You are here


This is a new site. Read about its purpose here. This section will be listing news items related to beauty in women, but is barely functional at the time of this posting. You may leave comments about the main site below.



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Adriana Lima

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

Ana Beatriz Barros

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

Ana Beatriz Barros

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

Here is a quote taken from


Are Tyra Banks' breasts real or fake? I think that they are fake. Why? When she lays on her back, they don't fall to the side. They go up to her collar bone. She also appears to have had a growth spurt in the chest area in the past few years, most notably on her Sports Illustrated swimsuit cover. I think she's had a very nice breast augmentation.

The quote above was accompanied by the following pictures:

Tyra Banks fake breasts / implants

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


Tyra recently discussed her childhood trauma's and current beauty problems in her book Tyra's Beauty Inside & Out, where she talks about her stretch marks, cellulite, mustache, and warts (errr... hardly a book we'd be interested in buying given the sounds of it!). (source)

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

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


By no means am I against plastic surgery, by no means am I saying that breast implants are a bad thing, but it’s just not a choice that I made ... it’s something that a lot of people think I have and that is so frustrating to me."

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


I am totally against plastic surgery. A lot of people think I have breast implants because I have the biggest boobs in the business. But I was a 34C when I was 17...They stay up when I wear a push-up bra. But if people could see me when I come home and take off my bra, how could they think these are fake? (source 1, source 2)

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

Tyra Banks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gemma Ward

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

Gemma Ward

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See ya.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree with you on many points.

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

And their bodies even more so.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A large forehead, and large eyes.

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

beautiful women

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

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

Thank you for editing my posts.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why They are Ugly

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

Keira Knightley

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

Keira Knightley

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

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

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

Sophie Dahl

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, gracilization is another word for fineness.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tiffany Toth

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

Tiffany Toth

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neat site ;).

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

and actualy most fashion designers are staight

your contridicting yourself
alot actualy
you put in atractive women
big reasted women that all have blonde hair
and who are you to say whats buetiful and whats not
like your saying that hevier and skinny women are ugly?
most of the women in this iste you referd as ugkly are buertiful women
adn the women you said were beutiful are whore with big boobs
youro bioulsy not a femeinest or else you wouldnt be saying these women are ugly and you have to look this way to buetiful
you fucking bitch
and pleasse email me back cunt

and actualy
most fashion deisgners phtographers
are striaght just to let you know
its a stero type that says there gay
wich i cant name 5 gay designers
and i could name about 50 straight ones
you bitch

like stop saying its gay dominated when its not
liek seriously gte your facts staright or dont wirhgt things
lets see you wirhgt 10 gay designers....?

Jade: I am not a woman. Besides, women who are jealous of the looks of fashion models will rarely showcase partially-nude feminine and attractive women to buttress their arguments about what constitutes beauty in women.

Saying that some women are masculinized is not to imply that they are physically indistinguishable from men. Additionally, I am not calling high-fashion models ugly. Ugliness refers to physical abnormalities and defects, which do not characterize high-fashion models.

As to who am I to call some people beautiful and other not, there is a lot of scientific literature addressing objective correlates of beauty, and if you read the answer to the first question on the FAQ page, you will encounter links to various pages within this site where the nature of aesthetics has been addressed, making it clear who is and who isn’t attractive as far as most people are concerned.

This site does not reflect my concern with how other people look. In case you haven’t noticed, I am addressing the looks of models and beauty pageant contestants, and will generally avoid addressing the looks of ordinary women or non-model celebrities unless someone insists that a given non-model celebrity is very beautiful when she clearly isn’t.

The assertion that the top ranks of the fashion business are dominated by homosexual men is not a baseless stereotype. Better go through this list of big-name gay fashion designers. Besides, what other than the gay factor would explain the typical looks of high-fashion models?

most of the people you listed were all hair and make up artist
barley any of them were designers
there are more straight than gay designers the top deisgners are staright
the deisgners for all these brands are staight
alberto ferreti
roberto cavalli
jean pual gualtier
calein klien
tom ford
bill blass
oscer de la renta
just to name a few
the list could go on and on
but i dont feel like typing all thta much]
and most designers are straights o dont tell me other wise
bnecuase i am a former model and i think id no whjos straight or notm thanks yes most hair and make up aretists are gay buit the designers usually are not
and clearly more people find "masculine" owmen as you state more buetiful
and by the way your not in the fashion buesness you have nothing to do with it so until your actually in that buessness then you can make up a sight like this but until then stfu

the reason why a typical high fashion model isnt the average standord of buetiful isbecuase the designers dont want people looking at the girl so much they want ppeople looking at the clothes
and stop syaing its mnostly gay men just becuase of how the women look like honestly you dont jknow anything about the fashion buesness youve never been involed with it and until you are you will see that most deisgners are staright and the reason why they are so skinny is becusse they wnt the clothes to hang on them like hangers and if you were a designer would you want people looking at the girl? or hte clothes that took months to make?

actually calvien kliens designers isnt bisexual and valintos inst gay
like shut the fuckl up you know nohting about the fashion buesnes your the typical straight man thinking just becuase a man is a designer he is gay
here are all the companies wich the designers are straight:
Emanuel Ungaro
Emilio Pucci
J Mendel
Oscar de la Renta
Proenza Schouler
tom ford(gucci 2 years ago)
Bill Blass
Christian Lacroix
Alessandro Dell'Acqua
Stephen Burrows
Tommy hilfigure
Yohji Yamamoto
Chado Ralph Rucci
Kenneth Cole
Alberta Ferretti
Jean Paul Gaultier
Bottega Veneta
The list can go on and on
and you only name at least 6 people
so shut the fuck up
Im right your worng now eta me out bitch

tyra banks nsoe is like that in that one pictuire becuase she is smilling
and your a pervert
why are all your other model pictures from porn stes

Jade: You are apparently insane. Tom Ford has been out of the closet for a long time. Bill Blass was a homosexual and so were/are Jean-Paul Gaultier, Cristóbal Balenciaga and Valentino Garavani. There are also the likes of Calvin Klein who, though married to a woman at some point, clearly has a penchant for female models that look like boys in their early adolescence, leaving little doubt about his sexuality. The excerpts that I mentioned in a previous entry on gays in the fashion business are taken from an issue of the Advocate, a major publication catering to homosexuals, and this issue mentions the closeted nature of many homosexuals working in the fashion business, and also proudly states, “To observe that gay men and lesbians dominate the fashion business may seem about as controversial as saying that Russians rule Moscow.” Contrary to your statement, most of the people mentioned in the aforementioned entry are/were fashion designers rather than make-up artists or photographers.

I have most certainly not assumed gay domination of the fashion business under the assumption that if a man is a fashion designer then he must be gay. There is plenty of evidence for gay domination of the fashion business, including the masculinization typically seen in high-fashion models. In case you have no idea what lifetime-exclusive male heterosexuality is about, understand that men with this orientation have no interest whatsoever in women who look like adolescent boys, male transvestites, male-to-female transsexuals or eunuchs.

You have tried to explain the skinniness typically seen in high-fashion models in terms of their assumed role as clothes hangers that should direct attention toward the clothes rather than the models. I have already addressed this incorrect notion. There are plenty of skinny women with feminine faces and skeletal proportions, but such feminine women are uncommon among high-fashion models. Similarly, fashion designers have a preference for teenage fashion models rather than models in their twenties. The most obvious explanation for the typical combination of skinniness, masculinization and youth in high-fashion models is that only these kind of women come closest to approximating the looks of boys in their early adolescence, which many gay fashion designers find aesthetically appealing. On the other hand, if high-fashion models are supposed to be clothes hangars, then how do you explain several correlates of high-fashion modeling that detract attention away from the clothing – e.g., excessive hip swaying, occasional use of bizarre make-up or the deliberate exposure of a breast or nipple, and the use of celebrity models?

If the dominant fashion designers were heterosexual men, guess how the typical high-fashion model would look like? Go through the attractive women section of this site and picture feminine and more attractive women -- you will be imagining them.

Simone: Similing does not spread out the bony part of the nose. Tyra Banks has obviously undergone two rhinoplasties. As to the sourcing of the majority of the attractive women from adult-oriented sites, there are hardly any alternatives at present, thanks to the gay domination of the fashion business.

ok you no what fuck you
you know nothing about hwta your talking about
thats not the reason why they look like that
and if so why would striaght fashion designers have models look like that then
like you dont know anything about the subject
you have never been in the fashion industry or even clohtes
your website is based on your opinion
and answer me this question why do you straight designers have more masculine women
and more masculine women are more atractive
the women you said were atractive had chubby cheacks
and were really ugly
havnt you noticed most beuty icons have more masculina faces
and who are you to say whats attractive and whats not
and stop pretedning like you know so much about the fashion industry when you obviously dont

and just becuase what models he pick doesnt mean hes gay
and most models are eastern eurpien
so your saying europien women are manly and every man that thinks there buetiful is gay
your such an ignorant fool

and the reason why they have hip swaying is to show how the clothing moves
and celebrties models
so people will buy the clothes
and breats nipple showing is becuase they cant always tailor the clothes to fit perfectly on the model
and as for the make up
they have the make up to exentiate the clothes

and the reason why they have hip swaying is to show how the clothing moves
and celebrties models
so people will buy the clothes
and breats nipple showing is becuase they cant always tailor the clothes to fit perfectly on the model
and as for the make up
they have the make up to exentiate the clothes
and all you could name oiut of the others designers i put
were 4 that were gay
what do you have to say about the others
you sexist pig?
there not glamour models
there whores
a glamour model is a model for make up and or jewelery
and dont tell me other wise either

your an idiot
ive read the othjer parts of your site you dont know hwta your talking about at all
so i guess gay people are pedofiles now to
my god you are an idiot
please die now
and most hetero sexuals are pedophiles thanks
i researched before i typed this
79% of male pedofiles are hetorsexual

There are some women with more masculine features and some men with more feminine features. You seem to think that anyone that doesn't fall completely within their own gender "standards" is not beautiful. High fashion models tend to have a unique look, which of course makes them more interesting to look at as they walk a runway or in a magazine spread. I'm not sure where you got the idea that if you're not completely feminine that you're ugly, but you're missing out on some beautiful people. As far as wider shoulders and longer arms, when you're tall, as many high fashion models are, that's fairly common. I hope no one buys into your "feminine is the only good look" philosophy. Beauty is beauty and it comes in many forms.

Jade: Your insanity appears to know no bounds. There are few straight male designers among the top ranks of fashion designers, and they have to comply with the status quo. If you really believe that straight male fashion designers are voluntarily choosing skinny and masculine fashion models, then you obviously have no idea what male heterosexuality is about. For instance, consider the following pictures of high-fashion model Freja Beha Erichsen.

Freja Beha Erichsen

What kind of fashion designers choose models such as Freja Erichsen? Heterosexual men or pederasts? The answer is obvious to any reasonable person.

I don’t have the time to go through your list of presumably straight fashion designers. If you can name an openly gay person such as Tom Ford as a straight man, it is obvious that you don’t know what you are talking about. I have cited enough evidence that a good number of gays in the fashion world remain closeted. You are probably operating under the assumption that if the designer is not a known homosexual then he is heterosexual. Such reasoning is highly dubious. For instance, I have been hit on by married men, and I couldn’t have guessed that these men were some type of bisexuals before they hit on me. Closeted or out of the closet, the central tendency of the looks of high-fashion models makes the typical sexual orientation of the dominant fashion designers clear. Freja Beha is merely one of many models with her looks, and only the insane will believe that heterosexual men are responsible for selecting models like Freja.

Besides, I have not called gays pedophiles. Compared to heterosexuals, the prevalence of sexual interest in underage children is much higher among homosexuals, as evidenced by a great deal of empirical evidence (see this and this), but most gays have a preference for adults.

Regarding hip swaying, there is a difference between a normal amount of hip swaying while walking versus the exaggerated hip swaying often seen in fashion shows. It is absurd to try to explain this exaggeration in terms of the need to show how the clothing will look like in a moving person. You have shown more of your insanity in arguing that the reason breasts or nipples show in some cases is because the clothes do not fit the models well. Take a look at the following collage and tell me whether all instances of exposed breasts/nipples and see-through dresses are accidental or due to poor fit.

Exposed breasts and nipples in fashion shows

Similarly, when I mentioned bizarre make-up, I meant really bizarre, as in the two examples shown on the “skinny fashion models” page. Is such make-up meant to complement the clothing?

Your insanity prevents you from seeing the obvious, i.e., modeling in fashion shows is far from functioning as a mere clothes hangar.

What appear to be chubby cheeks among the feminine and attractive women to you are not fatty cheeks but cheekbones that are placed lower on the face, thereby being more feminine compared to those of high-fashion models. Most female beauty icons have more masculine faces? Well, the women that you are talking about are far from beauty icons, but they surely are promoted as such by the fashion world, and given the gay domination of the fashion business it shouldn’t be surprising that the top fashion models are typically masculinized.

I don’t have to be anybody to say what is attractive and what isn’t when I have made my case by citing plenty of scientific literature. I have by no means implied that eastern European women are manly. I have shown a number of eastern European women in the attractive women section. If fashion designers are disproportionately recruiting eastern European models, then they are going after the masculinized women and avoiding the feminine ones.

Lastly, if you consider the women in the attractive women section, one doesn’t pose nude, one doesn’t go beyond semi-nudity, some don’t go beyond nude modeling, and of those who engage in sexual acts on camera, some restrict themselves to object insertions and/or lesbian activity. Thus, most of these women do not qualify as prostitute types, and what is relevant to this site is how they look rather than what they do.

