You are here





"swarthy semites,"

Mr. Holland, do you even pay attention to your choice of wording. Here is the wikipedia definition of the word swarthy:

Swarthy is a term sometimes used to describe the complexion of individuals with dark skin pigmentation. The term is generally used informally and can be racially offensive. It is traditionally used to identify people of East Mediterranean origin.

In the United States, the term is increasingly used as slang for Indian Americans and Middle Easterners, but may be used to identify Southern Europeans and Hispanics

I can't believe you actually used to word "swarthy". Being of East Indian ancestry, I really despise that word and have been called that one too many times.

You said:


I agree with your solutions, yes. However, you continue to imply very subtley throughout the site what a "true" female body should look like, such as with a caption above the two nude girls saying "what a feminine body should look like". You say this site is about promoting women with more diverse figures, yet the focus of your site appears to debase women who do not have those figures, and even women who are naturally thin. And then you point out that women should strive to achieve the ideal.

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

Yes it does so credit will be given where it's due. Again, very little of the site is devoted to that and a casual reader of the site would probably get lost in the anti-fashion model aspects instead of coming across the healthier topics.

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

Yet you continue to have information regarding facial structure and what a "true feminine" face should look like. In all honesty, put yourself in a woman's shoes and look at this from her perspective-- how do you think that would make her feel, along with the many other women who have gotten that impression?


No actually that suggestion is not ridiculous. You seem to be contradicting yourself! First, you say that you want to see modeling and pageants incorporate "feminine" bodies instead of rail-thin Nicole Richie (which I don't disagree with) but you then insist that the suggestion is ridiculous? Suggesting, or more like assuming, that the average person has already seen a variety of looks is ridiculous. Depending on where you live in the country and how you are exposed to things really determines whether or not you have seen a variety of looks. I met a girl from california recently at school who went to a fashion show where an Indian girl was a model. The girl from california said she was "really surprised" to see that fashion shows would actually consider diversifying their models.

"5. I am part of the problem by propagating beauty myths to dispel beauty myths?"

It's exactly what Dove is doing. Don't get me wrong, I get their message but it's always what the media does with beauty-- uses one myth to take down the other. Such as with their "real women have curves". What if you are naturally and healthily thin, and don't have much of curves? Are you perhaps, not a real woman? It's what you're arguing here-- that "real femininity" is about being an hourglass figure in order to combat the Nicole Richie look. You don't need an hourglass to do that-- all you need is a healthy body.


There is nothing unreasonable about aesthetic standards needing to be used, but a matter of how "high" of standards. Take a look (which you already know) at the "high" standard of thinness is doing to women. In the 80's, a sample size for a model was a 6 or an 8-- which is still a healthy, thin size. Now it's a 0 and a 2-- how much smaller will it get? What I'm trying to say is, if you really believe that the hourglass is *the way* to go, what are women going to end up doing to themselves in order to acheive it? Do you really want to see women disfiguring themselves with corsets again? Why can't ALL body shapes be acceptable to appeal to a greater audience of women? You'd think that would be common sense from a marketing and business standpoint, but once again, many designer clothes are for the elite.

I want to point out that I do agree with many parts of your website-- awareness regarding eating disorders, allowing healthier figures into modeling, etc. But unfortunately, all of that gets lost in your "the hourglass figure is the feminine figure" arguments and insinuations.

How on earth are women supposed to strive for a figure that they weren't born with? I'm 5'5" and I lost 30 pounds and I am not fat, but by no means am I an hourglass figure. I have a "nipped in" waist with broad shoulders, a big ribcage, a big bust and narrow hips. How am I supposed to strive for an hourglass figure? I'm just glad that I still have the self-esteem to be happy for once in my life regarding the way I look, and that I can fit into size 5 pants. I'm not "hot" but I've been told here and there that I'm cute-- I have an oval shaped face, a small chin, but a sorta big nose (I'm east Indian, it happens) and medium-sized eyes. I'm not sure how I'm supposed to possibly strive for a more "feminine" face, or how any woman is supposed to.

Why can't women be allowed to determine what really is "feminine" and beautiful? You'd be surprised how many more women would be happier with themselves and have better self-esteem is for once, a man could just step down and stop trying to mold a cookie-cutter for something that he himself is not a part of.

I'm not saying I don't appreciate the GOOD efforts you have done-- but you are going about it in the wrong way and have NO idea about the amount of discouragement you're putting out there to so many women.

I also wanted to mention one last thing-- perhaps you should redefine your definition of what an hourglass is. If you look at real hourglasses, you'll notice that some have "nipped in" middles, whereas others have sloping lines to the centers. Some women have very sloping lines, and some women have nipped in waists. It's really a matter of how you choose to define it.

Erik...could you please put up a picutre of your self up on this web site? I would like to have a good go at your looks and body shape. Further, I need to determine if you are masculine enough to be able to make the comments you do about women.
If you would be kind enough to do as I have requested then I would be able to marginalize you in equal measure.
I could suggest certain exercises and dietary constraints for you to achieve my own personal ideal of maleness.

Afterall, we all know, there is nothing more to a woman than their looks or their body shape.

I wouldn't go so far as to demand Erik's pictures, but once again, he fails to address the REAL issue: comparing healthy body figures (which includes more than just the hourglass) versus unhealthy (fashion model waifness).

Though cs has a point, I would also like to see if Erik falls into the "true" perspective of manliness and masculinity.

It seems that Mr. Holland is taking his sweet time when outdebated himself to fluff up his responses. I hope he does some serious thinking first and may be forced to do so. Take care girls and Charly. I will just tell you one thing. As much as we can expose a person and his/her intentions due to the fact that he/she is so obvious, most things do speak for themselves.

Stay smart, ladies.

Hi Amelia.

One of the most profound hourglass shapes recognized among women in Hollywood was that of the olive skinned Italian actress Sophia Loren who was approximately my height, 5'8' and also had relatively broad shoulders and robust high cheekbones. She was recognized by the international community as the most beautiful woman in the world and pictures of her can be found on the internet in a variety of attires, even partially nude.

Mr. Holland appears not to be a fan of women who manage to be successful and famous regardless of their looks, because he even ruled out another beautiful Italian actress, Monica Belucci, as having looks impressive enough to be used as an example of feminine beauty. With respect to Sophia Loren, he suggested that her "abnormal cheekbones" ruled her out as an example of feminine beauty when in fact many women have requested to have cheekbones like hers from plastic surgeons.

Either way, regardless of how much you get into it with him about hourglass shapes or anything else for that matter, the simple fact appears to be that he just has an issue with most of the women in today's world and those who have come further than the teenaged nude girls whose pictures he has used as examples of feminine beauty, most of whom appear silly, naive, and not even developed physically. Note I am just hypothesizing again and say "appears to be," and Mr. Holland can prove me wrong.

Amelia, you are right, Mr. Holland does contradict himself at least several times and the more he is under pressure from people who respond to him, the more illogical he sounds.

Yours Truly

What I find funny is that MANY women would like high cheekbones because it adds structure to your face. And also, high cheekbones can be attributed to your ethnic heritage, such as African or Native American. Does that mean it makes a person inherently masculine? No.

What I think Mr. Holland needs to do is restructure his site to really put the focus on the real issue on hand: unhealthy body depictions. Instead of slamming fashion models for being less than women, he should be providing an analysis on why it's unhealthy and what the average woman looks like.

He says that the majority of the population prefers feminine features-- of course they do, when you compare it to Kate Moss or Twiggy! The average person would rather see healthy body figures represented than unhealthy below normal BMI range figures. He also fails to address some rather obvious things regarding facial features and bone structure:

1. Perhaps the reason why so many fashion models have high, pronounced cheekbones is because their lack of body fat? If you have less than the normal range, your facial bone structure will become more obvious, rather if you were within a healthy range and had "padding" on your face.

2. Perhaps the reason why so many fashion models look like adolescent boys-- which IS frighteningly true-- is because their lack of fat consumption caused their secondary sex characteristic development to become stunted? I know that one theory behind why so many female gymnasts are shorter than average is because while they are mostly muscle, their lack of fat consumption and body fat content caused them to have lower estrogen levels, and biology shows us that estrogen plays a vital role in bone growth. And if a model restricts herself to a diet ill-fitted for her natural body figure (whether it may be a heavier figure, hourglass, or nonhourglass), her body will not grow properly. There are various theories regarding female puberty development, but one strong indicator is body fat content. It isn't so much the hourglass figure that makes a woman look feminine, but body fat, which adds softness and curves to a woman's figure in contrast to the sharp angles of a man. Don't eat much fat or have fat on you? Well you'll have angles instead. Now whether or not those angles are NATURAL is where the real problem lies-- many fashion models cannot be that thin naturally.

3. Only a professional doctor, after running various tests and a medical examination, can determine whether or not a person has "more or less" of estrogen/feminine hormones or testosterone/masculine hormones. To assume that a person has significantly more of one than the other based on their looks is ignorant and a poor use of science. Each individual is different in their biological makeup and only a doctor can determine that.

Kristin: I am surprised by your accusation that my definition of femininity centers around Northern European women. You left a bunch of comments in this entry and could not have missed my repeated criticism of “d’Artagnan” for employing the supposedly “classical concept of femininity” where, say, shorter height or smaller nose equals more feminine regardless of ancestry. I repeatedly emphasized the necessity of controlling for ancestry. For instance, concerning the elements you pointed out, controlling for ancestry, masculinization makes the nose more prominent and also broader, the hips narrower and the buttocks flatter. Therefore, when white women have more prominent but also narrower noses as well as flatter buttocks but also wider hips than sub-Saharan African women, then how could these elements be used to assign greater femininity to one or the other group, and how would it be possible to say that Northern European women are lacking point blank from the perspective of sub-Saharan Africans? Here is another entry where you left a comment, and undoubtedly read my explanation as to why a broad-faced Central European woman, Nikky Case, is feminine notwithstanding her sharp jawline and squared face; I asked the reader to consider ancestry when judging. I would not use Northern European norms to judge other European populations, let alone non-Europeans, yet you come up with your comment! Unlike you, whites have no problems telling apart their boys from girls; the problem lies with your deficient perception.

Your comment appears to have stemmed from my telling Aileen that she looks more masculine than the norm for European women, but I don’t think you know how she looks or else you would not doubt it.

Looks like Mr. Holland is making a record for himself here, "swarthy semites" and "Unlike you, whites have no problems telling apart their boys from girls; the problem lies with your deficient perception." Mr. Holland says "whites" as if he can see through the eyes of every white on planet earth.

Mr. Holland, what do you know about norms among European women or Iranian women, who are also recognized as Caucasian, or Semitic people or Sub Saharan Africans????

Can you use people's testimonies here to make your point instead of your own statements and prove that there are others out there who appreciate your site? No, you can't and simply make a mindless statement about how people who disagree are more likely to comment than those who agree, thinking that we are all naive enough to believe that. As a visitor to many many websites, political, religious, fashion, you name it, every time I observed people's comments those who appreciate the contents of a website always thank the person who created it and express their gratitude and those who did not appreciate or disagreed left their input as well. This is the only website I have ever visited that has had so many opponents posting comments, and almost entirely no supporters. Where are your supporters, Mr. Holland? Who are they? Have you deluded yourself into thinking you have any? Where are you heterosexual male supporters who appreciate your attempt to promote "feminine beauty" and to "create public awareness about the trends of unhealthy looking, masculine high fashion models" and how gays are repsonsible for the spread of anorexia and a poor body image?

