, if I understand this correctly, masculinization--feminization works on a continuum? And, the more masculinized a woman is, the further she is toward the masculine end of the continuum?

If this is correct, is it possible for two women with the same ratios of sex hormones to have body parts that react differently to those hormones? In other words, for one masculinized woman to have broad shoulders and large breasts for example, and another with the same hormonal profile to have small breasts and small shoulders but very large feet? Also, what terminology would one use to describe more masculinized versus more feminized features, if 'masculine' and 'feminine' themselves are not accurate?

Re the issue of fashion modeling--I am in agreement with you that the observed range in models is more masculinized than the average. I also agree that the concept of designers 'appeasing' more masculine women may not in fact be an accurate or complete assessment of the situation. It is tempting to believe that the use of masculinized models is indeed because of the domination of gay designers, as you state above, but I am wondering if there are other cultural factors at work here as well. In the U.S., for example, I have seen research that suggests that thinness is often associated with wealth and plumpness with poverty, thus frequently making thinness more desirable. Also, I've heard it said that thinness is more desirable to Caucasians and plumpness more desirable to non-Caucasian ethnicities. I am curious whether you have seen research related to these issues.

Also, can you say more about gays dominating the fashion industry? What does 'domination' mean in this context?

Thanks again for your responses and all your work. I have learned a lot from your site.

Sionnach

hot92: If there are only two sexes then people in between these sexes are obviously neither sex and hence are sexless.

Sionnach: Yes, masculinization-feminization varies along a continuum with respect to individual physical features, and the more masculinized a woman is, the farther she is toward the masculine end of the continuum.

Women with the same sex hormo