Ciyra: Sex-typical looks and physical attractiveness are not synonyms. To be attractive, it is not enough to have sex-typical looks. I have not argued that women who are not feminine are ugly. As I have pointed out repeatedly, lack of attractiveness does not imply ugliness; ugliness refers to physical defects and abnormalities, which are not found among high-fashion models. In the attractive women section of this site, there are two pages specifically featuring somewhat masculinized and attractive women, and somewhat masculinized women are also present on other pages, but the masculinization in these women is nowhere as extensive as in high-fashion models, on average. High-fashion models do tend to have a unique look, but if you find them interesting to look at then you are among a small minority of humans. From a statistical standpoint, tall women will have a greater proportion of women with shoulder breadth and arm length in the masculine range for their height, but it is easy to find tall women with feminine skeletal proportions. For instance, see this comparison of 6-feet-tall Elle MacPherson with an equally tall glamour model. The masculinized skeletal proportions of high-fashion models are deliberately selected.

what you have read and your saying ever designer who say they are straight is bisexual
and you r getting this from what youve read about fashion models
and im pretty sure if a straight designer wanted a "atractive" model he could get one and who are you to say whats atractive and whats not just from literature youve read
you know nothing
and some men like the way high fashion models look
like straight fashion designers do
and there is no statues quo in fashion
you fucking retard
fashion designers pick whatever models they find unique
and anohter reason they shows nipples
is becuase some women like those kind of clothes so they make them like thta
and those clothes are supposed to be worn with sexy laguera
like saying you know what atractive is becuase youve read about it
atractive cant be read about buety is in the eye of beholder
and stop calling me insane you annoying little cunt
like seriously your obviously some obese faggot who has nothing better to do than argue with peopekl about you what youve read
so ive read a medical book i guess im a doctor now to then
your so fucking dumb like ou seem like the type that sits at home and doesnt do anything all besides waste tehre money on porn
becuase you do becuase all those sights you went to were pay sites
your the most ignorant person ive ever seen

and i think most top models are beutiful girls
daria werbowy is one of the most gorgues girls ive ever seen
just becuase your more masculinized doesnt meen you more atracive like im sure most men would prefure daria werbowy ovefr some fat chubby cheeked internet whore
and i dont care whatever you say about ther cheek bones there cheeks are chubby and all those girls are ugly epecialy that ugly red headed whore
and those girls are disgusting sluts liek your sticking up for dirty whores that will never have anything to do with you ugly disgusting self
like even those ugly girls who would fuck anyhting with a heart beat
wouldnt even touch you
ive seen your picture oin the internet
you are ugly
and you make me want to puke your jelous of fashion models because there beitful and they would never touch you thats why you made this sight
and freja beja is ugly iv always hated that bitch
but most every fashion models is prettier than her
i still stand by daria werbowy and adriana lima and gemma ward are one of the prettiest gilr son the planet
and dont tell me whats atractive and whats not
becuase it hink thos girls are buetiful just like most people in the world whilke you think ugly aiids infected whores are buetiful thats your opinion

Jade: Your colorful commentary reflects how sane you are. It is obvious that you do not have much of an idea what male heterosexuality is about. You are correct that some men like the looks of high-fashion models, but these men are typically nonheterosexual and rarely lifetime-exclusive heterosexuals, and if they are the latter, chances are that they have narrowly escaped nonheterosexuality. In the event that you are a heterosexual woman who wishes to attract lifetime-exclusive heterosexual men, be advised that it is in your best interests to look feminine or else you may attract men into the down-low lifestyle.

If there were no status quo in high fashion, then there would likely be no need for this site. You believe that the exposed nipples, see-through dresses and exposed breasts in fashion shows reflect the desire of some women to dress in a similar manner and also that the relevant dresses are supposed to be worn with lingerie? What insanity! How many women attempt to go to social events with exposed breasts/nipples and/or dressed in lingerie or see-though clothing? As to what constitutes attractiveness, I am not merely saying what I have read, but I have cited plenty of studies published in peer-reviewed journals (e.g., here and here), which you should go through to understand how attractive high-fashion models are and how attractive they are found to be by the general public. Anyway, this is not a forum for foul language; you need to take it elsewhere.

I've read your response and I looked over your comparison of Elle and Monica, but I'm sorry Elle Macpherson is more attractive then Monica. Not to say that Monica is not pretty, but I would not buy a magazine with her on the cover. She is average; there is nothing extraordinary about her. I've come to the conclusion that this is all a matter of personal preference, rather then a matter of science as you have presented it. This standard of beauty is unreachable for the majority of women, but it is a standard of beatuy. They are beautiful. I won't go into reasons why you have decided to dedicate an entire website to calling model, as I don't know you personally and it is your right to freedom of opinion.

Ciyra: Like you, homosexual fashion designers also find Elle MacPherson better looking than the more feminine Monica, but people overwhelmingly prefer feminine looks in women, i.e., personal preferences broadly agree in the general population, and it is by no means the case that fashion magazines feature the likes of Elle on the cover because most people have your preference. I agree that there is nothing special about the looks of Monica, and I would not put her into the attractive women section of this site; I chose her because she is as tall as Elle and more feminine, and rebuts the claim that the masculinized skeletal proportions of high-fashion models reflect their selection for tallness. One could easily find tall and feminine women that are more attractive than Monica. For instance, here is a 5-foot-11 woman that I did not use because she is an inch shorter than Elle.

You have mentioned high-fashion models representing a standard of beauty that is unreachable for the majority of women. Feminine and attractive looks are also beyond the reach of most women, and there is nothing average about feminine and attractive looks in women. If high-fashion models occupied their own niche, then there would likely be no need for this site, but when swimsuit magazines targeting heterosexual men, prominent female models portrayed as the most sexy women by the fashion world, and beauty contests that heterosexual men have an interest in (e.g., here and here) mostly comprise of masculinized women, then it is time to do something about it. There should be at least one mainstream outlet where feminine beauty is appreciated, and this is the reason why I set up this site. Presently, I am unable to go beyond adult-oriented sites when it comes to sourcing pictures of feminine and attractive women, which shows that I have a long way to go in order to achieve at least one mainstream outlet where feminine beauty is appreciated, but if the gods are benevolent, I will be successful.

k your so fucking dumb
your basically saying any guy who datses a model is gay
you are such a moron
and you still havnt answered my question
why do straight fashion designers have "masculine" models
and id like to see a picture of you
im usre you look like agirl

Jade: I am not saying that any man who dates a high-fashion model is gay; exclusively gay individuals will not date women, but if you are a masculine-looking woman, you are at risk for attracting men who are into the down-low lifestyle. I have already answered your question about straight fashion designers; there are few of them in the fashion business, especially in dominant positions, and they have to comply with the status quo. I don’t see why you don’t get it. Ask yourself what is the point of being a heterosexual man if one is to find masculinized women appealing? Why do you want to see my picture when, as you have stated previously, you have already seen it and found me to be ugly?

ok your being a fucking idiot
a lot more men that i know woulld rather date
a girl with high cheek bones and full lips
than one of those girls you fetured as atractyive women
becuase they were far from atractive im sorry but hey were fucking ugly
so your saying a guy would never date a eastern europien women
then basically
and seriously the fwomen you put on atractive women are fucking gross
and im pretty sure a lot of guys would agree wiht me

you're a real dumbshit.
i'm happy i stumbled upon this site so i could let you know.

Jade: Of all features you could have mentioned, you mention cheekbones and lip thickness. Of course heterosexual men prefer lips in women that are somewhat fuller compared to average, but I have not deliberately selected thin-lipped women in the attractive women section; these women have been selected for overall appearance, and since they are human, they are bound to have imperfections, including thin lips in some cases, which are nevertheless in the population-typical range. Regarding high cheekbones, some heterosexual men may be into high cheekbones, but lifetime-exclusive heterosexual men are not into overall masculine-looking women. Given that you have done fashion modeling, I wouldn’t be surprised that you know of several men who would prefer fashion models to feminine and attractive women, but what is the sexual orientation of these men? Consider it a friendly warning that you had better beware of the men you date if you look masculine or you may end up with the fate of Bridget B., as reported by Adam Liptak in the July 4, 2006 edition of the NY Times:


Bridget B. and John B., as they are known in court papers, started dating in 1998 and married in July 2000. Bridget said that John told her he was healthy and monogamous and that he urged her to have unprotected sex with him. In October 2000, though, she tested positive for H.I.V., the virus that causes AIDS, as did he.

Bridget later learned, her lawsuit says, that John had had sex with men before and during their marriage. She seeks compensation for what she says was John's infliction of emotional distress and fraud.

The California Supreme Court ruled that the likes of Bridget B. can sue the person who transmitted the AIDS virus to her, even if this person did not do so knowingly. Of course, you would much rather not get infected with HIV in the first place.

You have again brought up Eastern European women. Why do you believe that these women are masculine? As I have said above, I have featured several Eastern European women in the attractive women section. Look at this woman from Ukraine and tell me if she looks masculine. I have been to Russia and saw plenty of feminine women there.

oh my fucking god
are you kidding me if a guy likes the look of fashion models he is gay
so i guess mc jagger is gay becuase he wanted to meet caroline winburg and kept phoning her trying to hook up with her
so hes ay i bet then
if your gay your not gunna have sex with a masculinized women your gunna date a man

and about your story
that has happend to feminine women alot to
havnt you ver watched oprah
and thast one person you cant base every
guy that likes fashion models on that story

Jade: Why don’t you properly read my replies to you? I have previously noted that exclusively gay individuals will not date women and also that I am not saying that all men who date high-fashion models are gay. Haven’t you heard of bisexual men? Besides, self-identified gays are not necessarily exclusively gay, and only a small proportion of them are lifetime-exclusive homosexuals. What I was trying to convey to you above was that if a woman looks masculine then she is at risk for attracting nonheterosexual men. This risk is greater for upper class masculine women. I don’t know what your status among fashion models is, but if you are upper class and rich, it is highly unlikely that you date men below your socioeconomic status. Now, upper class or rich men have their choice of women, and those among them who go after masculinized women would be strong candidates for either being nonheterosexual or having narrowly escaped nonheterosexuality during development. Therefore, be warned.

I don’t watch Oprah and hence cannot comment on the femininity of the women on this show that have been infected by men who have sex with men. You mention the example of Mick Jagger having the hots for Caroline Winberg, but among high-fashion models, Caroline has below average masculinity. If Mick Jagger had a preference for the likes of Adina Fohlin, then one could be almost certain that he is either not exclusively heterosexual or has narrowly escaped nonheterosexuality.

You talk above about keira knightly having masculine features. However, she was voted by the readers of lad-mag FHM in the UK as the sexiest woman in the world for 2006 and she certainly doesnt conform to your feminine ideal but is stunning in her own right. Surely this is a good representation of general male opinion on female beauty?
Also, your aversion to even slight masculinization in women leaves me wondering if perhaps you feel threatened by these strong looking women because you are insecure about your own masculinity?

Helen: Keira Knightley was ranked at number 5 in the 2006 FHM top-100 list; the number 1 woman on this list happens to be Scarlett Johansson. Anyway, Keira does rank highly, but caution is required before one accepts this as reflective of general male preference. For instance, the guy who portrayed Keira as a better-looking woman than a glamour model I had chosen did not come back to defend her looks after I showed Keira’s face from multiple angles. Many men are not aware of tricks of photography/make-up/lighting/posing and/or are not good at inferring 3-d shape from two-dimensional pictures shot from a single or few angles only. A major section educating men about these aspects will be eventually added to this site, and men who are lifetime-exclusive heterosexual will typically find a number of female celebrities they currently find good looking to be much less attractive after going through this section in conjunction with the rest of this site. Given the novelty of this site, you can bet that a number of men are not aware of the kind of feminine and attractive women out there. Exposing the general male population to lots of feminine and very attractive women will make them find stars such as Keira a lot less attractive. Therefore, what you have identified is not reflective of innate male preference but mostly reflects, instead, ignorance. Most lifetime-exclusive heterosexual men can easily be educated to appreciate the nuances of what their biological design predisposes them to.

You are mistaken about my aversion to even slight masculinization in women. I have identified slight physical masculinization in women as a correlate of sexiness -- sex appeal to heterosexual men -- in women; sexy women for heterosexual men remain overall feminine though they are not very feminine. I have also featured two pages in the attractive women section that show somewhat masculinized women, and some such women are also displayed elsewhere. However, too many fashion models and beauty pageant contestants are excessively masculine from the perspective of lifetime-exclusive heterosexual men in general, and something needs to be done about this.

Well actually, I was talking about the UK's sexiext poll in which Keira was number one. Also, many men i'm sure have seen Keira in films where she would be viewed from all angles. It is much harder to use tricks to improve looks in a movie and yet she is still considered sexy and beautiful. I will also use the example of Angelina would probably label her as a masculinized women due to her broad shoulders, narrow hips and lack of a nipped-in waist. However, I do not know of anyone (including me) that would say no!
You say "Given the novelty of this site, you can bet that a number of men are not aware of the kind of feminine and attractive women out there." This is complete rubbish. All men I know look at porn and in this porn (i have seen much for myself) there is a huge variety of women, some curvy, some skinny etc, so men do know what is out there. Why do you assume men are ignorant to "feminine" beauty? It is obvious to everyone that very "feminine" women have small waists, small ribcages, wide hips and shapely asses. However, porn is hugely varied to cater for everyone's tastes.

Helen: The resolution of current movies is much lower than the resolution of quality photographs. Movies focus on the face only part of the time, and the face close ups are typically shown with movement. The audience is not expected to especially focus on facial features and physique proportions, given that dialogue, background scenery, film plot, etc. will be competing for their attention. And, you can bet that the editors would use all kinds of digital tricks to portray the leading ladies in their best light. Therefore, movies are not a good source for evaluating facial aesthetics. Keira Knightley looked better to me in her Pirates movie than she does in her pictures, some examples of which are shown above.

I do not know what you mean by saying no in reference to Angelina Jolie, but her looks are not impressive enough for me to consider her for the attractive women section.

You say that all men you know look at porn, but then you do not know the vast majority of men. Whereas most men have seen pornography, only a minority seek it on a more or less regular basis. I know of many heterosexual men who do not watch pornography; they saw some pictures of naked women as teenage boys, and these pictures satisfied their curiosity; they don’t feel the need to continue seeking pictures of nude women anymore. In my reply to commentator Virgil above, I have noted that pornographers are limited by the number of women willing to participate in it, and feminine ones are the least likely to do so. Only a few women who pose nude and especially those who participate in pornography qualify as feminine and attractive, and these women are scattered over different sites. It is partly for these reasons that many men are not aware of a large number of real life examples of feminine and attractive women, notwithstanding the knowledge that feminine women are supposed to have rounded hips, prominent breasts and backsides, etc.

This is a very interesting site. I'm glad that someone has finally acknowledged the asexualisation of the human race. I'm sorry some people feel the need to resort to abuse to convey their opinion.
I would like to know how and where you found your information, as I have trouble finding full text articles. Also are you planning on dealing with the vast number of studies hoping to define the 'ideal' female beauty? Apologies if this has been stated elsewhere.

Netty: I am not sure what you mean by asexualisation. What is sexually unappealing to people of a given sexual orientation may be sexually appealing to people of another sexual orientation.

The journal articles that I have cited are typically not in the public domain. To access these articles, you either have to pay the publisher (usually $25-plus per article) or go to the library of a major university and read them there. I have addressed a number of studies addressing what constitutes beauty. Go to the FAQ page and the answer to the first question will provide you with links to parts of this site where the nature of beauty has been addressed. There is more in this regard that I will add later.