You are right, Amelia. The reason cheekbones are hardly ever showing in the face of children is because of the adequate amount of facial fat that they have. If you look at picture fo children who are starved, you will see their cheekbones and jawlines showing in the same way that fashion models are. Cheekbones become more pronounced with age because of the loss of facial fat, which makes the face look thinner and at even older ages, skin becomes wrinkled.

The thing that makes pronounced cheekbones attractive to some people is the sophistication that is associated with it, it gives even a younger woman a more mature and experienced look than if her face was more roundish or oval. Mr. Holland says my cheekbones are low, but I don't think he took a good look at them. Everyone else says I have the cheekbones of a model, by the way I am not bragging.

Although, high fashion models go through great pains, sometimes unhealthy, oftentimes, to stay as thin as they are, I do find their facial structures to be appealing in some ways. I am taken by the serious looks on their faces and their aloofness. Then again, this is a matter of personal tastte and there are even men out there, heterosexual exclusively, who find women who look this way attractive and they are entitled to do so and no one has any right to label them as having homosexual or bisexual tendencies. Actually, I am happy to know that there are men out there with a variety of tastes and interests as well as women with a variety of tastes.

Actually, in my personal opinion, the modeling world should move towards diversification, which will sell even more to the public because women will begin to look more for the types of clothings and cosmetics that will flatter and bring out the uniqueness of their own look instead of feeling unappreciated because of the prevalence of only one type of look. This is the healthiest approach towards this issue and men will appreciate it as well because their unique tastes will be catered to as well.


Yes you are definately right about the fashion industry providing a more diverse range of looks. I sometimes wonder why thin is in right now--- for the most part, fashion recycles itself-- in the 60's and 70's thin was in, then in the 80's and a good portion of the 90's the "Amazon" models were popular, like Linda Evangelista and Cindy Crawford. So one would expect this to start recycling itself...but it hasn't.

I think one of the problems contributing to this is the amount of attention people with very thing bodies are being given. Not that they should be ignored by any means; but taking a look at eating disorders and the psychology behind them, when you give an undue amount of attention (whatever it may be) to thinness especially anorexia, it actually reinforces the individual to want to become more thin, and thus validating their motivations for being thin, and believing that they actually look healthy.

So instead of slamming the thinness of fashion models, examples providing a greater range of beauty in various heights, body shapes, and musculatures would be helpful in gravitating away from Twiggy's look to a healthier Cindy Crawford-- regardless of the fact that her uppper body is toned.

Aileen: I have a bunch of things to do other than working on this site. This is the reason why this site is updated slowly and why it may take me a while to respond. I don’t need days to think over a response. Don’t delude yourself into believing that you are outdebating me. All I see from critics like you is ad hominem, misrepresentations and misunderstanding.

I have IP logs to prove that Aileen, Raymond and Maria are the same person whereas Sandy and I are not. Sandy has also left a bunch of comments around, even before her latest comment within this thread, and reading them should make it obvious that she and I are not the same person. I do not need to be posting comments here using multiple aliases to show that people agree with me; the scientific information and pictures cited are enough to prove my arguments, and your comments, especially as Raymond and Maria, show just what people who disagree with this site have to offer as counter arguments.

Using the expression “Your comment is the kind I get from pathetic homosexuals...” is not to imply that the person is one, but to simply state what kind of men are expected to leave the comment that “Raymond” did. Raymond could be a woman and hence I did not say “A pathetic homosexual like you...” I did not check the IP logs before posting it or else would have realized that it was you.

As far as the self-esteem stuff goes, I discussed it over a month ago, and have never presented arguments along the lines of not caring about women’s self-esteem at all. None of this should be news to those that have bothered to thoroughly go through the site before judging it. I have now started working around people’s arguments? I have not presented myself as a person with no liking for what feminists stand for. Just because I criticize a feminist, i.e., Heather above, it does mean that I have something against feminist demands per se. Neither have I presented myself as someone against the practice of psychology as a science. Psychology is a mixed bag; some of it is science but the rest isn’t. Psychoanalysis, which I critiqued, is not science, and as long as this discipline remains part of psychology, psychology simply cannot be regarded as a science. I don’t believe that I am being careless about my choice of words, but changing the wording used is not going to help improve the respect people have for this site because my arguments are based on data and pictures, not wording. I know you have no respect for this site and so do a number of other people out there, and this cannot be changed by carefully chosen words because people who have no interest in feminine beauty will at best remain indifferent to this site and some others will remain hostile toward the promotion of feminine beauty.

I don’t believe that I have used any belittling terms for...


...gays and bisexuals (when I talked about pathetic homosexuals, I obviously meant homosexuals who happen to be pathetic rather than that homosexuals are pathetic)...

...feminists (calling Heather a useless feminist is not to imply that all feminists are such)...

...psychologists (psychoanalysts are not the only psychologists; psychoanalysis is a contemptible discipline and needs to go where Freud went; there are many brilliant psychologists around, none practicing psychoanalysis).

Do I need to interview a bunch of white and Iranian men to figure out who would prefer you more? Anyone familiar with the looks of your co-ethnics and white women would know the answer right away after looking at you. My friendly advice to you, again, is to beware of the white men interested in you given your more manly appearance compared to white female norms. Better be safe than sorry; no point in catching venereal diseases or HIV from men on the down-low when plenty of your co-ethnics would be pleased to date you.

I cannot understand why you and Amelia have problems being called swarthy. There is nothing wrong with being swarthy. Poor you got offended by it even though the word is an accurate description of you! On the other hand, you had no qualms coming up with ad hominem to supposedly “out-debate” me and keep coming up with annoying comments such as hypothesizing that I have “an issue against most of the women in today’s world” when I have made it clear that this site is about the looks of models and beauty pageant contestants, not women in general.

As far as the ethnic composition of Iranians goes, I have never implied anything along the lines of Iranians being a mono-ethnic group. Iran has been occupied by diverse groups throughout history, including European tribes, and it shows in the variety of looks found there. However, it has a Semitic element, and people looking at you would think Semite right away. If you believe that Iranians are Indo-Europeans, then a reality check is in order. The Indo-Europeans were a European people than spread from the Russian Caucasus region to a broad region of Europe and as far southeast as India. If you want to see examples of how they looked, search for pictures of the Tarim Basin mummies and note their hair colors, among other features. Also see the hair of this Scythian warrior; the Scythians occupied a broad region ranging from Iran to Mongolia. The original Indo-European looks in Iran are gone and some people close to them driven out by Muslims. If Amelia knew how you looked she would be able to tell that you would not fit among a group of Persians that fled Moslem persecution in Iran and sought refuge in India. They are a light-skinned people with facial features ranging from European to close to European, unlike your dark and Semitic looks. Dark-haired Iranian women with fair skin and European facial features are admired the world over, but not your kind.

Your assertion that I do not appear to be a fan of women who manage to be successful and famous regardless of their looks is nonsense; this site is not about success/fame, but about the looks of models and beauty pageant contestants. So what if Sophia Loren was widely admired? Manly Gisele Bundchen has been described as the most beautiful woman in the world by some authorities, too. Am I to lend credence to what “authorities” have said or consider how these women look? So what if some women aspired to acquire the abnormal-looking cheekbones of Sophia Loren? Some women aspire to acquire the super-skinny looks of high-fashion models even though there is no aesthetic merit in skinniness as far as most people are concerned. Some people will try to acquire some features of famous women, but this does not mean that the desired features are of merit by themselves. Monica Belluci is not added to the attractive women section because she is insufficiently feminine rather than because she is famous.

I am getting tired of having to point out materials within this site that you should have read prior to commenting. What do I know of norms among European women? Read this page for just one example, which describes the outline of the average North American white female and also some other ethnicities; it also presents some data on Iranians. It should be obvious that your face is more masculine looking than the average North American white female's.

Some people have left appreciative comments here, and I have received a number of appreciative emails, too. People who appreciate this site will typically at best be able to come up with a one-liner expressing their appreciation, but most wouldn’t bother whereas the ones disturbed by it would be prompted to leave lengthy comments. This should be intuitive. Anyway, I don’t care if you believe that most people do not appreciate this site. I have some things to do and will do my job regardless of what others think. Who appreciates this site and who doesn’t will become obvious to most in due time.

You must make an effort to understand this site before leaving more comments or else you are not welcome to do so.

Amelia: You wrote:


Talk about remarkable distortion! I am not trying to promote diverse figures, but specifically those that are examples of feminine beauty. There is no argument here along the lines of what a “true” female body should look like; “true” female bodies naturally come in wide varieties. The illustrative examples are supposed to help convey what feminine beauty is supposed to look like. Promotion of feminine beauty does not require debasement of other looks, which this site is not doing; a contrast with other looks suffices to show what is feminine. I have not argued that women should strive to achieve feminine beauty.

Regarding the discussion of self-esteem issues, a website with more than a few pages will not be able to highlight links to all of its pages just about everywhere. It is the responsibility of the reader to go through the site and understand it before critiquing it.

The reason that there is information on facial structure here is because it is needed to show how masculinization and feminization change face shape; without this information, my arguments will be dismissed as subjective. Nobody should infer that this information is provided because I want women to do anything about their facial features.

As far as promoting awareness of variety among women goes, I am not contradicting myself. I want to see more feminine looking women among models and beauty pageant contestants as part of feminine beauty promotion rather than in order to promote awareness of diversity. In this age of global television and the internet, not to mention multiethnic big cities, many people have seen tremendous ethnic diversity in looks; if there is any need to promote awareness of diversity in looks, this site will not concern itself with it.

I am not dispelling beauty myths by promoting the myth that ‘“real femininity” is about being an hourglass figure.’ The argument here is about feminine beauty, not femininity per se. There are feminine women around who are not examples of feminine beauty. An hourglass figure should be considered as a reference standard for feminine beauty; it is not an absolute requirement.

You are mistaken that the use of women with healthy physiques rather than an hourglass look is sufficient to combat the negative influence of skinny fashion models. Without convincing women at risk for developing anorexia that a competing healthy aesthetic standard is of merit and desired by most people, there will be no significant impact. Feminine beauty is naturally appreciated by most people, and women who are great examples of it are needed to combat the negative effects of skinny fashion models. Regarding high standards of feminine beauty, you can rest assured that promoting it will not be corresponding to unhealthy behaviors, as I have already explained under the heading Cosmetic surgery in relation to the promotion of feminine beauty within the page that addresses body-esteem issues. Masculinized women will end up with a distorted or cartoonish figure if they use a corset.

You have again asked “How on earth are women supposed to strive for a figure that they weren’t born with?” Once again, this site is not about what women are supposed to strive for. As far as women being allowed to determine what is feminine and beautiful goes, femininity of physical appearance is not a matter of opinion, as a tremendous amount of data cited within this site shows, and most people share their sense of what constitutes beauty; there is an intrinsic element to aesthetic appreciation that cannot be changed, though there is room for manipulating what some people find beautiful by associating some looks with high status and thereby desirability. As far as women having better self-esteem goes if there were not men around specifying what constitutes feminine beauty, my arguments would not bother you if you did not recognize that the nature of feminine beauty portrayed here represents reality. If I were promoting obese women here, I don’t think that you would be disturbed by this site because the typical person in Western society does not aesthetically appreciate obesity. You are more than welcome to find like-minded individuals (think Aileen) and try to set up a site to define what you feel is feminine and beautiful; I will let my readers know of it when it is done.