This site is rediculous. Who the hell are you to say what is attractive or "feminine" and what is not. Beauty is completley subjective, always has been, always will be. There is no evidence saying that any of the models that were torn apart on this site, have had any plastic surgery. Some people are just genetically blessed. There has been little to no research done into the claims made on this site (all the top models having breast implants). There is no manuel for what is beautiful. Stop trying to define it. Either love yourself the way you are and leave other people that YOU think look better then you alone (aka models) or loose some weight and get a nose job. This is juvenile. Feels like 7th grade.

Mark: You should make a better effort to go through the site before criticizing it. All your objections have already been addressed. There is a lot that is objective about beauty; see this and then this. Nobody is saying that all top models have breast implants, though some do and it is obvious from their pictures. There are also before and after pictures of a number of fashion models that have undergone cosmetic surgery; e.g., Tyra Banks’ pictures above. Besides, all major ideas within this site are backed by extensive evidence, which will be added to with time.

In todays digital world you cannot take photographs for fact. Many pictures of models are photoshopped to make them look better. Almost all of the models in the top models page of this site (Gisele, Heidi, Alessandra)were accussed of having breast augmentations. How do you know this? A photo...not good enough. The picture of Tyra is simply a change of angle. Faces look differently at different angles. You make claims as if you are a plastic surgeon, doctor, chemist, fashion designer and gay. Please just state these ideas as your opinion. You say that when Tyra had her breast examined on her show that is was staged. Well, all of your "doctor" advice and opinions could be staged as well. Why do you care about this so much? I think it would be awesome if most men did not find the same women as me attractive...less competition. I can appreciate an opinion but I do not understand why you insist on verbally assulting these women. In the articles your comments are juvenile and unnecessary. There is a difference between a comment and an insult.
FYI most high fashion lingere designers (aka victoria's secret) require their models to have real breasts because fake breasts do not sit the same as real breasts do in a bra.

Mark: Digital manipulation of photos would be employed to make fake breasts look natural rather than the other way around. A cursory look at some pictures is sufficient to reveal the existence of breast implants in a number of cases, which is consistent with the low odds of slender and masculine women having prominent breasts and confirmed in several cases by before and after pictures.

There is no way that a different angle is what is responsible for conveying the impression of an artificial breast enhancement and a nose job in Tyra Banks.

I have not provided any “doctor” advice. I am not verbally assaulting fashion models or using juvenile language. I have pointed out that some female fashion models look like male transvestites, male-to-female transsexuals or eunuchs. The latter is a statement of fact, which cannot be sugarcoated, though you could call the analogy harsh in light of the high status of these women, but then someone has to point out that the emperor has no clothes.

By the way, I will be coming up with an entry on Victoria’s Secret models soon, and I am positive that you will find it interesting.


I have read through you're entire site, but I still don't understand you're purpose. Do you want to take away the jobs from the masculine models and give them to feminine models instead? I do agree that models should not be unaturally skinny, but other than that I don't care if high-fashion models look masculine. Why shouldnt they be allowed to be models? They are also women, human beings with feelings.

The only problem with the high fashion models is that they are so skinny, and many young girls wants to be just as skinny. But it's also a problem with glamour models and they're big breasts becoming more and more popular. And all the halfnaked women shaking they're asses in music videos. Now there are many young girls who wants to get silicone implants. The next thing will probably be silicone implants in the butt and the hips for the girls who's not so curvy. Is this any better?

At first I thought this was a sight for normal women to make them feel better about there looks, but the more read the more I understood that this site is just as shallow as the fashion buisness. It seems that you have very high standards in how the women body should look like (allthough you've said this is not about how women SHOULD look like, you still give that impression, and I'm obviously not the only one who got that impression)and you are ironic/sarcastic when you ask "who think's this is sexy?" etc. about the high fashion models. So I kind of feel sorry for them.

I will recommend all women (masculine, feminine and the ones in between)to not care about this site. What women needs is NOT new standards, but LESS focus on the body and looks. And this site is doing the opposite.

Jill: You have not read the site carefully enough. The main site purpose is to promote feminine beauty, and some other purposes include promoting high aesthetic standards among models, educating the public about the nature of aesthetics, helping protect some young women from believing that they need to be skinny in order to look attractive and also providing some information about how one can make oneself more attractive.

This site is not about taking jobs away from masculine female models; this is simply not happening as long as gays dominate the fashion business. However, the looks of high-fashion models need to occupy a niche, namely fashion shows and fashion magazines, rather than be held as the reference standard and trickle down to beauty pageants and mainstream publications/shows catering to heterosexual men.

This site focuses on beauty pageant contestants and models, and is concerned with how these women look rather than how women in general look. In many scenarios, models need to look feminine but are masculine, and you have beauty pageants catering to the general public where the majority of participants are masculinized women even though the public overwhelmingly prefers women with above average feminine looks. Therefore, there is a legitimate concern with how models in many scenarios and beauty pageant contestants should look like, but this does not mean that there is anything within this site along the lines of how women in general should like.

This site is far from being an equivalent of the fashion business when it comes to consequences for women. For instance, promotion of feminine beauty will hardly correspond to promoting unhealthy lifestyles among women. Indeed, unhealthy lifestyles such as unnecessary dieting, smoking to lose weight or excessive exercise will undermine femininity. You have mentioned the issue of breast implants. As this site makes it clear, femininity does not lie in a single trait such as large breasts since there are feminine women with small breasts and masculinized women with large breasts. Therefore, a small-breasted masculinized woman may get breast implants, but they will look fake, and what do you think this woman will be able to do to make her broad rib cage, broad shoulders and large feet more feminine? Nothing with current medical technology. Besides, multiple plastic surgeries are likely to be too expensive and if you also add the surgical risks, few women are likely to undergo multiple cosmetic surgeries. On the other hand, if more women are prompted to use simple cosmetic procedures with minimal risks, then what is the harm in making oneself more beautiful?

Body image issues are another concern. It is obvious that several women going through this site will not be particularly pleased that they are not close to being examples of feminine beauty, but most women should already be aware of this, and as I have pointed out elsewhere, one should make the most of what one has rather than sulk about one’s shortcomings; most people are going to fall short of the best characteristics/abilities found among humans. In addition, if women had to aspire toward some specific looks, they had best aspire toward feminine beauty from a health, fertility and fecundity standpoint. It may be argued that women should not have to aspire toward any kind of looks and be able to accept themselves as they are, but several forms of the body are associated with poor health -- e.g., obesity, skinniness -- and it is best from a health perspective to encourage these women to aspire toward a healthier body, which will simultaneously also be more attractive to most people. Then there is also the issue of aesthetics. If aesthetic appreciation of what most people consider to be the most exalted female form, namely feminine beauty, potentially undermines the body image of some women, then I don’t think that aesthetic appreciation should be abandoned; some may feel otherwise, but heterosexual men can’t help but appreciate feminine beauty, and I don’t think it is inappropriate to aim toward establishing at least one mainstream outlet where feminine beauty is appreciated.

Hi Erik:

I'm not sure how I ended up here but you have an interesting site. A few questions though:

1. You say a high-fashion model normally has an average whr of 7.1 but from some of the photos I see and what I note of fashion models, this seems too low. Many of them are completely straight waisted with no deliniation whatsoever. A 7.1 waist to hip ratio, while not what you deem the most aesthetically pleasing, is nonetheless considered quite attractive, especially compared to the norm. I myself am in that category and am noted amongst my friends as having a "waist": something many women in my age category have sadly lost. Where does the 7.1 figure derive from and do you think these models are accurately reporting their measurements?

2. Many men and women consider long sleek legs an important component in defining female beauty, but often thinner more "rectangular" shaped women are the fortunate ones in this category. Does leg shape factor into your aesthetic definition of female beauty? If so, what is the ideal here?

3. I had always heard "hourglass" defined as having at least a 10 inch differential between hips and waist but I would not classify most fashion models as having an hourlgass shape, in spite of their measurements. Many of your models have what you state as very feminine whrs...with a very exaggerated hourglass shape. Do you have a definition of the hourglass shape? I note many of your models are not hourglass but pearshaped, based on the fact that they do not have substantial breasts.

4. Finally, what I found interesting about this site was how women and men view female beauty so differently...(Although I would love to have more of a more pronounced waist)...I do know that most of my female friends are more apt to comment on these things: Thinness, flat stomach, slim legs, no body fat or cellulite, hair and skin. It has been interesting to see another perspective.

Sandy: The 0.71 WHR is from a study by Tovee et al., and the authors actually used the statistic to describe fashion models as hourglass figured! However, as you have correctly described, fashion models hardly approach feminine waist-hip proportions, even if you consider fashion models that are not stereotypical runaway models and are used more for lingerie modeling. The authors took the statistics from a modeling agency and stated the measurements as reliable because the models need to be accurately reported in order for them to get work, which sounds reasonable unless there happens to be an unwritten industry rule to lie in a specific manner. Consider the following.

If you translate the measurements in the table to bust-waist-hip measurements for a constant hip size of 35 inches, you get fashion models (35-25-35), glamour model (36-24-35) and normal young women (32-26-35). The glamour models chosen were Playboy centerfolds, a bad choice given their increasing masculinization from the 1960s to 2000 and also that too many of them have breast implants. A better choice of glamour models would measure as a natural 34C/D-23-35 (WHR = 0.657) if the hips are maintained at 35 inches. The fashion models would have a bust that is 35AA or 35A, i.e., a much larger ribcage than glamour models. In front view, the broader ribcage of fashion models would stretch out the waist region, notably decreasing the odds of an hourglass shape, but if you look at the fashion models from the side, then waist thickness will not be much given their skinniness. In other words, you need to consider the distribution of mass, not just the circumference; the increase in waist circumference above is small, but the distribution of mass in the waist region is changing by a greater degree, with a notable spreading out of the waist region in front view. Of course, if there is an unwritten industry rule to lie in a predetermined manner, then the actual WHR is greater than the reported one. The contents of this paragraph should have been added on the page where the WHR table is presented a long time ago, but better late than never.

Yes, leg proportions are relevant to female beauty. Long legs, absence of flab and cellulite, and fuller muscles (longer muscle bellies) are some correlates of beautiful legs in women; some correlates of aesthetically pleasing leg proportions in European women have been addressed on this page. The problem is that increasing feminization relatively shortens the legs, as you have alluded to. Since sex hormones only partly influence leg length, a population could select for both leg-long and feminine women over a long period of sexual selection. An example of this is found among Scandinavian-type Northern Europeans, where one comes across plenty of leg-long feminine women that do not correspondingly have long arms, i.e., the longer legs are not explicable in terms of general lengthening of the limbs; see this example.

I am not employing a mathematical description of an hourglass figure; just focusing on looks. The actual look of a woman easily beats a description of her in terms of bust-waist-hip measurements. You are right that some women in the attractive women section do not have large breasts, but this section is focused on overall looks, and several women without large breasts are sufficiently feminine and attractive on other counts to be showcased. Similarly, there are several women with large breasts that are not otherwise feminine and/or attractive enough to be showcased. The quality of the attractive women section will improve with time. Eight women added to this section, mostly initially, have been removed so far, and some of them had small breasts. Some more women will be removed later. This section should acquire a greater proportion of hourglass-shaped women given enough time and some luck.

Men and women do not see the beauty of women very differently; the influence of fashion media has driven some women toward an appreciation of skinny looks, and if such women are disproportionately among your circle of friends and acquaintances, then you may infer a large discrepancy between the preferences of men and women. Skin, hair, flabbiness and cellulite are all relevant to beauty a far as both men and women are concerned, but since this site addresses young adult women who happen to be models and beauty pageant contestants, comparisons on these measures are hardly relevant. On the other hand, the bottom of this page links to various articles on skin and hair-related issues of interest to women with problems on these counts.

two questions:
(1)why do all of the girls that are supposed to be examples of feminine beauty look underage? I'm a female, but I think I can pick out attractive women and most of the women in the gallery look gross and in bad shape.
(2)how can you say that the only place you could find feminine models that hadn't been currrupted by homesexual pedophiles' idea of beauty was on porn sites? what about penthouse? or just about any other men's magazine?

three questions:
(1)why do all of the girls that are supposed to be examples of feminine beauty look underage? I'm a female, but I think I can pick out attractive women and most of the women in the gallery look gross and in bad shape.
(2)how can you say that the only place you could find feminine models that hadn't been currrupted by homesexual pedophiles' idea of beauty in on porn sites? what about penthouse? or just about any other men's magazine?
(3)why are there so many well built male models if homosexual designers prefer an adolescent boy look? What about Bruce Weber or Michaelangelo?

Sara: I don’t see any woman shown in the attractive women section that looks underage; the nude ones have to be at least 18 for legal purposes. There are two or three models in this section with faces that suggest an age less than 18, but these faces do not look younger than 16, and one look at the physiques of the women and there is no doubt that they are 18-plus. A combination of femininity and fine facial features can make women’s faces look a little younger.

I do not know what you find gross/badly shaped in most of the women shown in the attractive women section. Perhaps their femininity, but if so, then your preferences are very different from that of the majority of humans.

Nowhere have I talked about the choice of mainstream female models being corrupted by homosexual pedophiles; homosexual pederasts is more like it, and non-pederast homosexuals are also implicated. Pedophiles prefer pre-pubescents, and pederasts are men who prefer teenage or younger boys. In other words, homosexual pedophiles are pederasts, but pederasts are not necessarily homosexual pedophiles. The top ranks of the fashion business are dominated by homosexual men, many of whom aesthetically prefer the looks of adolescent boys.

I did not say anything about obtaining the pictures of the women shown in the attractive women section from porn sites; I have said that I obtained them from adult-oriented sources. Many adult-oriented sources feature artistic nudity but no pornography. I have obtained pictures from many artistic nudity sites, and these sites do not focus on genitals like Penthouse does, i.e., they are more acceptable from the perspective of the general public than Penthouse is. I have shown two Penthouse models, too. I have also shown a model from the men’s publication, Savvy, shown a Playboy model, and will be adding a couple more Playboy models. I have used miscellaneous sources.

Partner age preferences vary among homosexual men; some prefer pre-pubescent boys, others prefer teenage boys, some prefer adult men and some prefer males from two or more of these groups. Therefore, it should not be surprising that there are well-built masculine male models out there. On the other hand, male homosexual fashion designers with an aesthetic preference for adolescent boys have at least two constraints when it comes to potentially using adolescent males as models: 1) their sexuality would be a dead giveaway if the male models look too young since it is well known that the general male public overwhelmingly prefers masculine looks in men and 2) the general male public is so set about the desirability of macho looks that it would be poor marketing to use adolescent males. Women are more manipulable than men when it comes to what desirable looks are about, and homosexual fashion designers are also better able to get away with skinny and masculine teenage girls that approximate the looks of adolescent boys because it is obvious that homosexual men have an interest in males, not females, and they and other fashion industry personnel could come up with various excuses -- such as the clothes hangar argument -- to explain the looks of their female fashion models.

On the other hand, in case you did not know, the extent of masculinity desired in men by women is generally less than what heterosexual men desire in themselves. Hence, there are plenty of male models that are on the effeminate side with respect to their physiques as far as many heterosexual men are concerned, though you might still consider them to be well built.

so why are female models so tall? I've never seen any adolescent males that are that tall. I can definitely buy the idea that high fashion models do not fall in line with heterosexual standards of beauty, but I'm not convinced that they're meant to look like adolescent males. Maybe they're just different looking...

High fashion design has a very artistic aspect to it, and a lot of the times, what artists create are not necessarily what we consider to be the most pleasing to the eye. Maybe using certain women as models is just designers conforming to the standards of art in the high fashion industry.

I have very high cheek bones, low heavy eyebrows, a prominent hooked nose and heavy jaw line. I'm a healthy U.K. high size 12 (though you could say my body is quite androgynous in shape - I have polycystic ovaries).
I'm against the use of underweight models as much as the next person. But God made women different shapes and sizes (thankfully). If everybody looked the same life would be boring. God made me the way I am for a reason and I have the right to exist without people saying that I'm unnattrative(has it occured that people that aren't "feminine" have feelings?)
And actually, some men do find me attractive - there is that expression "there's someone for everyone...".
Who's face was more attractive? Marilyn Monroe's or Audrey Hepburn's? In my opinion they were both attractive in different ways and society was richer for it.
Women should just learn to love their own individuality. No amount of saying another woman is ugly will make an individual more attractive.
As long as women turn on each other I believe that genuine issues such as the use of underweight models will go untackled. Its not productive.

And for any men that think women have a duty to fit these ideals stated in this website?
I take it the creators of this website will make a "brother" site?
You know, you could critisise men that look "feminine", applaud men that look "masculine" (including penis size)!

Have every inch of yourself scrutinized and be told that you are totally abhorant (or should be abhorent) to the opposite sex because your jaw isn't totally square etc (and because your you have "feminine" features your girlfriend must be a lesbian!!!).
And try and understand that its to make people "feel good about themselves". But you can't help the way you were born can you?
Go on, I dare'll enjoy it.

All I can say is that this is one of the worst websites I have *ever* seen!

Sara: Fashion models are very tall from the perspective of women, but they are still in the average height range for men. In early adolescence one observes boys shoot up in height within a short amount of time and typically end up with a gangly appearance, which is what the central tendency among high-fashion models approximates. For teenage girls/adult women to approximate the gangly look, they have to be tall. Also consider that you will note the height of fashion models when you are standing next to them, but when they are walking on the runway, you will be looking at them from a distance, and at this distance, the absolute height of the models is not as important as it is for them to present the gangly appearance of boys in their early adolescence.

That there is an artistic aspect to fashion designing is obvious. I am willing to consider that artists will sometimes come up with art that only the connoisseurs will appreciate. But of all possible anomalous looks, why is the central tendency to approximate the looks of adolescent boys? What does the domination of the fashion business by homosexual men suggest? I have addressed five Victoria’s Secret models so far at this blog, all of whom are masculinized women with breast implants. What possible justification could there be for the latter other than the homosexuals involved being unwilling to tolerate anything beyond the minimum femininity that it takes to get the job done? If this minimum femininity can be achieved via breast implants and posing tricks then the homosexuals will gladly avoid feminine women. Why are you ignoring the most obvious explanation?

Hello Mr. Holland.

I happened to have ran into your website when searching for "broad shoulders" in the yahoo image pages. All of that you have placed here is quite interesting and informative.

Since I was 12 until I was 16 my dream was to be a fashion model like the women whose pictures you put here like Cindy Crawfords and Kate Moss, for example. Of course that opportunity never came and so I just dreamt of looking like these women.

My skeletal frame had always been robust since I was a child, but I was overweight, which made me disproportionately larger than other girls, but not necessarily fatter. I kept dreaming of having bony cheekbones and and shoulders like that of the fashion models. I am about 5 feet and 7.5 inches right now without shoes and almost 6 feet with the high heels that I wear, which intimidates everyone around me sometimes, both men and women. During the last 3 years I dropped almost 30 pounds. I am now 135 pounds versus 165 pounds and it is actually a normal healthy weight for most women my height who don't have my high cheekbones and broad shoulders.

It seems that my dream came true. I do resemble those masculine fashion models who I always wanted to look like now that their look is gradually going out of style and people are aspiring to the Marylin Monroe body and face types again, actually with the exception of my narrow hips I do also resemble Sophia Loren facially, heightwise, and my bust is rather full...I am a C cup. actually, it would be interesting to note that even Sophia Loren had strikingly high cheekbones and a broad face but was still considered the most beautiful woman in the world some decades ago.

The most interesting experience that I had was when I was visiting my home country a year ago for 6 months which is Iran. Our country is the world's capital for plastic surgery, mostly facial alterations, not as much body work, mainly nose jobs, cheek implants, botox and so forth. Before going to Iran, I saw to it that I lose a lot of weight so as not to look less attractive than the other women. Well I looked less attractive on many grounds, but mostly on the grounds that they didn't appreciate my high cheekbones that many tell me are literally supermodel cheekbones and my bony shoulders. I had an affinity before for looking bony until my father told me that I needed to gain some weight because my thin face looked masculine, less kind and feminine. The women there often told me they wish they had my height and long legs, which most Iranian women don't, but insisted that my face was emaciated and sunken in. On average Iranian women are not more than 5 feet 4 inches although there are even Iranian women who are thin and as tall as 6 feet too just as there are among Chinese women, which is even less common.

Even my old boyfriend had often complained that my face was too thin before I visited Iran and that I needed to gain some weight and that a rounded, more plumpish face was prettier. It was amazing that he couldnt appreciate that I sort of resembled a girl who would be making those thousands of dollars that those models make and he wanted a more "normal looking girl," a girl that looked like the rest of the girls, not someone strikingly different.

I will email you a few pictures of myself for you to see how i looked this past year even at my thinnest which was 125 pounds, I never got be less than 120 in order to be as waiflike as Kate Moss because she and I are almost the same height, I would have literally been a Middle Eastern Kate Moss only without those tens of thousands of dollars that she made every for every fashion show, but I thought that just to look like someone who does would be a great honor.

But mind you, boys and men 10 to 15 years ago liked those high fashion models when I was in high school and it is not necessarily because they are prettier or more attractive than Marilyn Monroe types. By the way, I know you personally don't find Pamela Anderson an attractive woman, but she was highly adored when she was a famous actress by almost all men with little exception.

The fact of the matter is more sociological than you are choosing to acknowledge. At least this is my opinion. Whatever we, the masses, are told is beautiful, we take as beautiful through overexposure and advertising regardless of what it is even if we initially think that it is the most undesirable thing. For example, right now, 80s fashion is back in, and girls are literally wearing those boots and tight pants and spiking their hair again whereas when I was a teenager in the nineties if you wanted to tell someone their outfit was not cool, you would say "its so eighties."

Now sir, I know you did not want me to say anything about inner beauty not being mentioned in your website and I will not do so as you requested, but I will offer you my most honest opinion. I think that a more complete and thorough examination of what beauty is and what it means to different people would reveal that beauty comes in many forms and that it is simply a matter of taste or prespective which is shapened through exposure and culturization over time and it is certainly subject to change at any time, which is what my growing years have taught me firsthand as my own looks and those I knew changed, voluntarily and involuntarly, now that I am 25 years old. But you are right, most of the people in the world do not look like high fashion models and therefore most people throughout the world would not find them attractive personally because there simply aren't many 5'10 to 6 feet women on this planet with broad shoulder, protruding cheekbones, and a bony jaw line all on 120 to 130 pounds. This type of look is most certainly on the unusual side, but not necessariliy on the unattractive side.

What might make a high fashion model attractive more specifically such as Kate Moss or Cindy Crawford is not their full sexy hips or tiny waist and big bust along with a roundish girlish face. This so called masculinity which you speak of that combines the totality of their features is rather symbolic of pride, confidence, assertiveness, discipline, control, and detachedness from others, not characteristically feminine traits by even traditional European standards, which would be shyness and cuteness combined, softness combined with an innocent look that is naive and gentle. This look may be attractive to some in some way and yet not attractive to others.

Yours Truly,

Sarah: I am aware that there are some problems associated with the main goal of this site, which is the promotion of feminine beauty. The problem that you have identified is hurt feelings on the part of women who lack feminine beauty and especially those who are masculinized. This is an unfortunate outcome, and I wish that this weren’t the case. But let me explain the scope of this site, starting from the problem of underweight models.

Feminists and a number of eating disorder researchers have railed against the media/fashion industry for using underweight models, but what have they achieved? Hardly anything, but then what does one expect if they generally do not have a clue as to why high-fashion models are so skinny? To do something about this issue, the following steps are required:


1. All interested parties need to understand that the typical skinniness of high-fashion models is part of a package that includes youth and masculinization, all of which make the central tendency of their looks lean toward those of adolescent boys, thanks to the gay domination of the fashion business.

2. It is necessary to document literature that the looks of high-fashion models cannot be understood in terms of some kind of public demand or the possibility that their looks increase sales given that the public strongly and overwhelmingly prefers above average femininity in the looks of women and finds the typical skinniness of high-fashion models socially unacceptable. This requires that one document correlates of beauty, and to do so is to act in the role of a messenger. It is inappropriate to direct animus toward the messenger when the problem that one has is with the way things are, which is what the messenger has merely documented.

3. It is necessary to provide examples of women that the general public finds attractive, i.e., feminine and attractive women, to reduce the odds of some women “internalizing” the skinny ideal promoted by the fashion industry. Educational attempts geared toward reducing the “internalization” of the skinny ideal and prompting healthful dietary practices are long-term failures because the crux of the issue is not addressed, namely that there are girls/young women out there looking for standards of perfection to emulate because they subscribe to the belief that if only they could be more perfect, their problems would go away. Convincing these women that perfect/ideal looks approach feminine beauty, as per the preferences of the vast majority of people, easily takes care of unhealthful practices such as unnecessary dieting or excessive exercise in order to achieve the “skinny ideal.” Pretending that beauty is a social construction achieves nothing; most people cannot be fooled into believing this.

In other words, the desirable goal of reducing the negative impact of skinny fashion models is consistent with the promotion of feminine beauty even if the sole reason for this promotion is aesthetics, speaking of which I hope that you agree that heterosexual men have a right to appreciate feminine beauty in a mainstream setting. Heterosexual men should not have to turn to adult-oriented sites to appreciate feminine beauty; it is a long-term goal of this site to establish a mainstream outlet for feminine beauty appreciation.

I will not pretend that there are no problems associated with the promotion of feminine beauty, and I will take the necessary steps to minimize these. You have probably noted that there is an effort here to provide women with some information as to how they can improve their looks, which is completely unnecessary as far the purpose of his site goes, but this information is provided as a courtesy. I have also addressed issues related to discrimination against unattractive women and how they can be minimized. I will address body image issues later, including the hurt feelings bit, which is something that I dislike about the project, but will argue that the overall benefits related to feminine beauty promotion exceed the negatives by far. You should note that the fashion industry’s insistence on using a narrow looks range creates a “hurt feelings” scenario for some women, too. For instance, the fashion industry is telling you that at size 12, you are fat! One could ask whether there is any ideal with better overall consequences than the fashion industry ideal or whether we should be having any ideal in the first place. It is not difficult to show that feminine beauty standards are an overall better ideal in terms of consequences, and as to whether we should be having an ideal, most people already harbor an intrinsic feminine beauty ideal, i.e., this site is not working toward creating an ideal.

I hope you understand that this site is not about how women are supposed to look like; women should not have to be under any obligation to conform to the looks preferred by any individual or group. This site is about appropriate looks in beauty pageants and modeling, i.e., it does not concern itself with the looks of women in general. You will have noted that women other than models and beauty pageant contestants are not being addressed here, except in rare circumstances and in response to reader comments. Beauty pageants catering to the general public should cater to the central tendency of aesthetic preferences in the general population, but this is far from the case. Many modeling scenarios require the use of feminine women, but masculinized women are used instead. Attempting to do something about this situation is not the same as saying “this is how women are supposed to look like.”

An equivalent site addressing male attractiveness would be useful to have, and although I could easily come up with it, I have little interest in male attractiveness, and there is little need for such a site, unlike a sore need for this site. Besides, most men who don’t measure up in the looks department know about it.

Your statement that God has made you the way you are for a purpose indicates that you have accepted your looks, to some extent at least. Please don’t let anyone convince you that your looks are unacceptable. Based on your self description, I will only say that someone with your looks should not be a model in some scenarios and does not belong as a contestant in a beauty pageant, but I will never say that your looks are unacceptable, period. There are many scenarios where looks don’t matter or shouldn’t matter. The Gods couldn’t care less about how someone looks. If you have a good nature, then you would easily be a better long-term stable partner for heterosexual men than objectively physically attractive women with bad natures. You could be a far better human than the typical beautiful woman or I can ever hope to be, and that would make you a much more valuable person. Just remember to not let anyone convince you that your looks are unacceptable per se.

hmmmm, Mr. Holland, I have been reading through some of your feedbacks and I see several personal biases on your part. Somehow, it seems that your site is somehow designed to degrade certain individuals such as homosexual fashion designers and those fashion models that they promote rather than to inform readers and that you do have a special liking for the teenage nude girls whose pictures you posted here from some websites.
Hmmm couldnt you use perhaps pictures of well known respected movie actresses who have those so called feminine traits that you speak of and who happen to be fully clothed in such a way that their body types can still discernable in order to make your point about what "feminine beauty" is??
well good thing you don't use your real name here because it is not good for your identity. however, there are at least a 100 ways to refute the things you say and perhaps you need to do some sole searching. maybe you are one of the people who lures young women into becoming porn stars and somehow think that putting their photos up here would somehow on the same ranks as Cindy Crawford and the rest, which unfortunately won't. Then again, its just a possibility I do not really know.
However, please consider your motives more carefully for making this website.

Aileen: How have you come to the conclusion that I am hiding behind a pseudonym? I am not doing anything shameful and have no reason to use a fake name. I have no interest in getting women to go into porn; I will be working toward getting feminine and attractive women to pose in bikinis so that their pictures can be used to promote feminine beauty.