Some of the minutiae of aesthetics discussed here are applicable to European women but not other ethnicities. For instance, East Indian women have naturally higher waist-to-hip ratios than European women, on average, and are thereby not required to present the appearance of the hourglass extremes shown within this site to constitute examples of attractive women among their co-ethnics. So why are you bothered? Do not compare yourself to European women.

I need to redefine an hourglass figure? An hourglass approximation is a rough one and in front view only. The pictures/looks speak for themselves; there is no need to attempt mathematical precision.

As far as my neglecting the “real” issue, i.e., comparing healthy physiques to unhealthy ones, or the necessity of focusing on unhealthy body depictions goes, why do I have to keep repeating that the purpose of this site is to promote feminine beauty? Feminine beauty corresponds to health although health does not necessarily correspond to feminine beauty. The primary purpose of this site is not to promote health.

You wrote:


Instead of slamming fashion models for being less than women, he should be providing an analysis on why it’s unhealthy and what the average woman looks like.

Manly fashion models are not being slammed here; the people/circumstances that have put them in a position of high status are being critiqued. The negative health consequences of fashion imagery featuring skinny women have been extensively addressed on the eating disorders page. The looks of average women have also been addressed, often in the form of numerical data; go through the entire section that addresses aesthetics in international beauty pageants.

When you say that many women would like high cheekbones because it adds structure to the face, you are confusing the height of the cheekbones with their horizontal prominence (which figures into the structure issue). The argument here is not that high cheekbones equals masculine per se. The argument is that masculinization causes a higher placement of the cheekbones on the face.

As to my failure “to address some rather obvious things regarding facial features and bone structure,” here is my reply to your three points:


1. It is an easy matter to find women with little fat in their faces that nevertheless have much less prominent cheekbones than fashion models; see numerous comparisons here.

2. Female gymnasts do not typically look like adolescent boys notwithstanding your assertion that their dietary practices lead to development under reduced estradiol levels. Besides, success in gymnastics requires a short height, among other things, i.e., short women are selected for among well-ranked gymnasts rather than regular participation in gymnastics being responsible for stunting height. There are plenty of skinny women with feminine skeletal proportions, which prevent them from looking like adolescent boys (example), and it is incorrect to blame the skinniness of high-fashion models alone for their adolescent-boy look. Remember that high-fashion models typically look like adolescent boys when they are recruited for fashion modeling to start with, i.e., it is not that years of fashion modeling is making them look like adolescent boys; just look at newly signed-up fashion model Abbie Gortsema for instance. So body fat makes a woman look feminine and adds curves? Explain why the following women with not much body fat and small breasts come close to satisfying the requirements of an hourglass figure except for the breasts part: 1, 2, 3. Don’t you see the importance of skeletal structure in presenting a feminine appearance and that high-fashion models typically lack a feminine body skeletal structure to start with, which combined with their skinniness and facial masculinization altogether helps them approximate the looks of adolescent boys?

3. There are numerous studies cited here (e.g., see this and this) that relate sex hormone profiles to physical shape variation, easily allowing one to assess who, controlling for ancestry, has more masculine or feminine sex hormone profiles if the overall masculinity-femininity of physical appearance is sufficiently discordant.

It is surprising that you “sometimes wonder why thin is in” when the clear answer is provided here. Contrary to your impression about not-so-skinny fashion models in the 1980s and 1990s as opposed to skinny ones in the 1960s and 1970s, there has been a trend toward increasing skinniness among fashion models from the 1960s onward. You appear to have been mislead by the supermodel phenomenon that characterized part of the 1980s and 1990s. Whereas the supermodels, i.e., the most famous ones, were not super skinny, the norm among high-fashion models was skinny. Please go through and understand this site before critiquing it.


a sorry idiot is a sorry idiot, just ban him. The rest of society has spit on his face and left him with all of these complexes.

These comments that we are posting here, Mr. Holland, no longer even address you, they just expose how narrow minded, lame, and demeaning your comments are when you respond to them. Yet, I still ask, where are your supporters???? You have none. You are a lone wolf, Mr. Holland, that has lost the entire pack. While everyone else out there is enjoying life, and moving forward, you are in your sedentary backward place, boiling with anger because you are a societal reject. Enjoy your life.

You should have enough sense to realize that the word swarthy is not an appropriate term to describe relatively darker shades of skin. I would like you to use that word face to face when speaking to someone in describing them and see the reaction you get. It is clearly not appropriate. By the way, not all semitics are swarthy and neither am I. In fact, anyone who has taken a good look at Arabs and Jews, can tell that my features are not in the least semitic, they are a blend of Slavic and East Indian in appearance. In fact, semetic peoples themselves describe me as such. You have no way of categorizing people. The rest of the world has admired Sophia Loren, Monica Bellucci and some other models whose looks you do not favor, and they do not need your favor either. Obviously, they had something to offer, in terms of looks, class, and reason that you do not and are still used as examples of female beauty.

The fact remains, you have no supporters and have interviewed and spoken to no one about anything to prove your point.

Where are your supporters now to defend you?????

I just went over the site, every page:


Mr. Holland there is nothing on Iranians or the vast majority of ethnic groups here, you simply have the audacity to place a black woman's picture next to a white woman's picture and make comparisons as to which is more feminine than which and have the audacity also to say that Halle Berry got a nose job to appeal to the tastes of African Americans. Again, you do not represent the opinions of African Americans either because you interview none of them. Furthermore, there is only one random photo shot of Aishwarya Rai and of one other East Indian actress wearing colored lenses where you compare here to a very grotesque looking woman and compare their levels of femininity.

Furthermore, with respect to your rudeness and presumptuousness that I be wary of white, European men who take an interest in me given the higher probability that they have AIDS and other venereal diseases, I would like to let you know that unlike the women you have an apparent liking for (if you can make a judgemnt like that about me then I am most definitely in position to make judgements about you who is nothing more than what others have described as a PE major), I am not the cheap promiscuous type that engages in sexual relations, let alone unprotected sexual relations, with anyone random person who has attraction towards me. Most men earn their way into my life and I am in the business of rejecting 95% of the men who show attraction.

The simple fact that oftentimes I attract the attention of almost every man in the room regardless of what the other females in the room look like is enough indication that I am above average in looks. Can every man in the room have a tendency towards bisexuality and have AIDS and veneral diseases, the probability is very very low. Plus, your comment is useless, it has no meaning and is purely baseless. Its just losers like you that no they do not stand a chance with desirable respectable women and so they make the comments that they do. Your kind is a sad, sorry story. I am not bragging about myself, but have to set you straight in the eyes of others who are offended by you. Even if Amelia or Kirsten or anyone were to see how I looked, they wouldnt think the way you do. I get enough compliments from people at work, in my life, those who come across me on a day to day basis to know that I am special and beautiful. It is clear you do not like women who are happy with themselves and the comments you make towards me are a clear indication. Now, I leave them here for everyone who reads these to see who you are.

I just finished observing some photographs of supermodel Gisele Bundchen and must say that on a personal level, I think that she is stunning, though not perfect. Only her nose and chin may need surgical alteration in order to achieve a closer degree of femininity and perfection. Her tall, slender physique, though too slim and emaciated for healthy norms is overall very aesthetically pleasing as well as her facial bone structure. Great skin, hair, and ability to manueaver oneself in a variety of attires...she has these. Of course, she hits it off with superstar Leonardo DiCaprio, then there is something obviously right about her. The titanic hottie that all the girls wanted found himself i the arms of 5'11 supermodel. For her height, her waist to hip ratio of approximately, 0.71 is very good as well as her long sleek legs and not to mention that she actually appears to have naturally voluptuous breast and even they have been surgically altered, I will say that the surgeon should be sought after by all women who are seeking breast enhancement and want to look natural at the same time.

Hey Amelia,

Although I admire the looks of Gisele Bundchen, I will go back to my orignal assertion that diversity is much needed by the modeling world. I will explain my personal definition of diversity as I speak of it here.

By diversification, I mean that not only should different racial and ethnic groups be represented in more equal numbers given the fact that the western world in general, European countries, the United States, Canada, some Latin American countries, and Australia are becoming more of a melting pot with a larger and more diverse selection of fans of fashion, clothing, and cosmetics, but also that different body types, which entails different bone structures, heights, proportions, facial configurations be represented. I think in past times and even so today, the modeling world did, in fact, cater to a more specific group of people and the reason many were underrepresented was because of their lack of presence in the realm of show business, fashion, and other forms of media or simply because of their lack of willingness to speak or to express their concern about being underrepresented. At the turn of this century, with the presence of Jennifer Lopez in the music world and some other pear shaped stars, luckily many women can take pride in being pear shaped whereas there was a previously a big stigma attached to it.

In my opinion, the most aesthetically pleasing standard for any woman is what would make any particular woman appear most aesthetically pleasing in her own right, while maintaining her health, both physically and mentally. There is nothing wrong with a woman being unusually thin either in the fashion world as long as the woman is proven to beh healthy and is proven to have a look that is achievable for her particular body type, which can be proven by submitting to a regular physical, which should be used as a standard and if so many supermodels stopped denying to the public that they are, in fact, starving themselves to look the way they do. Also, if a woman simply has a tendency towards having less body fat than some other women she can be used as model for women who are on the thin side.

The problem with the modeling world, I believe, is that women are forced to aspire towards something that is not achievable by all of them and this induces feelings of inadequacy inside of them, which is unhealthy, and can retard personal growth and an appreciation of one's own unique traits and abilities. Actually, I explained this phenomenon to a male friend of mine who is trying to understand women, that in order to have a successful relationship with a woman, every man needs to realize that it is every woman's right to feel beautiful. The modeling world, at this time, is much more limited in its selection of aesthetically pleasing looks. What we need to move towards is a situation in which every woman has a model that she can not only aspire to, but identify with, and who can model clothes, hair styles, and cosmetics for her that flatter her own particular look and not necessarily the look of another.

Also, modelling and fashion need to be treated as works of art, in my opinion. The most credible artist is one who can work with a variety of mediums to produce a eye catching work. There is no reason why male homosexuals would not be able to do this if the status quo shifted a bit.

I forgot to mention that we need models with various skin tones, eye colors, and hair colors in a variety of combinations in order to explore the art of make up and hair color and how it plays into accentuating one's beauty. Women with predominantly European features are not necessarily more aesthetically pleasing on an international level than women with more East Asian, Southeast Asian, East Indian, Middle Eastern (semetic or Indo European), or North African or Sub Saharan African features.

I remember a Vietnamese man in my Communications class saying that he would not ever choose a blonde girl over an Asian because he had a personal affinity for the eye structure of Asian women. Clearly, this indicates that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Some men in recent years admit to liking women who are more plumpish whereas when waif like physiques were our only point of reference in the 90s for beauty before the presense of Jennifer Lopez and some other stunningly voluptous celebrities and women, men always used Cindy Crawford as reference point for the emblem of beauty. Though stunningly beautiful and a brilliant artist, most level headed people can say that Cindy Crawford is just one of many versions of what beauty can be.

I always appreciate people's inputs with respect to my ideas. Please feel free to share, but please be respectful.

You said:


You seem to fail to notice that women fall under a variety of physiques, so by using YOUR standard of what an attractive body looks like, you are continuing the problem. The minute a stenciled standard is set and women are apparently supposed to try to aim for it is the minute problems arise. You constantly try to claim otherwise but continue to contradict yourself.

You know what, you are a man. Simple as that. You don't have a woman's body and you are by no means someone to think that you can determine the standard for women and beauty. This site is just a prime example of men trying to exert patriarchy over women's bodies, in a place they have no business to control. I think I've said enough here and I can't wait to use this site as part of an anti-healthy body image discussion for my abnormal psych class.