Getting pictures of “respectable” feminine and attractive actresses for the attractive women section is not a bad idea, but I am not into movies and cannot tolerate chick flicks/love stories where the feminine actresses are likely found. Suggest actresses that are comparable to the women in the attractive women section and I will take a look at them.

The attractive women section is about promoting feminine looks, not the actual women shown. As long as the fashion business remains dominated by homosexual men, feminine women are not going to become top fashion models.

Your accusation of bias on my part and thinking that there is anything about your looks that makes you resemble fashion models, apart from broad shoulders, shows your ignorance about what the it look is about in the fashion world and why it is so.

Having looked at your photos, it is clear that your skeletal frame is on the large side as far as the tastes of homosexual fashion designers go. You probably didn’t look like a boy in his early adolescence when you were in your mid-to-late teens, which, along with your lack of height, would rule you out as a high-fashion model. Kate Moss made up for her lack of height by looking like an adolescent boy when she first came to the limelight. At 5-foot-7.5 and 165 pounds around age 22, you qualified as grotesquely obese by gay fashion designer standards, and even your current weight of 135 pounds makes you obese by their standards, not to mention that at age 25, you are too old by fashion industry standards.

A C-cup qualifies as a deformity by gay fashion designer standards; AA breasts are more like it. You do not have high cheekbones but low ones instead. High cheekbones are placed high on the face; your cheekbones are large, placed low and are horizontally prominent, i.e., they are robust but not high. Anyway, I hope that you understand the reasons why fashion models look the way they do and not hold their looks as very desirable.

I was not under the impression that Iranians are heavily into cosmetic surgery, but it is unlikely that they beat Venezuelans.

Speaking of the likes of Pamela Anderson, in the absence of some prominent source(s) of feminine and attractive women, if fake-breasted nude models like Pamela Anderson are promoted by a major publication (Playboy) as very glamorous using posing tricks, then should it be surprising if she accumulates many heterosexual male fans? Something like this is unlikely to have happened if the masses knew enough to see through the fake femininity of women like Pamela Anderson. In other words, it is not “sociological,” i.e., people conditioned by the media, but more like lack of knowledge about fake femininity and the kind of feminine and attractive women out there. Fashion is a different matter; clothing in vogue is a media creation, but appreciation of the human physical form is less manipulable by the media, and only a minority is highly manipulable.

Whereas beauty does not come in a single form only, the range of the beautiful is lot narrower than the range of human forms, and there is a lot that is objective about beauty. It is an absurd notion that most people do not find high-fashion models attractive because most of them don’t look like them. Most people don’t look feminine and attractive either, but this doesn’t make the majority not appreciate feminine beauty.

As far as physical appearance implying some personality attributes goes, this is not what this site is concerned about. In other words, a physical appearance that suggests that a woman has a less/more desirable personality/character is not something that is taken into account by this site when it comes to addressing her beauty.

Thank you for your thoughtful analysis.
However, the validity of your claims from start to finish has been met with much criticism and an overwhelming amount of counterarguments from women and men that render much what you say basically invalid.

As far as me looking nothing like a high fashion model, the fact of the matter is that I never asserted that I were a carbon copy of what a high fashion model looks like, but have more of the skeletal proportions that they do that the vast majority of women and for the record women and men in the fashion industry suggested to me on many occasions that I take up modelling, which I never had the courage or discipline to do so because it required more discipline than I had. However, I think since you observed that I took pride in my looks, you took an opportunity, as you always do sir, to devaluate and to belittle, which is alright. You offered your opinion and many others have offered me opinions, both men and women.

It is so easy to bring your claims down as almost every human being who has left comments on this site has done. I could write ten pages about how wrong you are, but that would just be a waste of my time. Actually, Im sorry I even left comments here after I read through all of the comments that people have sent to you and worse than that, was when I read your responses to all of them.

You may want to put up pictures of Winona Ryder, Scarlett Johansan (sorry cant spell her last name right), Rachel McAdamas, Kirsten Dunst, Kate Winslet and pictures of some older actresses such as Vivien Leigh, Elizabeth Taylor, Sophia Loren, etc. whose pictures were taken before photography was as advanced as it is today to make them look drastically different from how they really looked. These were some classy, elegant ladies who graced and charmed men and women alike and are still recognized as symbols of beauty all over the world in a wide array of attires that fully reveal their body contours, shapes, proportions, and facial features. Doing so would not indicate an affinity for chick flicks or love stories and such.

Anyways good luck in promoting feminine beauty among your menfolk, from the looks of it, you will be needing it, sir. For as long as this website has been existence and people have been visiting it, you have not done very well in promoting your noble cause.

Furthermore, the fact that you did not know that Iranians are into plastic surgery is an indiction that you do not do much research sir on the subjects that you attempt to teach to others. Just type in a search engine "nose job" and "iran" and see what you find, at least a few hundred links will appear if not more.

You only use a few outdated photos of some indigenous Australian and African women to promote your noble cause among white America the majority of which are sadly not much more educated than yourself.

You may want to travel to at least a few different countries around the world in northern Europe, across the Mediterranean, East Asia, the Middle East, different sections of Africa, and South America in order to enrich your knowledge and understanding about the biological inclinations of men and women and how these are not standard among half the human population of men which consists of roughly 2.5 to 3 billion persons because the fact of the matter is that even the United States is gradually ceasing to remain as predominantly European in terms of its citizens' and residents' ancestry and is rather a melting pot of peoples from all of these countries which will include people like myself who will be reading your writings.

Lastly, you say you have no bias but the fact that you repeatedly use the phrase "as long as gays dominate the fashion industry...." is a clear indication that you have a personal bias against homosexuals and maybe this site is also intended to debunk homosexual fashion designers. For the record, sir, Donna Karan and Estee Lauder both of whom use those so called masculine models such as Elizabeth Hurley to promote their products are all females and many women themselves, promote that so-called masculinized look among women. God forbid you write a paragraph about how masculine and unfeminine these designers are who are raking in so much money because Donna Karan is married and so was her mother, another famous designer by the name of Anne Klein.

Again, making this post is a waste of my time, but its for your own good, sir. I hope you can appreciate the time that someone else puts into helping you learn new things.

Aileen: My arguments would be rendered doubtful if I were unable to rebut the counterarguments, but there is no counterargument here that I have not been able to rebut; see if you can cite any example to the contrary. People who agree with this site are less inclined to leave comments than those who disagree. If all people who sent me positive emails had posted their comments here, you would have seen evidence of many more people agreeing with what is being said here.

I have not belittled your looks; just described them from the perspective of gay fashion designers. If you believe that what I wrote is incorrect, try attending an open call by a model scout agency or go to/send your pictures to a modeling agency and see what they have to say. I have a difficult time believing that you were advised by people working in the fashion industry to try fashion modeling.

Thank you for suggesting the actresses. As far as the attractive women section is concerned, Kirsten Dunst, Scarlett Johansson and Kate Winslet simply do not have the attractive looks and/or femininity to be put there, and a woman with the abnormal-looking cheekbones of Sophia Loren cannot be put there, either. I will consider the others, but I would need clear pictures of them in bikinis, obtaining which is often a problem when it comes to actresses, and one may have no choice other than getting their movies and taking a screen capture when one comes across the right scene. I have actually attempted this, only to be disappointed to learn that the actress that caught my fancy turned out to be unfeminine. Going after actresses at present is a poor return of investment for me, i.e., few good ones obtained for a great deal of time spent in finding suitable women.

I have not said that I did not know that Iranians were into plastic surgery; I wrote that I was not under the impression that Iranians are heavily into cosmetic surgery after your comment that Iran is the world’s capital for plastic surgery. This is a trivial issue anyway.

Your comment about my using old pictures of Australians/Africans is irrelevant; the people depicted are still around in plentiful numbers, and current pictures of them are also used. As to your comments about having me travel through the world, biological inclinations of men and women, the U.S. becoming less European...what is all this?

My implicating gay fashion designers for what they are responsible for is bias on my part? I have offered plenty of evidence, which you have not refuted except for pointing out ostensibly heterosexual designers such as Donna Karan. Firstly, being married with children is no proof that one is a lifetime-exclusive heterosexual. Secondly, the fashion business is dominated by homosexual men; other types have to comply with the status quo.

I appreciate your well wishes, though I don’t need them. This site has been in existence for 14 months and has done nicely for itself; it is also seeing accelerating success.

what a moron you are!!!! as a man I find your thoughts stupid and archaic. Go back to the cave you crawled out of. All women have their own look and they are all sexy in their own way. Its like saying a garden is only pretty if it had roses in it. Its prettier with violets and dandilions and other types of flowers too. I have been with many women in my life, not out of desperation, but out of mutual liking and they all had their own unique look and charm. Not one of them resembled the other in any way physically but I liked all of them.

Those pics you put up of those girls are as easy as piece of cake. They will give it up to anyone for 50 dollars and an ice cream cone. I like to find a woman with class and fashion models charge for their time and Im sure thats whats pissing you off because they just wont give you the time of day.

Jonathan: Spamming is not allowed. Do not leave the same comment in multiple entries and in entries where they don’t belong. Your comment is useless. Time for you to learn to not judge a book by its cover. Your inference that the women in the attractive women section are non-discriminating cheap-prostitute types is unwarranted. Besides, what matters to this site is looks, not behavior. Controlling for behavior, if you prefer the “classy” looks of high-fashion models to the looks of the feminine women in the attractive women section then my gaydar reads that you are a homosexual or bisexual.

However, I would like to point out the following:

If one looks at any fruit, seed, or vegetable plant in nature during the months of July, August, September, and October...the fruit and seed of a plant, indeed the different plants mature at different rates. The fruit, seed, or vegetable produced vary in beauty, shape, and size. I have seen small seeds produce great plants the following year and large more robust seeds produce nothing the following year. I have tasted great small fruits and vegetables and nasty tasting but more physically robust fruits and vegetables.

Nature and or God loves variation and experiments all the time

The point is that, people mature at different rates. Many of these slender boyish women that you have detailed here will be very curveous and pretty women by the time they are in their 30's, 40's, 50's, and many of them will be wonderfully shapely in their 60's. While many of the models (proper female beauty your standards) will be quite fat. I have seen such things transpire before my eyes.

In America 2007…the statistics that I read states that 66 percent of the population is morbidly obese. That is 30 pounds or more overweight. That leaves only 34 percent of the population available for models, 3.4 people out of 10 people.

Prior to modern OB/GYN care and surgery…many of these slender small hipped women would have and did die during childbirth. Better, yet they never married for fears of death during pregnancy. This has been the case for many thousands of years.

Perhaps the Fashion Industry is their revenge from the grave.

Is the Fashion Industry dominated by gays and lesbians? Maybe…How about another view point? That is, the Fashion Industry one of the only places gays or lesbians can work, live, and function without the crushing oppression of the ruling class’s crushing hatred of their gender/sexual choice. The oppression often leaves it’s victims in poverty and prostitution.

Maybe if they could work in other industries they would not all hang out in Fashion.

Further, if you look at your point of view on a couple of your pages, “A Parade of Transsexuals”…this concept could be expanded to your entire web site. Actual your web site is a fabulous resource for Androgynous people and Transsexuals. Your information confirms and re-affirms their physical status. Good job! Although, I do not think that was your intent.

Finally, Erik, the amount of work and thoroughness of your information is fabulous. I have thoroughly enjoyed the entire web site. I think that your dislike of the Fashion Industry and Slender boyish women spoils the fabulous and brilliant work that you have presented here.

Your numerical, pseudo-scientific analysis of what makes a woman attractive reminds me intensely of the Nazi's psysical determinations of what makes a person Aryan. The homophobia you undeniably express further accentuates your intolerance in ways that reflect the Nazi ideology. I found this website very chilling, even though I agree with your general statement: that curvy, feminine, healthy women are neglected in modern media.

Your choice to proliferate your website with photos of naked women in the porn industry, devoid of any candid photos of dressed women, or women without makeup, suggests a very unhealthy perspective on womankind. Similarly, to stigmatize less curvacious or soft-featured women by name-calling them as "masculinized" or "transexual" shows a childish and unforgiving nature.

You have articulated your personal tastes in beauty here, extremely clearly. But nowhere do you seem to recognise that attraction and physical preference vary from person to person, and cannot be standardized. Your egotism is unbelievably intense.

I suggest that you look within yourself. I suggest you look at your relationships with women, both romantic and otherwise, and see if they are healthy. (I suspect they are not.) And I suggest that you seek counselling. There are better ways to look at the world, and your overall life might improve.

Charly: Yes, there is plenty of variation in nature, but not all of it is useful toward a given purpose. You are mistaken about boyish/masculine young women turning feminine in their 30s and beyond. Girls start with a boyish figure, but one can tell which ones are going to end up looking feminine by their facial features. The masculinity-femininity of facial features has prenatal origins. Once women have reached adulthood, their faces will become more masculine with age, and their skeletal proportions are not going to become more feminine even if they acquire more feminine curves. How appealing are curves in women with a masculinized skeleton? You may want to compare the lingerie models in Table 1 with the glamour models having less impressive waist-to-hip ratios (WHRs) in Table 2 in an entry where confounds related to the association between WHR and attractiveness are addressed.

You have talked about attractiveness in the 30s and up to the 60s. This site is addressing models and beauty pageant contestants, i.e., mostly women in the 18-25 range. If some curvaceous or skinny young adult women become obese and curvaceous, respectively, in middle age, then this is of little relevance to this site. Beyond young adulthood, people lose overall attractiveness.

You are grossly mistaken about the prevalence of morbid obesity in America. 66% of American adults are overweight, but only about 32% of American adults are obese; the prevalence of morbid obesity would be a lot lower.

The wider hips of women are only partly related to childbirth; the rest serves to makes them more appealing to men. In other words, the typical woman with narrow hips will do a fine job at giving birth, and your impression of narrow-hipped women frequently dying during childbirth or not marrying for fear of giving birth until the availability of Cesarean-section births is way off the mark.

Your proposition that the domination of the fashion business by gays can possibly be explained in terms of anti-gay oppression preventing them from getting jobs elsewhere is implausible. Gays do not move around with a “I am gay” label attached to them. Only a minority of gays are discernible as such by virtue of their appearance/mannerisms. The stronger the anti-gay public sentiment, the greater the proportion of gays that will be closeted and thereby not experience discrimination related to their homosexuality if nothing about their looks/behaviors gives away their sexual orientation. In addition, increasing public tolerance of homosexuality in the past few decades has not only not corresponded to the fashion industry becoming less gay dominated, but the gay presence has actually become clearer in the form of an increasing proportion of very skinny and boyish women among high-fashion models, forcing Spanish and Italian governmental authorities to crack down on this trend in 2006. Read about why gays dominate the fashion business under the appropriate heading on this page.

I do not understand what you mention by my information confirming and re-affirming the physical status of androgynous people/transsexuals.

It is incorrect to talk about me disliking slender and boyish women; the correct expression is that I dislike the use of slender/boyish/masculinized women when well-shaped feminine women are required. I have nothing against slender and boyish women. The fashion industry, and more specifically the gays in it, have created a lot of problems; these problems are the reason why this site has been set up, and it is imperative that the source of the problems be addressed at length if the problems are to be solved.

Heather: If I have espoused pseudo science, then why do you find this site chilling? Shouldn’t you rest assured that others will see it this way, too, and that this site will not have any impact? You know the answer, and it is related to your inability to substantiate the pseudo science allegation. No anatomical/quantitative data should be required to tell feminine women apart from masculine women or attractive women from unattractive women, but without anatomical/numerical data, the arguments here would be dismissed as subjective.

Feminists like you are useless when it comes to solving the problems resulting from skinny high-fashion models. When it is clear that gay fashion designers are to blame, all you do is come up with an accusation of homophobia and a reference to the Nazis. What homophobia has been espoused here?

The Nazi analogy is nonsense. Leftists have had a long history of persecuting gays. A pro-gay stance has been adopted by leftists only from the 1970s onward. They used to consider homosexuality to be a form of fascist or bourgeois perversion. And, it is interesting to address how the label “fascist perversion” came into play. Homosexuality was not uncommon among the paramilitary youth in Weimar Germany who would eventually go on to form the Nazis. Whereas the Bolshevists had decriminalized sodomy in 1922, Stalinist communists recriminalized it in 1933 because they feared that the Nazis and fascists would infiltrate homosexual circles in Moscow, Leningrad and other Russian cities. There is even a tremendous amount of circumstantial evidence that Hitler was gay. Of course, toward the end of their regime, the Nazis put many homosexuals in concentration camps, but the point is that there is no relation between political ideology and anti-gay beliefs. Homosexuals have been persecuted by people of all political orientations at some time or the other, and a seemingly homophobic individual cannot be readily compared to a Nazi since he could very well be compared to other leftists in the past or clergy that have persecuted homosexuals. Similarly, the leftist roots of feminism are also the roots of Hitler and Nazi beliefs.

Very few of the nude models shown here are from the porn industry; most are simply nude models, and the reason they have been selected is because partial nudity is a requirement if one is to address aesthetics and there are no alternative sources of a large number of feminine and attractive women at this time. Dressed women are shown. Make-up is irrelevant. The nude models are taken from low-profile sources, i.e., the typical photo has not been airbrushed, and the women are often wearing minimal make-up. Since the focus is on young adults, and it is easy to come across many attractive young adults with blemishless skin, I don’t see why make-up should be an issue.

Women addressed as masculinized or transsexual-looking are not being stigmatized, but simply being described as they are, and this does not reflect my nature in any way.

It is absurd that you would accuse me of not recognizing that attraction and physical preference vary from person to person when the preferences of heterosexual and nonheterosexual men are well-contrasted within this site. There is, of course, variation within either group, but it has been abundantly shown that there is a lot that is objective about beauty and that most people mutually agree about what constitutes beauty.

Your suggestions are useless. On the other hand, I suggest that you read about how women can be protected from the negative influence of the fashion industry, and act on the knowledge.


You have quite an emotional charge behind your statements. Erik you have taken most innocent comments and turned them into fuel for your fires of passion. Your logic and process of argumentation is sophistry at its worst. That is changing the themes to suit your viewpoint and state a thus erroneous thread of illogical arguments. Hence, thinking which a self fulfilling process is.

If you were an would reveal your true bias as why you are making these arguments and presenting your point of view, "web site".

I was wrong about assuming that you are interested in pursing a civilized and intelligent discussion!

The real purpose of your web site is that you are bored, like to fight with people, and have a deep seated anger and conflict regarding the physical differences between men and women.

Have a nice time with your childish rampage.

Charly: Any reasonable person would see emotions/histrionics in your comments, not my reply to you. I have made the site purpose clear, i.e., the promotion of feminine beauty; read the FAQ for further details. I do not harbor anger/conflicted emotions related to the nuances of male-female physical differences, but simply need to address them in some detail to avoid accusations of making subjective arguments.

I am sure that the models that you; Erik, label as ‘Transexuals’ are laughing all the way to the bank.

I am sure all the non famous women who look like the models you; Erik, label as ‘Transexual’ are resting easy as their particular form of feminine beauty gains popular acceptance and notoriety. Women do love outlaws and they certain love themselves. So this group is probably quite happy.

MAYBE, you, yourself are a ‘Transexual’ or a ‘Gay’ or maybe you have been ‘JILTED in love’ by a woman who has the characteristics of the women you describe as ‘Transexuals’.

If you have been jilted…you have my sympathy. It is the most hurtful experience to have been jilted by someone who is confused along the gender lines described. It leaves an emotional wound deeper that most and without recourse. Since there is little of no information about how to recover from said wounds…and it creates the kind of bitterness that you appear to have. It is the type of bitterness that drives one relentlessly to seek relief and to engage in the type of emotional triads you are adept at.

I think you need to determine: Why you are hurt and how the wound is directing your political and public positioning.

Once you have done that you will become more pluralistic in your acceptances of other’s sexual genotypes and phenotypes.

You will become happy and non-judgmental of other peoples’ genders and sexual expression of those genders.

Finally, your own love and sexual relationships will become genuine and truly fulfilling and or you will find the match to your particular gender genotype/phenotype.

Best of Luck to you Erik.

I thought visiting this site again from time to time and viewing people's comments may be more interesting than the site itself. Sadly, Mr. Holland, you dismiss everything people say to you as pure nonsense. Just out of curioustiy Mr. Holland, if you do not mind me asking so, what line of work or in what subjects have you specialized in with which you have now deemed yourself as someone with expertise on the subject of "feminine beauty," seriously is there some wierd course being taught out there somewhere that the vast majority of us are missing out on. Please let us know.

You know, Mr. Holland, you continuously say that much of physical beauty is objective, irrespective of the fact that physical beauty is measured differently in different societies and I think one of the commentors somewhere on one your links said that a set of features may invoke a certain feeling or emotion that someone with another set of features such as the ones that you describe as feminine, may not invoke those emotions in the person who sees it and may thereby be more attracted to the former set of features. (However, I do recognize that the definition of physical attraction mentioned here is simply none other than sexual attraction to the most "seemingly fertile" looking woman between the ages of 16 to 25 for the purpose of enhanced sexual desire, no emotions involved.) For example, if the biological inclinations of men and women are the same on a universal level, then why is that at some point in Ancient Japan, a woman's beauty was measured by how long her hair was and how white her face was to the extent that Japanese noblewomen painted their faces white and painted their teeth black and grew their hair long down to their knees or feet to appear beautiful for the suitors who were selecting them as potential partners in life. Of course, this was Ancient Japan's subjective view on beauty and it was very important to them. The emphasis you place on the importance of bone structure and waist to hip ratio would not have been relevant to these people. This is why I had encouraged you to perhaps travel to different parts of the world and see if your view regarding men and women's biological inclinations really bear that much weight, which sadly you did not get and did not pay much attention to.

I want to be clear with you Mr. Holland about what beauty pageants are and why certain women are recognized in them versus others. I will agree that most of the women who are awarded the title of "Miss America" or "Miss Universe" or "Miss India", just as a few examples, are not always the most beautiful looking women in the world, even though they are relatively stunning. However, you should understand and accept that when a young woman is awarded the title of for example "Miss Puerto Rico" or "Miss Universe" it is not simply on account of the way she looks physically and the awarding of such a title is not done for the purpose of promoting this woman's look, but rather the entirety of who she is, her contributions to society, her hard work, education, and of course her dedication to being physically fit and well dressed all at a young age; these are what are being celebrated and recognized in beauty pageants versus simply the waist-hip ratio of Natalia Cruze by Penthouse Magazine and yourself. Many feminists may be against pageants for whatever reason, but I suppose they have their perspective. However, I do not consider them as degrading to women as many other current trends in the media. (Just a look at Miss Canada Nazanin Afshin Jam is enough reason for me to say that the celebrity status that contestants enjoy in beauty pageants can be geared towards a better cause.) I will not assume a label for myself here even though you may take the liberty of labeling me as something that I do not identify with as you labled the commentor designated as Heather a feminist based on a few set of comments she made about your views regarding feminine beauty as being as narrow and strict as that of the Nazi's views regarding Aryan beauty in addition to which he/she simply had some presumptions regarding your personal life. Lets just make it clear that the subject of beauty pageants is irrelevant to what you are trying to promote because the fact of the matter is that beauty pageant contestant are not selling their looks and implying to other women that they should look like them physically or to men that they are the most beautiful looking women in the world. It would be better for you to refrain from commenting on beauty pageant contestants, at least as far as I am concerned, anyone else who is reading this site and the comments made can choose to agree or to disagree with me.

Now, on to another subject, because it really interests me to know why someone would dedicate so much material and time to a website that promotes a cause known as "feminine beauty" while most people create these extensively detailed sites for political and religious causes. I am beginning to wonder if it is really just "feminine beauty" that you are trying to promote because sometimes I see you make several political statements about for example, gays and feminists and such in promoting what is on the surface such a trivial cause, "feminine beauty." However, I just wonder, I will not judge.

Continuing on with that, lets just say that all the peoples of the world accept that the criteria for feminine beauty are exactlty what you say they are on this website. Now, if the rest of the world agree with you, what is to be gained from our acceptance of your views regarding feminine beauty and that gays are to blame for the promotion of masculinity among women and for anorexia and for the lack of attention given to more attractive and feminine women from the fashion industry and show business. What is to be gained if feminine women became the emblems of beauty? Will world hunger end? Will wars no longer be fought? Will people be happier if men had the luxury of more feminine looking women or at least women who aspired towards looking more feminine? Anyways, what difference does it make what the "it" look is because as is quite evident scientifically, people cannot change their skeletal proportions unless they had a rib removed to make the waist line more narrow. The most a masculine looking women such as those high fashion models to make themselves more feminine is to get breast and butt implants, they cannot reduce their height or become less broadshouldered or to reduce the length of their arms. By the same token, a women whose skeletal proportions are feminine cannot do anything to become more masculine except at most getting a masculine looking haircut and getting her breasts and buttocks liposuctioned. So what difference does it make here what is considered as beautiful, in the end people are going to look pretty much the way they look.

From the looks of it, if the status quo is maintained and masculine women dominate the fashion industry, a lot of menfolk would be quite better off because there will be many more feminine looking women available to them in the real world among average people who will not get to enjoy celebrity status and will not realize that they are really more beautiful than all of the famous masculine looking women and will therefore, not be able to snob out most men on account of their lack of celebrity status, large bank accounts, excellent credit, good looks, fancy cars, etc etc. Were more feminine women to gain attention in the fashion world as emblems of beauty, their popularity would go up and they will thereby, be making the same amounts of money that masculine women in the fashion industry are making now and will, much like those masculine looking models are today, be snobbing out men in large numbers because of their lack of looks, money, fame, name recognition, etc etc. Sad to say, but masculine looking models such as Cindy Crawford and Kate Moss, as ugly as you say they are, Mr. Holland, only associate with the likes of Richard Gere and Johnny Depp. The promotion of feminine beauty in the fashion world would jeopardize a lot of men's opportunities to be with feminine and beautiful women. Sadly, many men (not all) do thrive on the fact that there are many beautiful women out there who do not realize that they are beautiful and who do not get to enjoy being recognized for being beautiful by the elites. At this point in time, feminine looking women are more attainable for men than they would be if they were recognized and appreciated more by the elites in society.

Lastly, although you claim that your objective is purely objective for making this site, I would like to know, if you kindly choose to answer me, what is to be gained on your end, Mr. Holland, if feminine beauty becomes the ideal towards which women aspired, which you claim will not be the case for a long time due to gay male domination of the fashion industry. I do believe that behind the most objective purpose there is an even greater subjective purpose, and I am interested in knowning what your subjective purpose is in devoting as much time and energy towards the promotion of feminine beauty.

Charly: The transsexual-looking models may be laughing all the way to the bank, but they will not be laughing after reading the analyses of their looks here. Besides, their popularity [in terms of looks] is going to go down in the long-term, not up.

Psychology is obviously not your forte, so you should quit amateur psychological profiling. Someone would come up with this site after being jilted by a masculinized woman!

I do not have a problem with accepting “other’s sexual genotypes and phenotypes” and neither am I judging “peoples’ genders and sexual expression of those genders.” This site has nothing directly to do with genotype, gender as in behavioral aspects, or sexuality; it addresses looks. I have pointed out previously that I do not have a problem with masculinized looks in women; the problem that I have is with the use of women with unfeminine looks when feminine-looking women are required.

Aileen: It is surprising that you came back and left a lengthy comment. Why do you plan on coming back to an uninteresting site every now and then? Beats me.

I do not dismiss comments as nonsensical and leave it that; I provide justification. I have not deemed myself an expert on the subject of feminine beauty; this is your characterization; after all, there is no subject of feminine beauty to start with. The contents of this site are obviously not taught as a package in school or college. One may come across some of the information cited here in the course of getting an education, but one will not encounter anything resembling the entire package. My background is in engineering and physiology, and most of my formal education has nothing to do with this site, but it has given me enough knowledge to pursue the scientific interests that I have, and this site is one example of the knowledge that I have sought and wish to share with others.

I have not conceptualized physical attractiveness in terms of sexual attraction. For instance, men and women rate female attractiveness similarly even though most women are not sexually attracted to women. I have provided much more extreme examples of body modification/adornment than yours (e.g., Japanese women keeping long hair, whitening themselves or painting their teeth black) here, but have still argued for a lot being objective about beauty. You need to consider common underlying principles. Many correlates of beauty that hold across human populations are abstract, not simplistic like your examples, and they are not undermined by superficial differences between populations. For instance, even if men didn’t cut their hair, women would have longer hair, on average. Therefore, to keep long hair on the part of women is to exaggerate an example of sexual dimorphism, and it is easy to find cross-cultural forms of body adornment/modification that exaggerate sexual dimorphism.

Your explanation of beauty pageants is off the mark. No matter how many non-looks factors are taken into account to decide the winners, beauty pageants are primarily about beauty, and pageants catering to the general public should chiefly emphasize beauty in accordance with the central tendency of public preferences. Given the size of the human population, it would be an easy matter to find hundreds of feminine and very attractive women who have notable talent, are smart and well-educated, have contributed to the community, have presence of mind, desire to better humanity, etc. Masculinized women simply wouldn’t make it among the contestants in a beauty-plus-personality pageant that catered to the beauty preferences of the general public.