Mr. Holland, if you are referring to the Zoroasterian Persians who fled Iran to India, known as the Parsees and are making such presumptuous suggestions that Amelia knows what they look like just because she claims to have East Indian ancestry, is really a reflection of your ignorance and lack of attention to what people are actually saying to you.

The Parsees living in India today are heavily heavily mixed with the Indian population, most of whom have some of the darkest features found anywhere in the world and actually, they are darker than the mainstream population of Iranians found in Iran today. Actually, Indian people are Indo European as well, most tend to be rather dark skinned with a select few having lighter skin, hair, and eyes, and rather taller and more developed in stature. Being caucasian, first and foremost, has nothing to do with skin tone either. Iranians are predominantly Caucasion irrespective of hair types, stature, skin tone, eye color and so are East Indians.

I don't think you have taken a good look at semetic peoples, Arabs and Jews in order to make judgements as to which people have more semetic ancestry. The original Arabs that originated in present day Yemen and moved into present day Saudi Arabia have absolutely no resemblence to 95% of Iran's population as diverse as they are in skin tone, hair color, eye color, and body configurations. We actually have a small arab minority leaving in the desert areas in the south western portion of Iran, but that is where they are and their culture and language are their own. They have no mixing with the rest of us.

Mr. Holland, you and I both know that if I didnt even bring up the subject of Iranians, you wouldnt have even did your last minute homework on the subject that I presented and its clear that you still are lacking sufficient knowledge on subjects that you are not in a position to talk about. Research a subject thoroughly before discussing it. Ask any anthropologist as to whether or not Iranians are Indo European or not and then come up with these off the wall assertions.

Furthermore, by assuming that my ancestry is largely semetic and in falsely doing so, and by saying that "my kind is not admired the world around" you must accept that you are implying that Arab and Jewish women, here I am implying the Sephardic Jews, not the Ashkenazi Jews, are less attractive than women with more European ancestry. This itself is racially offensive and would like to see an Arab woman's response one day to what you are saying about her looks, though I myself, as an Iranian, consider myself an Arab in any way or identify with the ethnic category of Arabs.

My native language is Farsi and in my family there are people with a variety of looks and appearances. Some of family members actually are on the fair skinned side with hazel, green, and blue eyes. My mother is by no means semetic looking and neither is my father and there is very little probability that I would be considered semetic. Skin tones in Iran range mainly range from medium to darker tones of olive to rather fair or lightly tanned skin tones and I fall under the category of light olive with strong tanning potential. A select few are pinkish white mainly Iranians that originate from the North or are still living in the North and another select few are very dark, somewhat brownish, which predominate in the south of Iran of course mainly due to climatic conditions. Again, the word "swarthy" is an inappropriate term because it is clear that it has often been used to demean people.

If semetic women are not attractive, Mr. Holland, then why is there so much literature dedicated to white men's attraction to Jewish women during Medeival Europe, a time during which people were even more conservative about what feminine and masculine are, and why is it now that Jewish people consist of more than just the original Jews; the Ashkenazi jews are actually hardly semetic in ancestry in today's world. The Ashkenazi Jews have a large number of white, blue eyed and blonde people among them some of them who would meet your definition of feminity and some who would not. Obviously there were a large number of European men out there who found the looks of a Middle Eastern more appealing and exotic than that of the native European woman and therefore there was interbreeding among them and they were even willing to change their religion to be among these people who were living as minorities in exile.

Of course, some of what I say gets into politics, now we have a controversial state called Israel as a result of so many Ashkenazi Jews. Quite interesting........

There is a question I would like to pose with respect to the so-called "masculinized women" being more likely to attract men who are more likely to have bisexual tendencies or whatever it is that Mr. Holland has chosen to describe their tendencies as and has thereby made the faulty generalization.

Are "masculinized" supermodels, movie actresses, and other famous women whose looks Mr. Holland would describe as masculine at a greater risk of catching AIDS and other STDS because of the types of men that are attracted to them, some of whom consist of men in high professions such as medicine, show business, engineering, law, or the so-called "feminine" women whose pictures Mr. Holland has placed here, some of whom are just vulgar and heinous and no one would give them a second look even in day-to-day life and of course. I recall reading some of what Mr. Holland had to say about these so-called feminine women as to why they could only be found in amateur porn and nude model sites and he said that because of the lack of attention paid to them by the elites, they have to sleep their way to the top?????? I ask everyone here who is more likely to catch an STD????

Even with respect to men, Mr. Holland has boldly made the assertion that heterosexual men have low standards for casual sex and so can one conclude that so-called "exclusively heterosexual" men, like Mr. Holland himself, are more likely to harbor a wide range of STDs because of their preferences for the types of women that are ignored by the elites and are therefore forced into prostitution to make their way to the top????? Having low standards for casual sex extends to having low standards for looks as well as for health....

Look at a picture of one Mr. Holland's examples of feminine women, a slimy looking girl standing half naked next to a Christmas tree with a cheap hair cut, and of course what do u see on the Christmas tree, her thong as an ornament. Looks like the opening of a porno movie and of course there is often no protection used. The girls are at any man's immediate disposal and are used like toilet paper.

Good choice all you so-called "masculinized" women,even if your looks are by Mr. Holland's standards on the manly side. You associate yourself with the cream of the crop and like other famous women you value your life and health too much to die of aweful diseases by reducing yourselves to nothing with the likes of slimy, chauvenistic men. I love all of you. Stay great the way you are.

Amelia: I have not failed to notice that “women fall under a variety of physiques.” Even children have noted the latter. You use the term “YOUR standard of what an attractive body looks like,” oblivious to numerous studies cited here explaining femininity and showing that the general public strongly and overwhelmingly prefers above average femininity in the looks of women. This site would have no convincing power and the “standard” talked about here would not bother you and others like you if deep down you all did not realize that the core arguments here are true. Once again, this site is not about what “women are apparently supposed to try to aim for.”

This site is an example of patriarchal oppression? Can women be manipulated into accepting just about any looks standards? What is so special about this site that it will convince women that female beauty lies in what is argued here? Don’t waste your time using this site as part of “an anti-healthy body image discussion” in abnormal psychology. Feminine beauty represents health though it is not the only healthy configuration.

Aileen: Where are my supporters? My supporters don’t need to defend me because you have already done an astounding job of defending my arguments, as the following eight points show:


1. You left a comment, “I always appreciate people’s inputs with respect to my ideas. Please feel free to share, but please be respectful.” On the other hand, you have described me as a sorry idiot spit on his face by society and left with numerous complexes, a “sad, sorry story,” narrow-minded, lame, demeaning, slimy, chauvinistic and a societal reject. As Raymond, you described me as a sad loser, reject, someone boiling with anger, sedentary, someone with a small penis, probably a big social moron, masturbator, sex-starved and someone with no luck with women. You spammed me with three additional comments as Raymond, which I am not displaying since I don’t allow spam, but you included the following additional insults in these comments: calling me probably short, someone who was bullied all my life, in denial of my homosexuality, a pathetic f*g and someone crapping in my pants as I read your comments. As Maria you also suggested that I am a homosexual.

Respect for me, but not for thee! Besides, someone who comes up with such a fine response to an argument does an excellent job of showing just how able she is of refuting the argument.

Another interesting comment by you in light of your fine response above: “Again, the word “swarthy” is an inappropriate term because it is clear that it has often been used to demean people.” Oh, how much more offensive being called swarthy than your relatively benign description of me!

2. After saying that “I just went over the site, every page,” you wrote, “Mr. Holland there is nothing on Iranians or the vast majority of ethnic groups here...”

You missed the following citations within this site:


Farkas, L. G. et. al., International anthropometric study of facial morphology in various ethnic groups/races, J Craniofac Surg, 16, 615 (2005).

Mafi, P. et. al., Ideal soft tissue facial profile in Iranian females, J Craniofac Surg, 16, 508 (2005).

The first paper cites anthropometric data on numerous populations, including Iranians, and I have provided a pdf of the paper. I haven’t extensively cited the data from the second paper, but you bet that I have read it and cited it in an appropriate manner.

In short, you have shown just how well you have read “every page” within this site.

3. You left the following comments:

Quote: simply have the audacity to place a black woman’s picture next to a white woman’s picture and make comparisons as to which is more feminine...


You wrote the above, oblivious to the following note at the very beginning of the section that you are criticizing:


Those who wanted others to believe that it is impossible to come up with objective and sufficiently exacting criteria to compare the attractiveness of individuals across populations would tend to display striking contrasts (Figures 1a-h), whereas those who wanted others to conclude the opposite would pick images that minimize differences across populations (Figures 2a-c). Therefore, it is not sufficient to just rely on pictures to answer the central question of this section of the site. It is necessary to also refer to average differences between populations, as documented in the anthropological literature.

In other words, the arguments rest on average differences documented in the anthropological literature. You seem to have glossed over all the numerical data and papers cited, and failed to realize that the pictures shown are merely illustrative examples of what the anthropological data are showing; the arguments are not based on the pictures!

You have shown just how well you have understood the arguments here.

4. You said:



Where have you encountered cheap, promiscuous women who have sexual relations with random men expressing an interest in them? Women, regardless of their promiscuity, are selective about who they have sex with. Even prostitutes make men “earn their way into” their pants. Whereas I have not made any assumptions about your degree of promiscuity, your inference that the women I like are cheap prostitute-types speaks volumes about your “fine understanding” of this site. This site is about looks, not behavior. There are also numerous citations here showing that feminine women are less likely to be promiscuous than masculinized women.

5. You said, “Even if Amelia or Kirsten or anyone were to see how I looked, they wouldnt (sic) think the way you do.” And what do I think about the way you look? I said that you are on the masculine side of European norms. If you attract as many admiring glances as you say you do, get numerous compliments on your looks and believe that I am wrong in my assessment of your looks, I don’t think you should have a problem with me posting your pictures next to average and attractive European women and see what the readers have to say. After all, I am wrong in my assessment, isn’t it?

6. You said:



Wow! The male homosexuals who dominate the fashion business are responsible for the status quo! What is going to “shift” the status quo? Some fine understanding of the fashion industry you have shown!

7. You said:



Great! Your example refutes a ton of evidence showing well-replicated objective correlates of beauty, which you have not even acknowledged, in spite of my having pointed them out to you previously, let alone refuted them, doesn’t it?

8. You said:



Talk about egregious distortion! Nowhere have I said that feminine-looking women could only be found in “amateur porn and nude model sites.” Most women found in such sites are in the normal-to-masculinized range. Feminine and attractive women are found aplenty in the general population. However, thanks to the domination of the fashion business by male homosexuals, what would as a first approximation be the most obvious sources of pictures unambiguously depicting feminine beauty -- such as modeling agencies, beauty pageants -- are largely useless. I have already explained why movie actresses are not a convenient alternative at this time. Since adult-oriented sites usually offer pictures of many nude women and show them from multiple angles, one could browse their archives to select the feminine and attractive ones among them, of which there are very few. Besides, images depicting nudity are required to address aesthetics of the physical form. I didn’t say anything about the elite not paying attention to feminine women; I have said that homosexual men in the fashion industry are not interested in using feminine women for modeling purposes. I didn’t say anything along the lines of feminine women having to sleep their way to the top. I said that feminine and attractive women unwilling to deal with the casting couch to make it in mainstream movies or not willing to pose nude remain virtually unknown.