Heather, a few comments above, left numerous cues that she is a feminist; anyone familiar with feminism will understand that this inference is not merely based on little information. Besides, Heather never said anything about “Aryan beauty”; she talked about what makes an Aryan.

What will be achieved if feminine beauty occupies the top rung among female models? I agree that the problems of hunger and warfare will not be solved. However, the end goal of feminine beauty promotion is to make feminine beauty occupy the top rung among female models; those who appreciate feminine beauty do not need to justify why, and others shouldn’t waste their time trying to understand. Of course, there will be benefits such as reduced frequency of unnecessary dieting on the part of a number of girls and women.

Feminine and attractive women are not accessible to most men; they are generally taken by upper class men. If feminine and attractive women occupied the highest status among female models, some of the best examples of feminine beauty would end up with the richest/most powerful men with a greater frequency, but this will make little difference to the common man since most men are not getting feminine and attractive women (there are just not that many of them).

I have not described Cindy Crawford and Kate Moss as ugly; ugliness refers to physical defects/abnormalities, which these women and other fashion models do not have. Additionally, If I were you, I would not be envious of Crawford and Moss for ending up with the likes of Richard Gere and Johnny Depp since rich men have a choice of women, and those among them who go after masculinized women are prime candidates for either being into the down-low lifestyle, experiencing same-sex attraction or of having narrowly escaped nonheterosexuality.

Why do I spend some of my time on this site and what do I have to gain? A site like this has long been needed; read the FAQ for clarification. I didn’t see anyone come up with it, and since I could come up with it, I did. In addition, if the Gods ask me after my death, “We gave you knowledge; what did you do with it?”...what am I supposed to tell them...that I sat on the knowledge? Answering yes would get me a ticket to Hell. Furthermore, all major problems in the world are in the process of being addressed/solved by many individuals, but the problem of a dearth of feminine and attractive women among models and beauty pageant contestants, trivial as it is, is not being seriously addressed by others. Why shouldn’t I attempt to solve a challenging problem concerning something that I have been interested in since childhood?

happened across your site. i appreciate that you decry eating disorders. however, your standards of feminine beauty apply to a select few only. women's natural bodies vary greatly, and bone structure and the accumulation of fat is different on different female bodies. there is no "ideal" feminine shape, and women whose waists naturally taper in are not superior or more "womanly" than those with wider shoulders or more prominent cheek bones, or those who happen to measure six feet tall. they come in all shapes and sizes, and plastic surgery, decrease in caloric intake, and outside influence doesn't necessarily play any part in the way they are born at -all.- certainly the fashion industry is at fault for giving preference to a certain type at the expense of others, but in slamming those women (who, don't get me wrong, are still implicated in promoting unreal standards for women) and then "educating" the world in what makes a "proper" women, you're just advocating the flip side of exactly the same coin. the pinups and glamour models you seem to prefer are -not- a preferable alternative to anorexic runway models and actresses.

the problem is not telling women they need to be skinny. the problem is telling a woman that in order to be a "real woman" she should meet -any- arbitrary standard at all. can't you see the problem with that? what are the standards for your gender? how well do they reflect you? how well do -you- reflect -them-?

just some questions before i go forever- if we can't define beauty, can you please please please define the terms feminine and masculine, and explain what they mean in relation to each other? and, as you mentioned, what circumstances require what you've called feminine beauty? and why?

this is interesting. i have never taken the site to be a way to uplift woman, but as a sort of debate on the modern discourse on feminine beauty---where its roots lie, etc. its interesting that most men don't mind the concept of some being more handsome than the other, but the 2pgs of comments are are scattered with worries from women over girls not feeling physically beautiful(even though a true feminist would know that a girl can be hideous and be more worthy than any contemporary)not everyone has to be pretty, just like not everyone has to be funny, smart, agile, etc.

Erik I'm sorry to say this but you sound like a sad loser here. I bet you were a reject all of your life and cannot even get a woman to talk to you without giving her your credit card number, you probably got a small penis complex too, saying the things you do. For those of us who have no problem getting laid we can appreciate women as different as they all and what they have to offer us sexually or otherwise. Most real men really feel sorry for your type because you are probably one big social moron. You have nothing better to do but to look at pictures of teenage girls and touch yourself and wishing that everyone else would think you are a man for wanting to be with her. If you managed to get laid more you would think less about the physical differences between men and women and just be able to enjoy the company of a women instead of going out of your way to critique their anatomies.

Raymond: Your comment is the kind I get from pathetic homosexuals who are unable to refute anything within the site and resort to egregious ad hominem, instead. Heterosexual men appreciate this site, and for obvious reasons: they have an interest in feminine beauty but encounter few great examples of it in mainstream settings, and know that this site is an attempt toward changing the status quo. Portraying this site as one that critiques women’s anatomies is a ridiculous summary of it when the feminine configurations are praised and promoted. You expect heterosexual men to not appreciate this? Heterosexual men are under no obligation and neither are they able to find manly fashion models attractive. Get lost!

Bialia: This site is not portraying women as superior and inferior, and neither is it telling women about what looks standards they should meet. It is about models and beauty pageant contestants. There are many scenarios involving models and beauty pageant contestants where feminine women are required, but masculinized ones are used instead, often with posing tricks and fake breasts in order to make them look feminine. Why not use feminine women to start with? To point out the manliness of a number of top-ranked models and how posing tricks and breast implants are providing an illusion of femininity among them is to not slam them, but to educate the public about fake femininity and ask it to consider why are feminine women not being used? The answer to the latter is provided, too. This site is not the flip side of the coin.

What constitutes feminine vs. masculine variation is extensively discussed here and I am not sure how you have missed it. Don’t assume that beauty cannot be defined. There are many well-documented and often abstract correlates of beauty that you need to take some time going through; I recommend you read about various objective correlates of beauty.

As to what circumstances require the use of feminine and attractive women and why, the public strongly and overwhelmingly prefers feminine beauty (see previous link), and hence it is only appropriate that the contestants in beauty pageants catering to the general public, lingerie models, models in magazines catering to heterosexual men (e.g., Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue) and in a number of other scenarios be drawn from feminine and attractive women.

You keep asking your readers "WHOSE IDEA OF A SEXY WOMAN IS THIS?" What you are forgetting is that these women don't proclaim themselves supermodels. We, the people of America, decide who becomes a supermodel or not. So, obviously, the supermodels you talk about are A LOT OF PEOPLE'S IDEA OF SEXY. Otherwise, they wouldn't be supermodels.

Your logic is circular. Your "research" is nonsense, and regardless of how sesquipedalian you attempt to be, it is meaningless bunk, and the questions you are being asked continually go unanswered. In regards to why you do this (a question you are constantly asked) and you never address- I offer this. You objectify, you deconstruct, you dehumanize. It gives you a sense of power. Thanks for nothing.

Katie: It is true that supermodels don’t self-select themselves as such, but neither does the public. If you don’t believe me, just go through this entry, which starts with a discussion of the “Make me a supermodel” U.K. reality TV show. Look at the two top-ranked female contestants shown on top; the feminine one, though not very good looking, was the overwhelming choice of the viewers (general public) but she was criticized -- to the point of tears -- for having excess body fat by the fashion-industry representatives on the panel of judges, and these judges had praise for the skeletal and boyish-looking model next to her, whom the public overwhelmingly found to be unattractive and terribly skinny. The male homosexuals who dominate the fashion industry are responsible for the high status of masculinized models; they can get away with it because there is no heterosexual alternative. Read about the gay influence behind the looks of fashion models.

Bialia: The scientific studies cited here are taken from peer-reviewed journals, and the reviewers have found the research sound enough to publish it. Unless you tell me what is circular or nonsensical about the arguments, I cannot respond and will consider these to be baseless allegations. I have answered just about all questions asked of me, including why I came up with this site, and to slightly paraphrase an earlier response:


A site like this has long been needed; read the FAQ for clarification. I didn’t see anyone come up with it, and since I could come up with it, I did. In addition, if the Gods ask me after my death, “We gave you knowledge; what did you do with it?”...what am I supposed to tell them...that I sat on the knowledge? Answering yes would get me a ticket to Hell. The problem of a dearth of feminine and attractive women among models and beauty pageant contestants, trivial as it is, is not being seriously addressed by others. Why shouldn’t I attempt to solve a challenging problem concerning something that I have been interested in since childhood?

Ill get to Mr. Holland's response later, meanwhile I am looking for other commenters to get in touch with here with whom I can correspond and engage in discussions with about similar subjects regarding the concept of beauty because I feel that this site is not an adequate source in giving us the knowledge we are looking for about beauty, objective or subjective.
Anyone here who is interested in engaging in discussions or just getting to know another interesting person out there, let me know. My email is sahne_ghashang[at]
Remember that we are all as beautiful as we believe we are, inside and out, and those who truly see us as beautiful are the ones that count and those who do not appreciate us in the first place are not important anyways and neither are their interests. Everyone has something physically that makes him/her attractive and the key thing is to recognize what our particular attractive features are and how to bring them out using whatever measure that we, ourselves, feel is appropriate be it cosmetics, plastic surgery, exercise, diet, etc etc and enjoy them for ourselves first, before concerning ourselves with the interests and tastes of others irrespective of height, weight, bone structure, whr, shoulder width, breast size, or what have you.
My advice to every woman who is struggling with a poor body image is to believe in your heart that you are beautiful and we do not have to cater to every interest that men have because if we give schauvenistic men an inch they will take a mile from us and control us and make us feel the way they want us to feel; they become spoiled and start thinking that their expectations are more important than our peace of mind and self confidence.
Heterosexual men are not as selective as Mr. Holland says they are, be they wealthy, afluent, or otherwise, they are at the mercy of independent women and cannot bring themselves to admit it and hide behind the veil of "I am visual/I am selective and that is the reason I a not with that many women." As an experiment, just be the first to dump one of these men and observe the results. Trust me, I am not wrong, it will not be long before they are perplexed and at your mercy. I have seen it only too often. Nothing intimidates them like a woman's confidence in herself and her submissive attitude towards his need to be controlling is his playground.
In today's world in which women are worth more than just their girlish looks, they choose which men they want and weed out the ones that they do not want. Remember that maybe men are the ones who should cater to the interests of successful, confident women and we are the ones who should be selective, first and foremost. If you really believe that being "the most feminine and pretty woman," whatever that really is is going to help you have better relationships, just observe the life of Marilyn Monroe and Anna Nicole Smith, who wanted to be the 2nd Marilyn Monroe.
Again, I am hoping to hear from at least one of you, if not, then my best wishes for all of you for a life of happiness, beauty, and self assurance.

Hi Aileen:

Since you have addressed other readers of this site, I thought it would be okay to leave a comment for you here as well.

Many of the points you make are valid and I agree wholeheartedly and in principle that all women have good and beautiful things about them, and that these attributes should be nurtured, celebrated and that no woman should be made to feel inferior by someone else's definition of what is/is not beautiful; whether that definition is purely subjective or wholly objective. We all know people who are truly beautiful from the inside - out..irrespective of their physical superficial looks and in the long run, that is of primary importance. Looking good INSIDE is what really counts.

Having said that however, I think that most women know where they fall on the attractiveness scale, cultural standards included, and have few illusions about how they appear to the outside world. For example, I know myself to be "pleasant to look at", possibily even "cute", but have never thought of myself as beautiful or even particularly sexy. I have a proportional but not hourglass shape and men, while not particulary knocked off their feet by me, still find me attractive. BUT, would I ever be featured on a site titled feminebeauty? No. The site would be less credible if I found myself on it...although I would be wonderfully flattered no doubt!

Likewise, if I were to start a site labeled or whatever, I would not feature or celebrate those men with beer bellies or thinning hair, even though the man in my life, whom I consider to be extremely attractive, has both. I would pick the most attractive men around and would be extremely selective in my criteria about who to feature: otherwise, why bother? There is no point in having a website about what constitutes male attractiveness if I am trying to make most men feel good about themselves; or featuring ordinary men. My website would be about the exceptional and the rare, not about the "everyman".

My point is this: There are things about this website that I DO disagree with and in terms of what does/does not constitute female beauty there is certainly some wiggle room, but the idea that beauty is somehow egalitarian and completely in the eye of the beholder, with no objective criteria, I feel is false.

So...while I have not been comletely converted by this website (sorry Erik!) terms of what I personally view as beautiful, I think that a website such as this one, as selective and non-inclusive as it is, should not offend most women, who already know all about their looks, and who (hopefully) celebrate their own individual beauty, wherever it lies. Just my opinion and I hope I made some sense.

While I understand that your purpose is to promote female beauty and rid the obsession with skinny waif-figures, you seemed to have overlooked a few things:

1. "Achieving an hourglass figure" shouldn't be a goal because if you BIOLOGICALLY can't, what are you supposed to do? I have a big ribcage and 36D boobs on top of them-- what should I do about my ribcage and small hips? What about all the other women who have big ribcages and smaller hips? Why should an hourglass figure, something that VERY few women have (and please do not mistake an hourglass figure is the same thing as a small waist) even be something that should be "achieved"? You either have it, or you don't.

2. Very little about your site focuses on healthier body image, improving self-esteem, or even exercise. Yes many people are overweight, but instead of focusing on whose pelvic regions are more feminine than the other, why don't you focus on what exercises are best for a person's body type instead?

3. You talk about "masculine" and "feminine" facial features. How in God's name is someone supposed to change the way they were born (minus plastic surgery)? So some women have strong facial features and some women have very soft features-- WHAT DO YOU WANT US TO DO ABOUT IT?

4. Instead of comparing hourglass figures to nonhourglass figures, which to YOU, are the only "true" feminine body type, why don't you actually try to promote awareness about what women's bodies can actually look like? Women are not cookie-cutters, we come in different shapes which aren't always your sanctified hourglass figure.

5. Your site gives the impression of trying to dispel beauty myths and so forth, but instead continues to propogate what you are attempting to fight, so you're just part of the problem. Accept women, REAL women, for who they are and what they look like, sell that idea, and you'll see more feminine figures, hourglass or NOT in the modeling industry and elsewhere. So why not just accept women for having the features they do as long as it's healthy, regardless of whether or not they have a masculine nose with feminine face shape, broad shoulders, small waist, and manly arms? Why is that so hard? For someone wanting to stop underweight models from entering the runway and eating disorders, you sure have a strange way of going about it.

Hey Amelia,

I'm always waiting for comments such as yours, for now I am not even responding to Mr. Holland and really find no purpose in doing so although every time I refute everything he says, he just comes up with some other BS argument, one less credible than the other, thinking it has a lot of scientific basis. If you read his previous reponses to people, you will realize that he is not the least bit concerned with women's self esteem and just wants to promote feminine beauty, the beauty that he has identified here that you and I both do not agree with.

Sweetheart, you are beautiful the way you are. Mr. Holland insists that men who have a preference for women with features and proportions similar to yours and mine are on the less heterosexual side and are more likely to be gay than exclusively heterosexual men. I guess he insists that well to do and well known men like Richard Gere and Johnny Depp who dated top supermodels have a tendency to be gay and that exclusively heterosexual men would never pick a "masculine" looking woman over a more feminine looking one.

Mr. Holland has clearly demonstrated his indignation for women who accept themselves the way they are and do not succumb to his definition of feminine beauty and humble themselves down to stupid looking teenage girls who meet his definition of feminine beauty.

Amelia, my email is eval(unescape('%64%6f%63%75%6d%65%6e%74%2e%77%72%69%74%65%28%27%3c%61%20%68%72%65%66%3d%22%6d%61%69%6c%74%6f%3a%73%61%68%6e%65%5f%67%68%61%73%68%61%6e%67%40%79%61%68%6f%6f%2e%63%6f%6d%22%3e%73%61%68%6e%65%5f%67%68%61%73%68%61%6e%67%40%79%61%68%6f%6f%2e%63%6f%6d%3c%2f%61%3e%27%29%3b')) if you want to correspond with me about such subjects because Mr. Holland is not going to repeat the same words over and over again. Well, I guess he is not well known for much out there and decide to talk about a subject that no one else talks about at this much extent, those subjects being gay male interests (how an exclusively heterosexual man is so insightful as to the interests of gay men is still beyond me) and the physical differences between men and women and the importance of replacing more masculine models with more feminine models.

Yours Truly

Actualy Erik...I am a therapist and I am considered quite brillant at what I do...further...I have clients that are models, gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transexuals, heterosexuals, and run of the mill people. Actually, I do not really profile in an amateur fashion. I think I got you pegged pretty well... You know it and I know it.


Actually, Mr. Holland's rhetoric and articulacy is reflective of several personality and character types and actually this is interesting.
His rhetoric reflects a combination of white america's rednick male, a very traditionally masculine character, and the sophisticated articulate male, a stereotypically feminine character (Mr. Holland's range of vocabulary is astoundingly wide) and this character type is often described by the first as "gay."

Thanks Aileen. I think Mr. Holland should also consider reading this:

And if he bothered to do some real research into the history of the corset, he would see that it's because of the CORSET why the hourglass figure is so coveted. Many women attained an hourglass figure by using something unnatural, which deformed their bodies at times and forced the organs to reshape in ways within the torso that their bodies did not originally design. If none of these women had ever worn corsets, but were still within a healthy weight range, it's quite possible that their bodies would still have "curves" but not to the pronounced extent that Mr. Holland believes that they should be.

Hell...if I had any webmastering skills I'd take this guy back to school and show him what a REAL website promoting healthy bodies and femininity was all about. And to be honest, he's a guy, what the hell does he know? That would be like me promoting a "true manliness and masculinity" site when I'm a woman.

Bialia: This is a response to your statement:


You objectify, you deconstruct, you dehumanize. It gives you a sense of power.

If the physical attractiveness of some women is to be addressed, then they need to be looked at in some detail, which is not objectification. Deconstruction involves critiquing an argument by attaching malicious motives to the person making them, and this technique is not employed by this site. Women who do not meet standards of feminine beauty, i.e., the great majority, remain fully human, and are not being dehumanized in any manner. Power refers to the ability to manipulate. If I get around to manipulating the modeling world and beauty pageants to some extent, then it won’t be through the techniques you accuse me of employing.

Sandy: I appreciate your comment. On the other hand, if you disagree about some correlates of beauty addressed here, then please be more specific so that I can address them.

Charly: If you are a psychotherapist then it is a safe bet that your specialty is psychoanalysis given the Freudian reasoning you have employed. Whereas you may be a good psychoanalyst, a good psychoanalyst is no less pathetic than a bad one. Psychoanalysis is a ludicrous anachronism that should have died with Freud, but unfortunately it is still limping around. In the event you are a clinical psychologist, I’d say woe to the presumably third-rate institution that has given you your degree.

Amelia: Your comment indicates a misunderstanding of this site in addition to your not browsing enough of it. Here is the clarification, corresponding to your 5 points:


1. This site is not about achieving an hourglass figure; it is about promoting women with these figures among models and beauty pageant contestants; read the solutions page for how one could go about it.

2. This site does address body image/self-esteem issues and also exercise.

3. I don’t want women to do anything with their facial features; read point #1 again.

4. There is no argument here that only hourglass figures are feminine; see, for instance, Table 1 on the page addressing body image/self-esteem issues. Do I need to promote awareness of the variety of looks among women? The very suggestion is ridiculous; the typical person has already seen a wide variety of looks among women.

5. I am part of the problem by propagating beauty myths to dispel beauty myths? What is this? I have no problems accepting “real” women. The Gods have created great diversity, and presumably for good reasons. However, this does not mean that women should be picked at random for modeling purposes or as beauty pageant contestants or that people should not find some specific look more appealing than others. When feminine women are needed, feminine ones should be used, and beauty pageants should be about high aesthetic standards just as the Olympics are about high sporting standards. What is unreasonable about this?

Regarding your second comment, the article you cited was posted as a comment by Kristin in a separate entry within this thread, and it is irrelevant to this site. Of course there is a wide variety of physique types, but most physiques do not meet criteria for feminine beauty with an emphasis on high aesthetic standards. You need to understand that aesthetics is a strong focus of this site, and feminine beauty is being appreciated for its own sake.

Hourglass figures are not coveted because of the corset, but the corset was used to acquire the coveted hourglass shape. Why would people go through the trouble of devising a corset and women inconvenience themselves if there was no preference for hourglass physiques to start with among the populations where corsets were often used? You should consider evidence on this page relating physical femininity, especially a combination of large breasts and small waist, to higher fertility and fecundity. Obviously, nature would equip heterosexual men with a basic intrinsic sense that helps them evaluate a woman’s fertility and fecundity, which would manifest in the form of a preference for above average femininity in the looks of women. Therefore, your understanding of the corset is the reverse of the actual reason..

Once again, this site is not about how women should look like; it is about models and beauty pageant contestants, and is attempting to promote feminine beauty as in bringing more feminine and attractive women to the limelight, and by this I do not mean the nude models shown within this site.

You do not need webmastering skills to publish on the web; you could use blogger, typepad, livejournal or equivalent to easily publish on the internet; it would be as easy as typing into a word/wordperfect document. Alternatively, if you believe that you can teach me a few useful things about femininity and beauty, send me a word document with your arguments and embedded pictures if any, and I will post it in a separate entry and then we can have a debate in the comments section.

I see Eric! Is that why you have a section calling Victoria Secrets...The Transexual Parade? OR Is that why you imply that the fashion industry is run by Gays whom fancy 14 year boys...Hmmm... I think there is a term for that behavior...

No you are just presenting an unemotional arguement in a scientific manner...justs the insults and inuendos.

cS: If a woman looks like a male-to-female transsexual, how would it be insulting to describe her looks as such?

Aileen: Quit using multiple aliases...Aileen, Raymond, Maria. The comments facility is not provided for you to abuse it. If you are out-debated, and I don’t know how you have managed to delude yourself into believing that you have refuted anything here, then you should bow out of the discussion instead of misrepresenting your opponent’s arguments and posting ad hominem. Feel free to set up your own website where you address female beauty, and use the blogging sites that I recommended to Amelia if you don’t want to deal with the hassle of designing your own site. Your comments, useless as they are, need to be addressed.

If a woman believes she is beautiful, then may the Gods bless her; I have nothing against this belief regardless of how she looks, and hopefully she will not end up with a lower opinion of her looks after perusing this site. I have nothing against women who accept themselves as they are; I say blessed are they! Once again, this site is not about making women evaluate their own looks and either accept or reject them.

There is nothing new about your advice that women should feel in their heart that they are beautiful. However, it often doesn’t work in practice if the woman is unattractive. As Sandy has mentioned, most people know how attractive they are compared to others; people have a basic intrinsic aesthetic sense, and those who fall short of their own standards will be disappointed with their looks to some extent. To the extent that aesthetic preferences can be manipulated by media imagery, this site is promoting a healthy standard that is intrinsically harbored by most individuals as opposed to the fashion industry’s abnormal and unhealthy standards. I have already explained that some women are influenced by high-fashion models because of their high status, and one way to combat this negative influence is to set up a competing healthy standard of beauty, which will need to meet high aesthetic standards or else it will not have a significant impact. In other words, you are looking at feminine beauty promotion, which dovetails with heterosexual male appreciation of feminine beauty. This is hardly an issue that needs to be railed against.

As I have already explained, poor body image problems among women are not a result of their catering to male interests/chauvinism. Apart from a basic intrinsic aesthetic sense, the very fact that heterosexual women are very selective about the men they would be willing to end up with means that there are few such men, and if a lot of women are competing for few men, then these men will naturally select the best looking ones, i.e., heterosexual women are themselves largely responsible for the pressure to look attractive.

Regarding what standards heterosexual men harbor, men have low standards when it comes to casual sex but not when it comes to fantasy or feminine beauty appreciation. Your assertion that I am not in the least bit concerned about self-esteem issues is belied by this entry, which addresses it in a through manner.

I have not made any assertion about men attracted to you or Amelia being less likely to be lifetime-exclusive heterosexual. I do not know how Amelia looks like, and I have not described your looks as manly. Your have broad shoulders but also prominent breasts and non-narrow hips; you have low rather than high cheekbones, and your angular jawline and facial robusticity is more an artifact of ancestry rather than masculinization. Among your co-ethnics, i.e., swarthy semites, you would be within the normal range. As long as you seek men among your co-ethnics, you would be fine, but beware of white men since by European standards your face is on the masculine-looking side. I have not asserted that the likes of Richard Gere or Johnny Depp have a tendency to be gay by virtue of being romantically involved with masculinized women in spite of their riches; what I said was that such men would be a prime candidate for either being into the down-low lifestyle (bisexually behaving) or of experiencing some level of same-sex attraction or of having narrowly escaped nonheterosexuality. Lifetime-exclusive heterosexual men may end up with masculinized women if they have little choice, but other things being equal, they will prefer a feminine to a masculine woman.

Your ad hominem attacks are not worth responding to; don’t repeat them.

erik--what you have failed to realize, is that often other ethnic groups see northern europeans as looking androgynous. often one has difficulty determining which of the children are boys vs. girls---since compared to other groups---the women's eyes are not as defined(eyelid shape, prominence of eyelashes), the nose protrudes far from the face sometimes, often the women are more flat-butted with stockier legs than other groups. i recall going to a predominately black community one summer being asked why white women had suck muscular calves, flat butts, thin lips, etc. your definition of feminity centers around northern european women being the standard but to other groups--- these women are lacking--point blank.

Hello Mr. Holland, if I am writing under different aliases such as Raymond and Maria then perhaps you are also writing under the alias of Sandy and are actually attempting to sound like an inteligent woman who agrees with some of what you say and then use her as an example to prove your point. I am just hypothesizing

Good thing that you appreciate women having self esteem. I am happy to hear that, its one of the best things I have heard from you so far. I am also happy to see that you are learning to work around people's arguments instead of repeating the same thing over and over again because it is quite evident that you are under a great deal of pressure of what people are posting here and have very forwardly presented yourself as a person who has no liking for what feminists stand for, for the practice of psychology as a science, for "pathetic homosexuals...." (how could I be Raymond, I thought that he is a pathetic homosexual)

Also, may I ask how many heterosexual men from my ethnic group, which consists of tens of millions of individuals, have you interviewed as to what their particular aesthetic preferences are and also how many heterosexual men of European ancestry have you interviewed with which you have come to the conclusions that you have????? True, I have no problem attracting many heterosexual men in my own ethnic group who are absolutely taken by my looks and also, interestingly, I find that a lot of men with European ancestry wind up staring at me head to toe as well as my face when they are with whom you would describe as their more feminine looking European ancestry girlfriend. My current boyfriend from work is Russian and there are so many Russian girls that he has ruled out to be with me.

For the record, Iranians are not semites. Iranians are Indo Europeans and are Caucasian. We are geographic neighbors of semetic peoples such as the Arabs and the original sephardic Jews and the phoenicians (current day Lebanese people who some authentic Arab ancestry but have looks very similar to southern Europeans), but we are not semites,only have some slight semitic ancestry as a result of Arab-Iranian fusion. A great many of us also have East Indian, African (more towards the south of Iran),Eastern European ancestry, and even some East Asian ancestry as a result of interbreeding with Mongolians when attacked by Ghengis Khan. Our country consists of many ethnic groups, Arabs, Kurds, Azaris, Lors, all of whom, male and female, have their own unique looks, hair types, eye colors, body types, and facial configurations.

Many heterosexual men of European ancestry in high positions in society spend every dime they have to be with an Iranian woman and are often taken by them wherever they see them. I see it happen all of the time. They like the exotic looks of Middle Eastern women very very much irrespective of waist to hip ratio or height or breast size and just love their large eyes and luxurious dark hair and are stupified by them. Note, I am not suggesting that Iranians are the most beautiful people in the world, however, as someone who is actually younger than you and actually bothers to interview and to observe different types of peoples, I have to refute what you say because I cannot find it to be true. Ask some men with European ancestry living in the heart of Los Angeles where Iranians are residing in large numbers what they think of the looks Iranian women or even yet about those Arab/semetic (Jewish) women living there who have prominent noses (those who havent surgically altered their noses in light of living in LA, a rather fashionable place) and angular jaws and the other features that you would describe as more masculine or any ethnic group really???

Also, Mr. Holland, when you make a website such as this one and leave room for comments by the general public (domestic and international) you need to acknowledge as a mature adult man that you cannot use belittling terms to describe the interests peoples of different sexual orientations (gays/bisexuals/etc), political ideologies (feminists/etc), and professions (psychologists/etc) in a community (domestic and international) that is rapidly moving towards diversification and toleration of differences. Regardless of what your commentors, who are not repsonsible for the contents of your website and the assertions that you make are saying to you and their choice of words, you need to be wary of your choice of words as a credible analyst/scientist if you do not want to lose respect in the eyes of those who observe your works.
You say that opponents are more likely to leave comments than supporters, but we all know Mr. Holland, that the fact of the matter is quite different and you need to work around that.


Click here to post a new comment