You said:



Where have I said that feminine women are forced into prostitution to make their way to the top? Masculinized women are more inclined toward promiscuity than feminine women, and masculinized women would, on average, be more willing to sleep their way to stardom in the movie industry.

Once again, you have shown your fine comprehension of my arguments!

I believe it should be clear why it is not necessary for my supporters to bother refuting your arguments.

Aileen: This is a response to miscellaneous comments by you.


You said, “It is clear you do not like women who are happy with themselves and the comments you make towards me are a clear indication.”

My replies to you have not assumed what your level of happiness is, which is irrelevant to this discussion.

You tell me that not all Semites are swarthy. Why do you think I used the expression “swarthy Semite”? Answer: to point out that you look like a swarthy Semite as opposed to a non-swarthy Semite.

You tell me that the Persians in India are heavily mixed with Indians. Is this why they have high rates of recessive genetic disorders? The original Persians have mixed with East Indians to some extent, no doubt, but I have personally seen numerous Parsis in India with skin lighter and features more European than yours. Look up the pictures of deceased singer Freddie Mercury, born to Indian Parsis as Farrokh Bulsara, and ask yourself if people would place you and him into the same ethnic group.

So East Indians are Indo-European, too? Learn some history. As I have already explained, the Original Indo-Europeans were a European people that spread through many parts of the world. Part-European ancestry dating to thousands of years ago does not make the Iranians and East Indians Indo-European as in the direct, unmixed descendants of the original Indo-European people. Once gain, look up the hair colors of some well-preserved examples of the ancient Indo-European people that I asked you to observe in a previous comment.

You tell me that the original Arabs that presumably “originated in present day Yemen and moved into present day Saudi Arabia have absolutely no resemblence to 95% of Iran’s population.” If so, then how do you explain the very tight clustering of Algerians, Berbers, Moroccans, Egyptians, and people from Iran-Iraq (represented as Middle East) in the following dendogram based on 24 selection-neutral craniofacial inter-landmark distances?


craniofacial dendogram
Brace, C. L., Seguchi, N., Quintyn, C. B., Fox, S. C., Nelson, A. R., Manolis, S. K., and Qifeng, P., The questionable contribution of the Neolithic and the Bronze Age to European craniofacial form, Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 103, 242 (2006).


You said, “Furthermore, by assuming that my ancestry is largely semetic (sic)...”

I have not assumed this; I said that you have Semitic looks. You would easily blend in among Semites because there are plenty of Semites with looks like yours throughout the Middle East; see the above dendogram again.


You said, “by saying that “my kind is not admired the world around” you must accept that you are implying that Arab and Jewish women, here I am implying the Sephardic Jews, not the Ashkenazi Jews, are less attractive than women with more European ancestry. This itself is racially offensive...”

If I am implying what you say, then it is surprising that on the one hand you insist that all the above groups are Caucasians like European are, but then accuse me of making a racially offensive statement. If some members of a race are described as not as good looking as other members of this race, how is this racially offensive since both groups belong to the same race? On the other hand, you have ignored my argument in the section addressing aesthetics in international beauty pageants that individuals from physically distinct ethnic groups cannot be aesthetically compared in an objective manner. I have not implied anything along the lines of what you have inferred. I simply stated that women with your swarthy Semitic looks are not as admired around the world as women with some other types of looks are, without any explanation why; I simply described people’s preferences.


You asked, “If semetic (sic) women are not attractive, Mr. Holland, then why is there so much literature dedicated to white men’s attraction to Jewish women during Medeival (sic) Europe, a time during which people were even more conservative about what feminine and masculine are...”

Where is all this literature? I have not implied that Semitic women are not attractive; attractive women are found in all groups. However, it is common observation that some ethnic groups are more aesthetically appreciated on a global level than others, and Semites do not rank on top in this regard. Some European men have been attracted to women of just about any ethnicity throughout history, which goes for men in other ethnic groups, too, but most European men prefer European women to non-European women, and this is how it has been in the past, too. People were more conservative about what feminine and masculine are in Medieval Europe? What is this? The nuances of physical variation related to masculinization and feminization are better known today than in the past.

Your description of the feminine women shown here as vulgar, heinous, slimy, etc. is a straightforward illustration of your jealousy. Unable to debate in a rational manner, all you can come up with are distortions and foul adjectives, and I have had enough of it. DO NOT leave comments here anymore as Aileen or under any other alias.


I have not checked this site in a number of days, and so missed your comments earlier linking me with Erik. All I can say is NO...we are most definitively not the same person, as you would easily see if you read all or some of my comments on this blog. I must say I don't feel it was an appropriate comment on your part; because the inference is that if someone supports or agrees with Erik he/she must actually be Erik himself or some other equally misguided person, which of course I resent. I do respect your opinion and I think you should respect the opinions of others; diversity and debate are good things and lively discussion helps us to grow!

I respect the content of this web site in many ways and disagree with it in others. It is well-thought out in my opinion. It starts out with a premise: "people overwhelmingly prefer above average femininity in the looks of women" and goes on to back up this premise through various forms of objective data - psychological, medical, scientific, anthropological, and through photos and other visual aids.

I don’t think Erik has ever pretended that the depiction of feminine beauty that he presents is inclusive of all female face or body types, and he has readily admitted that this website is strictly about aesthetics, not about making all women feel good about their own personal beauty (which I believe we all have). Again, a website labeled feminine beauty that operated with vague and undefined criteria would merely be about the personal opinion of whomever operated the site; and so while I think it is fine to question Erik’s premise and/or the science he uses to back up his conclusions, I don’t think it makes sense to just say there should be absolutely NO objective criteria because beauty is completely subjective and everyone knows it. In other words, I might be swayed by a good display of DATA that belied the premise of this website but it is harder to completely surrender to mainly emotional arguments without any corroborating evidence.

We probably DO agree on some points: While I don’t doubt that the attractive women featured here are very feminine and fit the definition of feminine beauty broken down into its separate parts (individual facial features, physiques, WHRs, etc WHERE cid= '; “some” still are not attractive to me and so it could be that you can have all the “right” attributes but still lack the proper combination of those attributes to really be a good example of feminine beauty. This is my own personal opinion however. Of course, Erik takes a lot of flack for featuring women who often look too young or too cheap and this is unfortunate as it may take away from the seriousness of this site. (I’m not saying they ARE too young or too cheap Erik…I’m just talking about the perception created.) More respectable models would be better from a purely public relations standpoint if they were available.

I am in fact very pro-woman, and if I saw this site as something against women I would criticize it or ignore it completely. The fact is; I find it informational, entertaining, confrontational and curiously engaging and certainly worth coming back to occasionally.


While I think it is cool that you are willing to critique the looks of women who read this site, I do think that being bluntly honest on a public forum (and not via private email) is a SLIPPERY SLOPE, especially if your comments are anything but unambiguously positive. Men and women are wired very differently in this regard as I’m sure you know! This is merely an observation and possible suggestion on my part; not a criticism.

Sandy: I will normally ignore the looks of a commentator even if I am aware of how this person looks, but Aileen is a different matter. In the beginning, I had to correct her incorrect perception that she leaned toward fashion models in looks, which given the context of this site -- i.e., not taking a favorable view of the looks of high-fashion models -- does not suggest any kind of criticism. Eventually, she grew angry at being outdebated and not fitting into the narrow range of feminine beauty being promoted by this site, which is strange since there is no reason why she should be comparing herself to European women, and in response to her distortion of my arguments, I had to write the following:



I don’t think the passage above qualifies as criticism. It should be considered as clarification and advice in her best interests, and if you knew how she looked, you will agree that describing her as on the masculine-looking side of European norms is speaking favorably of her looks. Before Aileen objected to “swarthy,” I was not aware that some people considered it offensive, and I don’t see how calling a swarthy individual swarthy could be seen as objectionable unless the swarthy individual does not like her own skin. Aileen also started talking about the beauty of Iranian women, even though I had not said anything in this regard, and in response, I had to clarify that the ones considered attractive were the more European-looking ones rather than women with her looks, which you may consider as an unflattering description of her looks, but if this is inappropriate, please keep in mind that Aileen’s comments are far worse, comprising of ad hominem, foul insults, misrepresentations, etc. I have reason to suspect that apart from Raymond and Maria above, she also left the foul comment under the alias Jonathan above; Jonathan and Aileen’s comments came from the same narrow geographic region, and like Raymond’s, followed a comment where I outdebated her. Aileen has called a number of feminine women show here as vulgar or heinous looking, and even left comments like the following:



The above is Aileen speaking of a woman more feminine than what the best plastic surgeons in the world could make her, and she does not realize that the woman shown is a nude model who doesn’t do anything pornographic, like most of the women in the attractive women section. In response to her using foul words to describe the looks of the feminine women that I have shown, I don’t think my properly addressing her looks, which may be regarded as criticism, would be too inappropriate to illustrate an example of what kind of women with an inflated opinion of their looks are offended by this site, but I have not done this.

If you find particular women in the attractive women section too cheap or not attractive, then please let me know who they are; I know there are 2 or 3 women there with faces but not physiques that look in the 16-18 range. I have removed 10 women added to this section at some time or the other, and have more removals in mind. If you flag the same women that I have planned on removing, then I may expedite their removal.


Chloe looks on the young side to me, partially based on her posing with balloons, etc. Several could be 18 but possibly younger, including Klara and Karen. Sometimes it has to do with posing these girls to look younger than they really are; which may be troublesome to some of your female readers.

None of the women in your attractive women section are unattractive and all have nice physiques, but some are just do not measure up to the word "beauty" in my opinion, because of ordinary or even plain faces. Perhaps it would be better to email you my opinions on this at a later date.

Sandy: Chloe is on top of my list for removal; I had also planned on removing Klara at some point. I hadn’t thought about Karen, but I suppose she has to go, too. These women were surely at least 18 at the time of the photography; the websites that I got them from are hosted in the U.S. and would not risk being shut down by the FBI as a result of featuring models less than 18. A combination of facial features and posing with balloons in the case of Chloe makes her look between 16-18. I will relocate these women to the blog next time I post an entry titled “cute women.” There are some other women that I also need to remove from the attractive women section, and will do so after I find suitable replacements.

Would the webmaster explain why the aesthetics page looked like it belong during the time of "Birth of Nation"? Why compare obvious pics from porn sites to old black and white photos of indigenous women. It seemed so...just not right.

Joe: If you are referring to the first page of the section addressing aesthetics in international beauty pageants, then no pictures on this page are taken from porn sites. There are some other pages within this section where a few images are taken from porn sites. The sourcing of the pictures is irrelevant. The first page features some images depicting extreme contrasts and it does not matter whether the pictures are recent or decades old since the type of people depicted are still around in plentiful numbers.

I'm sorry but that page seemed racially biased. You have fit, modern day European women who judging from the pics their goal is to be physical appealing opposed to the indigenous women who besides a poor diet, more than likely don't have access to Neutrogena,a gym membership and a photoshop.

Joe: The images are not supposed to compare the attractiveness of ethnic groups; the pictures of nude European women are taken from low profile sources, i.e., airbrushing is most likely not a factor; none of the non-European women appear to be malnourished and most are in shape; there is one collage where buttocks protrusion is being addressed and some of the African women shown have excess abdominal fat, but overall shape/abdominal fat is not an issue in this collage; physically active indigenous people would not need a gym membership to be in shape; and there are also numerous recent pictures of non-European women shown from glamorous settings. Therefore, there is no bias with respect to the purpose of the section.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. And the Neutrogena,gym membership etc. line, I was being facetious.

----thanks for pointing that out joe---- there are tons of attractive african models/actresses available by loking on those countries' sites---he has chosen to use unflattering pictures. by now erik---it is a choice, since you could easily fix it. i know sooo many african woman who are more appealing than the ones you pictured, that i am having a hard time figuring out what made them stand out to you.

Kristin: You have left a similar comment elsewhere. The attractive African women you pointed out typically had substantial European admixture. None of the images shown are supposed to compare the attractiveness of ethnic groups, i.e., I do not have to base my selections on attractiveness. For instance, most of the European women shown in the section are not found in the attractive women section, and unattractive European women are shown, too. The context of the images is explained in the text, and the context may be pointing out striking differences. Also, the arguments are not based on pictures, but on the papers/numerical data cited; the pictures are merely used for illustrative purposes.

I find this website EXTREMELY insulting. I have broad shoulders, small breasts and a square jaw. In fact, my shoulders are extremely broad for a woman and I hate them. To come to a site like this that is basically pointing out these flaws, comparing photos to other photos, saying we need more femine women in the media and fashion etc - it just plain hurts.

We can not help what we are born with. We don't chose it. I certainly didn't chose my body shape. And we can't change it. I've never come across such crap in all my time of searching the internet. And there's a hell of a lot of crap out there.

Maybe you should be putting forward more healthy arguments that promote HEALTHY body image in women (because nobody else will bloody do it) instead of pointing out why some women are more feminine than others and pointing out "flaws". Women are women - no matter what our bone structure or fat distribution may be, and shouldn't these differences be celebrated rather than attacked?

Sarah: This website is not about how women are supposed to look like or about flaws in the looks of women or about attacking differences. Women come in a wide variety of forms and just because you have small breasts, a squared jaw and very broad shoulders does not make you less of a woman than a woman with more feminine features.

This site is about models and beauty pageant contestants. When feminine women are required, feminine women should be used. I don't think the latter is an inappropriate wish, but what other than coming up with a site like this could be done to realize this wish?

Regarding promoting a healthy body image, not all physical forms are healthy and it cannot be pretended that all shapes are equally healthy. Feminine beauty represents health, though it is not the only configuration that is healthy, i.e., this site's goals are consistent with health promotion.

I randomly stumbled upon this, this is so funny. I guess the funniest thing is nearly all the "attractive" girls are from porn sites, and not very good ones. So I guess everyone is gay that doesn't like lot lizard looking girls. I'm sure the author, obviously a man, knows what that terms refers to, as I'm sure he is a total dumb ass, and probably a closet racist. Yeah, eating disorders are no joke, but more likely it is that, possibly darker in origin for strait males, Lewis Carroll nymph (Lolita) complex. See all western art, and all your barely 18 porn sites. For gay people, if that is a factor at all, it probably has more to do with the hormonal flux of that period, idealism (Greco-Roman), purity if anything.

I don't even know why I'm wasting my time writing this . . .

Craig: I also wonder why you have bothered to leave a comment, given the unjustified insults in it and its senseless nature. Western art is characterized by the Lolita complex? There is an art section within this site, featuring contemporary art, and the women shown are surely no Lolitas. Greco-Roman female figures are primarily those of adult females. Have you seen Aphrodite looking like a pubescent or adolescent girl? “Lolita” was written by Vladimir Nabokov, not Lewis Carroll (who presumably liked underage girls). The Barely-18-girls websites cater to a minority of heterosexual men. Sexual interest in underage children is much more strongly associated with homosexual or bisexual men than heterosexual men. Besides, if it weren’t for the gay domination of the fashion business, there would be no need to heavily rely on nude models for the attractive women section of this site, and many of these models are not taken from porn sites. Look at high-fashion models carefully; the central tendency among them approaches the looks of adolescent boys, not adolescent girls; heterosexual men are not involved in determining the norm among high-fashion models.

Hi All,
for all the gals wanting a smaller WHR please check this:
; it is about the relationship between diet & abdominal obesity.

it also talks alittle about the relatonship between being physically active & WHR.

we need more info about this, not only for beauty but for health too!

we also need such a site for men ;)
...though women -in genera- are more sophisticated in their choices.

I agree Fashion models are manly... But what is wrong with it. They need jobs too... seriously.. if manly women weren't worshiped for their exotic sexiness, they would be ridiculed and called men. Leave the tall skinny girls alone. it's good that they have a place in this world.

I am 5'8 with broad shoulders and a manly jutting chin and deep eyebrows. I have an athletic body and am quite skinny. If it were not for these women, i would have low self confidence, just like most overweight girls.

And in my opinion, people who aren't lazy (excluing people with excusable health problems, deserve to be praised for their "manly (really just healthier than average population) body"

All this nonsense and Dove Commercials and blah blah angers me! there are different types of beauty. and the most beautiful are the most physically fit. No most fashion models arent skinny, theyre athletic and have low body fat. Keep being jealous and thats more worry stacking up to make your body look even worse. They will outlive you by 20 years!

They are the superior beings. all people should look like them. But they dont. because we are lazy couch potatos. and don't get into old fashioned women having hips and big boodbs and fat... thats because they were confined to a kitchen and having babies all day. that is not what a woman should look like. the modern view of exercise is a good one. and if you excercise and can still have nice curves thats great! but the majority wont, so ... yea.. STOP HATING ME CUZ I'M BEAUTIFUL... wow i must sound so vain... reallly i'm not... thats all i have to say! toodles!

Hana: Nothing is wrong with manly fashion models, but they encroach on the turf of feminine beauty, which is not the fault of the models, but that of gay fashion designers. Manly high-fashion models can have their fashion modeling jobs; I do not wish to take them away. However, when their skinniness is creating some problems for many girls and even the models themselves, then it is time to do something about the skinniness requirement.

If the homosexuals want to use skinny and masculine models, they have a right to use women that naturally possess these looks, but no model should have to starve to please the homosexuals.

You are confounding the masculinization in high-fashion models with athletic looks. Does the typical high-fashion model look athletic or someone with diarrhea? Besides, manly women usually look like women, not like men.

The looks promoted by this site are not those acquired by eating aplenty and having lots of babies (note the emphasis on a tiny waist). More importantly, you need to understand that this site is not about how a woman is supposed to look like; it focuses on models and beauty pageant contestants. Please read the FAQ to understand the site's purpose. I have nothing against your looks. May you be happy and live a healthy life!

I'd like to hear what you think of Jennifer Morrison (Dr. Cameron from House MD). She's super-skinny, has no breasts or buttocks to speak of, and has long, lanky limbs. On the other hand, she has delicate facial features. I'm a hetero male and I think she looks great. I probably favour skinny women because I had a fat mum.

A photoshoot in Stuff magazine photoshopped her natural A-cups up to D-cup cantaloupes, fattened up her bum, and browned her skin, but I thought those changes made her look more ridiculous than sexy.

Steve: I am positive that I looked at the same Jennifer Morrison that you have mentioned, and although she has small breasts, she isn’t super skinny or even skinny and does not have delicate facial features. Although I didn’t get to see her backside, it is probably not feminine. Anyway, to me, she doesn’t look bad and is more appealing than the typical high-fashion model.

gemma ward has like no boobs at all.

My sister actually told me about this site and I didn't believe her, so I decided to take a look at it myself.

Yeah boy do the models have masculine features, I always noticed that myself! In fact, now whenever I get Victoria's Secret in the mail--- they ALL LOOK LIKE MEN AAAAHHH! haha see this is what happens?

But I do have some complaints about this site, which from what I can see you are used to.

I don't think that you realize the impact of your words on women overall. You say that this site is not intended to hurt anyone's feelings, but it happens anyway. You say that this site is purely informational/appreciative, but I see a lot of areas where you are bashing people for looking a certain way that they can't help. You say that women shouldn't try to be something they aren't but you subtley imply throughout various areas of the site how feminine women should look.

And I also think you are ignoring the fact that there are at least half of the female population in the US who are NOT your typical Caucasion-hourglass look (sorry if I can't spell). Yes I know you said that this site is intended to be towards a Western audience but there are MANY women in the Western hemisphere who are black, Oriental, Hispanic, Indian (I am), mixed, etc who are going to look at this site and think "huh??"

Not to sound sappy and start complaining, but it's really hard for a girl who is NOT Caucasion to see a website like this and then get the message that an hourglass figure is what is really beautiful when in reality she's never going to be able to achieve that. I'm not an hourglass figure, I'm actually a small pear and I would also like to point out that many of your examples are not even really hourglass-- they are pears. Very very VERY few women are actually "true hourglass" figures (where their tops are equal or within an inch of measurement to their bottoms, and their waist is the smallest area). But I'm sure you probably already know that.

I understand you wish to see more women in the fashion industry who aren't shaped like rulers on the verge of malnutrition-- trust me WE ALL wish to see less of that! But I don't think that bashing what is already there is going to help anything-- it's encouraging and supporting more healthy figures and viewpoints. So far, I only see a couple of areas of your site which address that issue, but for every part that addresses it, there are 10 areas that promote bashing.

I don't think any side of this issue has it right so far. And I think Hanna is more nuts than you'll ever be. :S We SHOULD NOT all look like nasty ass skinny crack-addict fashion models-- yuck! We might as all become anorexic. BUT on that note, if you NATURALLY possess (sorry I suck at spelling) a figure that is waif-thin, what can you do about it? If you naturally possess a figure with wide hip bones what can you do about it? I don't think Dove or you Erik have it right either. It's all about balance.

Though I do agree that more fashion models should have diversified looks instead of the typical nasty Gisele look...she needs to eat a cookie.

Speaking of models, take a look at the model here:,com_gallery2/Itemid,30/?g2_itemId=1595

Would you say that she's feminine or masculine? she's actually a friend at school who has done some modeling. She's super skinny (natural) but has big boobs (also natural).

Wow I know this is a LONG ass post so I will say my last bit and be done.

I work with a master's student at school who is doing research on eating disorders and the influence of body ideals. So far, her research group has found that whenever a bodily ideal is encouraged instead of basic physical health and fitness for your OWN body, is when adolescent girls resort to eating disorders, with the hope that they will achieve that look. Just something to think about.

I do not think this site tells us women how we should look. Sure, it is about the ideal feminine apperance, but that doesn't necessarily mean we should try to copy it especially if we are not naturally endowed with those feminine characteristics.

Of course, only very few women possess an hourglass figure. So what? The webmaster isn't trying to offend anybody - he's just stating facts. The problem is not with this site, it is with women who are offended when somebody points out the truth that people perceive an hourglass figure as the most beautiful female figure and that those women don't possess hourglass figures. What we should do is not to copy the ideals of beauty that we can't acheive but to learn to accept ourselves the way we are and focus on inner beauty instead. Let's face it - not everybody can be considered physically beautiful. But that doesn't have to be a problem at all since inner beauty has just as much or probably even more weight than physical beauty.

Brenda, true he isn't trying to offend anyone. But neither is the fashion industry, and neither is the apparel industry, and neither is the cosmetics industry. "Accepting what you already have" is simply not the message that these industries are about-- it's about achieving what you don't have. Now THAT is the truth. The author is this site has already mentioned that this site is not about inner beauty-- it's about physical beauty.

I can see why women who are not pear shaped or hourglass shaped are offended by this site-- this site is unfortunately saying to those women that hmmmm perhaps they really aren't that feminine at all? I mean my sister was really offended-- she has struggled to lose weight and did lose a lot of weight, only to have people tell her that she looks "manly" because of her broad shoulders and narrow hips, whereas I have wide hips and small shoulders. We are both compared all the time and it sucks for her.

It DOES sting for someone else to say "the hourglass figure is more beautiful than any other figure." I think that the true focus should be on good physical health, which encompasses all body figures. I think the author makes good points that there happens to be almost no women with pear or hourglass shapes on the runway-- but unfortunately that point is being missed amidst all the rubble.

Riann: I realize that this site is hurting the feelings of some women even though it is not my intent to cause hurt, but I do not see how it is possible to completely avoid hurt feelings if one is trying to promote feminine beauty. I cannot argue that beauty is entirely subjective or that only inner beauty matters when I am trying to promote feminine (physical) beauty in the limelight.

I am not bashing people for certain kinds of looks they may possess; what purpose would this serve? It is not an easy task to point out the masculinization of many famous models in a manner that flatters them. The latter is merely educational and is not sufficient by itself to promote feminine beauty. As I have said elsewhere, one can forget about seeing many feminine women among high-fashion models employed by the gay-dominated fashion industry. One will have to come up with an alternative fashion industry. I have explained a number of steps that will be needed to promote feminine beauty on the “solutions” page, and most of these recommendations have not yet been put into practice.

This site isn’t about how feminine women should look, but about what constitutes feminine looks or how feminine women look, and how to bring more of these women to the limelight.

Women of European ancestry do not assess their attractiveness by comparing themselves to non-European women. Similarly, non-European women should be comparing themselves, if needed, to their co-ethnics rather than other ethnic groups. Even if this site addressed non-European women in detail, say, Indian women, most Indian women will still not meet the standards of a high level of attractiveness.

You are correct that many attractive women shown here do not possess an hourglass figure, but this should please you since it underscores the fact that an hourglass figure is not an absolute requirement for attractiveness. The pictures of your friend suggest that she is in the normal to feminine range, which means that she will not be making it big as a fashion model.

I am interested in looking at your graduate student friend’s research showing that encouragement of a body ideal as opposed to an emphasis on physical health and fitness prompts an increase in disordered eating among girls. As far as I know, feminine beauty has not been promoted by the media for a long time, and if your friend had data that implicates even feminine standards, then it would be something that I would love to look at.

If you insist on taking the message of this site or of that of the fashion industry or of the cosmetics industry in terms of “this is how you should look like,” then given that you have raised the point of health, I hope you do realize that unhealthy behaviors will not be leading to feminine beauty whereas healthy behaviors will not be leading to the skinny looks of high-fashion models, i.e., it should be clear who is worse. As far as your sister is concerned, all people will be hurt by something or the other in this world, and it is up to each individual to try to get the most out of life notwithstanding the unpleasantries and setbacks. I believe that this site will be leading to more good than harm.

hi again,

I use the term "bashing" because some of your descriptions regarding a few of the supermodels just seems to cheapen or demean them. I agree that while Giselle has awful posture and well...extremely skinny hips, I don't think it's necessary to say that she would look mannish, or that any model looks like a drag queen, or a man with fake breasts, etc-- even IF they truly have those features!!

My friend Nad has just started in the industry and so far she has been welcomed quite well-- but even she doubts she'll be walking down the catwalk with Versace on (they would say that her breasts are too big and her hips too big) but at least diversifying the scene is a good start!

As far as the master's student I'm assisting-- the data so far has not been completely collected, and they still need more randomized samples. She's also been doing cross-generational comparative research and from what the data shows, in the past striving for a female ideal was a measure of good health, but that is not the case nowadays. OOps, I may have said too much :P "Technically speaking" I'm not supposed to give out details for fear of tampering with randomization...

I think it is still possible to bring feminine figures into the limelight without regarding masculinized supermodels as inferior beauty. That's what I meant by that your true message is lost in the rubble. EVEN IF IT IS TRUE, there is always a better way to say it.

Riann: So describing a woman who looks mannish or like a drag queen or a man with fake breasts as such is “bashing”? Women with the aforementioned looks will not be pleased with your interpretation since your statement implies that you regard these looks as stigmatizing, negative or undesirable. This site doesn’t argue that the aforementioned looks are undesirable per se, but that most people prefer above average femininity in the looks of women and consider the aforementioned looks in women undesirable, but not obviously a minority such as gay fashion designers. The latter has to be pointed out if one is to understand how masculinized women have ended up as top-ranked models. If you don’t like this, so be it. I can’t please everyone.

Your comment mentions “female ideal,” not “feminine ideal.” The current “female ideal” being skinny and masculine, how can striving for a skinny and masculine “female ideal” correspond to health? If you have data showing that striving for a feminine beauty ideal does not correspond to health, then you are talking, and I will be very interested in it.

To bring feminine beauty into the limelight, feminine and attractive women need to be contrasted with masculinized fashion models, and it is inevitable that most people will see the masculinized models as less aesthetically desirable. There is no way to sugarcoat this or perhaps there is but it is beyond me because writing is not my forte and English is not my native language.

Actually it is bashing. My sister is sometimes termed "drag queen" or mannish because of her broad shoulders and boy does she ever wish she could trade bodies with me. It's one thing to say "she has masculine looking shoulders/face" but terming someone drag queen? It is simply not necessary.

I never once said that feminine health/female health was about being unhealthily thin and masculine and contrary to what you may think, evidence points in a moderate direction from many different leading researchers. If your waist circumference is 70% of your hips, that is considered the ideal healthy waist-to-hip ratio all across the board-- even if you don't have an hourglass figure. If you do not have excess fat and are within the "fit" range of body fat analysis, you are considered healthy regardless of an hourglass figure.

My point here is, I do not think that your site is being necessarily open to the idea that women can still be healthy without having an hourglass figure. You already know that but the way you choose to portray your views on this site will continue to elicit the negative responses from women that is already has, and will continue to do so. There is a better way to make that contrast.

Actually, Erik, I agree with Riann on this. There is a better way to state facts. There is a way in which you can say those statements such that the blow is not as hard. I can imagine that statements such as these will surely hurt those women referred to as masculine:

"Sexy physique, isn't it?"

"Backside, where hast thou gone?"

"Behold the 'sexy' buttocks of Karolina Kurkova..."

"Sexiness personified!"

"Woman or man with breast implants?"

"This entry addresses Alessandra Ambrosio, yet again, but then I am a great fan of Alessandra and hope that she acknowledges my existence. She has twice deleted --at her fan forum -- links to pages within this site that pay a tribute to her beauty. How sad! Here is another tribute. Please Alessandra, don’t delete a link to this entry."

Maybe you can instead state things the way they are and without hints of sarcasm. You know, like instead of "Sexy physique, isn't it?" maybe you can say, "As you all can see, her physique is nowhere near the hourglass figure that lifetime exclusive heterosexual men prefer."

Hi again, Erik. Found this spot after reading a little more and now have more questions...

You've stated that both heterosexual women and men find feminine beauty more appealing than otherwise -- that's not a direct quote because I can't find the page anymore. You've also stated that masculine women are so common in the fashion industry because homosexual fashion designers are attracted to teenage boys and thus recruit female models who look like boys. But if heterosexual women are attracted to men and masculine features, why do they not find highly masculine women more attractive as gay men do?

Also, I'd like to know if I've got some of your points straight. Your information on the beauty pageants pages says features that are further derived from those of our ancestors are perceived as more attractive, in women at least. And it also states that these highly derived features overlap with those of Europeans. So one Aboriginal Australian woman may look more attractive than another because she looks more... evolved? And because her features are more derived than the other's, they will look more European. Is my interpretation correct?

I'd be much obliged if you could help me to better understand your site. Thanks. Found it. "There are individual and cultural differences with respect to what one finds physically attractive, but these differences do not undermine broad agreement about what constitutes beauty. Some cultural/sub-cultural differences are almost certainly a result of genetic differences or mental illnesses, whereas some individual differences in aesthetic preferences are part of normal variation."

Riann: Once again, I am not arguing that masculine looks in women are undesirable per se. Therefore, describing a masculine woman as masculine is not bashing or critiquing her looks as far as what I am writing is concerned, but if you consider very masculine looks in women undesirable to the point of it being a stigma, then you will perceive this woman being described as very masculine to constitute bashing. The problem is with your perception.

On the other hand, it seems that you would regard a more benign description of a woman’s masculinization more acceptable. I mostly use reasonable terminology. I counted the number of times I described a woman as looking like a drag queen within this site and came across two instances: Pamela Anderson 1 and Pamela Anderson 2; Heidi Klum. Take a good look at the pictures referenced. I beg thee; you simply have to let me use “drag queen” in these two instances because of the combination of masculine looks and extensive make-up to make the women look feminine or more attractive. In the absence of extensive make-up, a “drag queen” descriptor would be inappropriate. Therefore, in the two instances where I have used “drag queen,” I am not simply responding to the masculine looks, but also to the presence of make-up. I generally have no interest in describing the looks of ordinary women. I do not recall any instance of describing a woman as a “draq queen” in social company or in any of my other writings, but you simply have to let me use “draq queen” in the two instances above.

I have not described your argument in terms of feminine health/female health corresponding to being unhealthily thin and masculine. I simply pointed out what your reference to the female ideal/standard corresponds to today. What your graduate student friend appears to be studying isn’t adoption of a feminine ideal, but a female ideal that is not feminine. The notion of an ideal WHR of 0.7 has been debunked; some of this I addressed in an entry on various confounds regarding WHR and attractiveness and more can be found in this paper, which I have also addressed in a different context.

Regarding this site not being “necessarily open to the idea that women can still be healthy without having an hourglass figure,” this site has to do with attractiveness/aesthetics, not health. Where have I argued or implied that an hourglass figure represents health but deviation from it corresponds to diminished health? I have clearly mentioned that there are correlates of beauty that do not correspond to health. I also doubt that sanitizing my writing with respect to the uncommon indiscretions you/Brenda have mentioned will make poor-mannered pissed-off feminists/masculinized women behave better.

Brenda: I see your point. Most of your quotes are taken from a single page, and are in response to the irony of some models ending up as top-ranked “sexy” models; it is difficult to avoid sarcasm here given the irony and the big names involved. I mostly use neutral language, but occasionally get tired of it. I will try to keep it mostly neutral in further writings.

Jump: A preference for men among heterosexual women and a preference for men among homosexual men do not develop in a similar manner. In the case of heterosexual women, normal developmental processes are involved, whereas in the case of homosexual men, abnormal developmental processes -- prenatal developmental disturbances to be more precise -- are involved; see this model. Therefore, there is no reason to expect extensive similarities between the male partner preferences of heterosexual women and homosexual men.

Yes, overall placement along the ancestral-to-derived discriminant is a correlate of facial beauty among both men and women, and other things being equal, a somewhat more overall derived than average face shape, within limits, will generally be preferred. I have not used the expression “more evolved.” An aboriginal Australian woman may look better than another such woman if her overall face shape or an individual facial feature is somewhat shifted toward the more derived end of average for aborigines, but a derived feature will not necessarily look more European. For instance, Afro scalp hair is more derived than straight scalp hair, but it does not look more European. On the other hand, with respect to aesthetic judgments, the more attractive non-European face from the perspective of non-Europeans in general is overall (not necessarily on all counts) shifted toward the more derived end of the scale and also thereby closer to European norms given the considerable overlap between the overall facial ancestral-to-derived discriminant and Europeanization.

You've used the example of Afro scalp hair, but... "It should be noted that some features lying toward the derived extreme of the ancestral-to-derived discriminant are specialized features that characterize some populations but not others because of differential natural selection pressures, and thus there cannot be any objectiveness to designating one population average as more aesthetically appealing than another population average with respect to these specialized traits in so far as comparing the attractiveness of individuals across populations goes. Thus, there is nothing objectively better looking about curly Afro hair than the straight hair found in the Chinese or vice versa."
So this example, according to your Beauty Pageants page, can't be used in this context, where you're explaining how derived features (and not European features) are positively related to beauty -- because you've already said that whether specialised traits such as Afro hair are attractive or not is subjective. Is there another example you could provide?
If I've misunderstood... again... then you may need to dumb down you language a little.

Jump: The Afro hair example is correctly used. The context is specifically that a derived feature will not necessarily look more European, and was in response to your statement, “And because her features are more derived than the other’s, they will look more European.” The page where you got the quote from provides an extensive discussion of what derived facial features are and to what extent they overlap with Europeanization. Read this page and the entire section that it is a part of. I cannot explain it in a simpler manner.

Lynne: Since you are the same person using multiple aliases such as Chris/Chris2, g2go and many others, refuse to stop using multiple aliases in spite of my repeated requests, have a preference for masculinized women, keep repeating that you are a straight man, are unable to see a masculine element in numerous women clearly possessing it in spite of going through this site, and keep calling the feminine women shown here homely, plain janes, fat cows, women with hanging cellulite, women who look like dogs, etc., I have no wish to engage you in any dialogue and will not be answering your questions. You will get nothing out of this site...instead of browsing this site do something else.

This is a little off-topic but do you know the name of the model in the image clothing.deformation.jpg?

You said that she is from KarupsPC but I'm having trouble finding her there.


QQ: Sorry, I don't have her name. I do believe that I have the website correct. She should be there unless her pictures have been removed.

does nobody else want to see a picture of "erik holland" and rip apart his lack of "masculine beauty"?

seriously, bring it on!

I don't need to see his photo, and his appearance is irrelevant to validity and objectiveness of his arguments.He, as far as I know doesn't take outrageous honorars for flaunting his ugliness or "beauty", he is not exposing his appearance and trying to convince audience, that he is pinnacle of masculine beauty and desirableness. If you are not feminine, eat yourself; he only stated the facts, and it is good thing, since the fashion world is outright evil.

1. how you can call a personal preference a fact in the first place is beyond me. "x is unattractive" is not a fact in any way, shape or form.

2. ah, so i'm not allowed to bring this guy's looks into the picture, but obviously my criticism reflects my deep-seated insecurities about how i am ugly and masculine! brilliant! for the record, i have no issue with myself not being 'feminine'. i have a vagina, i'm feminine.

3. how can he be objective when it is female bodies he takes to pieces, not male ones? maybe if he had his entire body reduced to the sum of its parts and then criticised in a way that not only deems him hideous and unattractive, but apparently makes him unworthy of his own GENDER, it would become a bit more clear that taking away a beauty standard for very thin fashion models and replacing it with one for slightly fatter soft-porn models makes no difference.

this entire thing is a statement of one person's personal preference and an attack on women, under the facade of a female-progressive, scientific viewpoint.


brom is just mad cause his mom cut off his peepee at a young age :(

did it hurt, brom? when mommy cut off your peepee? did it?

it did?

good. hahahha. i bet you bleed all over the place like a bitch on the rag, brommy.


PS: white power! i too, erik, enjoy prepubescent white girls. white power! pedophile power!

sorry, Laura, I have nothing else to say; read through the entire site, carefuly, and you will see, there is nothing true in your words: everything I read on this site is such an echo of all my lifelong observations, it is almost as listening to my husband, only with many references. It is not just personal preference, as you can read on this site, and it is irrefutable. Beautiful girls are attacked by the fashion model beauty standard and are left feeling unworthy,( hearing so many times: 'oh, you really should be a model, you have stunningly beautiful face, and thin you are too, but not a model body' WHERE cid= '; this site is refreshing for any, at least feminine, if not very beautiful woman. Has it ever occured to you, why is it so, that they are only seen posing naked? Sure, they refuse to take high rank modeling jobs and extravagant salaries.
I DON'T KNOW HOW GOOD IT REALLY IS, but I think it is ok to replace one beauty standard for another, if it is fine grounded, and is female-progressive, oh whatever, don't worry, it won't happen just because I wish it.

As for attacking women with analysis of their looks under the facade of scientific viewpoint, (it is really facade and science is many times not worthy of its name)-, well, dear,it happens all the time, reading in magazines, on the internet, on television, and on respectful tv programmes, and they are louder than this site is, and sooo scientific.

And even if you are not feminine, I don't think you are ugly, because I don't know you. OK?

And now, I bid farewell, I became too involved, and am attracting some profane wastes- NO, I DON'T MEAN YOU.

"this site is refreshing for any, at least feminine, if not very beautiful woman"

as the fashion industry is 'refreshing' for very thin women. why is one good and the other bad?


how is reducing a massive thing like gender to something as passing and meaningless as physical appearence positive to the gender involved? by telling women they are not women because of the way they look?!


yes, does that make it right? no.

"And even if you are not feminine, I don’t think you are ugly, because I don’t know you. OK?"

if you don't know me, as you don't, why are you so sure i'm not 'feminine'? am i sending masculine vibes over the internet?

from what i've read of this website, i'd probably be ranked 'normal' (oh joy), but i probably resemble the 'feminine' more than the 'masculine'. i'm not very thin, nor very broad, my face doesn't really have any of the 'masculine aspects mentioned. does that mean i have to think it's brilliant that numerous women's bodies and faces are being ripped apart is good? your presumption that i am only trying to stand up for my 'un-feminine' self is very telling.

Laura: When it comes to beauty, most people have a similar personal preference, and with respect to women, this preference is for feminine beauty. Not addressing the looks of men does not imply lack of objectivity. This site has nothing to do with the looks of men. Before you critique this site as an attack on women, you should read the FAQ. It is by no means true that it makes no difference whether there is a skinny and masculine female standard or a feminine beauty standard, which is explained in the FAQ. The consequences of having skinny women occupy the top ranks of models are much worse than if these top models were feminine and attractive because no negative health behaviors can be indulged in to acquire feminine beauty and most people naturally harbor a feminine beauty standard.

Some of the analyses about different body parts are required to show that the arguments are not merely subjective. This site is not about gender but about physical appearance. It is also not saying that unless your looks lie within a given range you are not a woman. Masculinized women are still women.

8D: I have lost a commentator because of your foul and retarded comments. This commentator does not want to post comments at a site “disreputed by some hysterical mental institution runaway” (commentator’s expression). You must behave or you will be banned from commenting.

i've read the faq, and i still find this website insulting to women in general, but mostly to a certain physique. you literally criticise certain body parts, going on endlessly about how ugly and unattractive they are. sorry, but you can't be objective until you've been subjected to what you are subjecting these women to. doubtless they will never see any of this, but people who look similar may do.

there are plenty of unhealthy practises people can indulge in to be 'feminine'. the tiny waist and huge breasts and hips you love so much have been achieved through corset training for centuries. this can damage ribs and deform the liver and intestines. there is also the more modern issue of cosmetic surgery, for example liposuction on the midsection, breast implants (i know you don't personally like these, but it is pursuing this extreme hourglass that leads people to want them) and operations on the face. serious unecessary surgery can be far more dangerous than a slimming diet.

billions are spent on advertising every year. if slim models didn't sell products, then there would be 'attractive' (to you) models on advertisments. a recent study (at arizona state university) found women had LOWER self-esteem after viewing moderately heavy models and HIGHER self-esteem after viewing moderately thin ones (an extreme in either reversed the effect). as a moderately 'feminine' woman by your standards, i can safely say i have no desire to look like a fashion model.

and there are no 'analyses' about body parts. there are insults, plain and simple.

i am so proud!

hugs and kisses,



yeah, he doesn't get it. never really will. it's just funny. this site is like ebaumsworld, only less intelligent.

foul and inane and yet you keep on responding to me. best thing would be to ignore me and i'll go away.




ps: erik- you are probably much too poor to afford designer clothing. thus, they will not give a shit about you, or your views.

8D: What choice do I have but to respond if you keep repeating nonsense? At the very least I have to ask you to behave or leave.

Laura: I haven’t described high-fashion models as ugly. Ugliness results from physical defects/abnormalities, which high-fashion models lack. Making an objective argument requires citing evidence, not having my looks critiqued by others.

The “unhealthy practices” you have described in the pursuit of femininity are mostly misunderstandings:


Corsets did not affect actual breast and hip size/shape; just their appearance in clothes. Corsets are also unable to alter the rib cage except the lower part and are thereby not able to provide a natural hourglass shape. This site is working toward promoting women with physiques that looks feminine without the aid of clothing/mini-corsets.

The physiological underpinnings of femininity correspond to deposition of fat away from the abdominal region and the development of a smaller rib cage. Therefore, non-pregnant women with abdominal fat sufficiently abundant so as to require surgical removal for aesthetic purposes have a low likelihood of being feminine in the first place and removing this excess fat will give them a narrower mid-section that will nevertheless not be narrow enough to be an example of feminine beauty. Regardless of the promotion of feminine beauty many individuals will desire minimal abdominal fat and some will undergo liposuction, but liposuction cannot render feminine a mid-section that is unfeminine with respect to lean tissue structures.

Breast implants are often not helpful in making a woman look feminine. A good way of understanding this is to go through the Victoria’s Secret model entries within this site. Start below and change the digit at the end to 2, 3, and so on for other entries (7 entries so far).

Many Victoria’s Secret models have breast implants, but they haven’t made them look feminine. Fake-looking breasts also don’t help in the beauty department.

A masculinizing effect will alter the entire face shape. Surgically altering one or two parts will not make a masculine face look feminine. Very few women will have the money and willingness to undergo multiple facial surgeries in order to look feminine, which also goes for multiple cosmetic surgery procedures on the body.

Cosmetic surgery procedures typically have short term risks. The more serious/major/dangerous the cosmetic surgery procedure, the more expensive and unaffordable it usually is and fewer people are willing to undergo it. On the other hand, starving oneself, which is inexpensive and within the means of just about all people, during one’s growing years results in a failure to reach the bone density one normally would and increased susceptibility to premature osteoporosis. Prolonged undereating can also harm the body to such an extent that resumption of normal eating will not restore one to the peak form prior to the commencement of disordered eating.

Whereas some studies have reported no change in women’s self-/body-esteem after viewing thinner models or even a positive change, the overall/general find is clear, namely that women’s body-esteem is worsened by looking at skinny models. You mentioned moderately thin models, but high-fashion models are typically thinner. The thinness of high-fashion models makes no marketing sense. The homosexuals are able to get away with it because they are using these models to sell highly desirable items and facing no competition.

Some “analyses” will be seen as insulting, but there is not much that I can do about it. How does one say that A is more attractive than B as far as most people are concerned and avoid showing B in an unflattering light?

I can sum up your entire website for you with a couple pictures and sentences.

Models and pageant contestants should have bodies like this:

Faces like this:

But they all look like this:

And it makes you very very upset.

Oh and :


that is so true.


and he didnt respond 2 twistytie's arguement. in fact, she prob deleted it cause it pwned her.

hi. i m a 24 yr old heighted 5.3 n underweight so what should b the best figure measurements 4 me.i d like it if u give on the site the figure measurements of aishwarya rai.i wanted 2 mail u but well...take care...n dont 4get 2 let me know.

corsets do make the waist smaller when worn regularly even when you're not wearing them. not as small, but smaller. and they are still dangerous to health, you haven't really countered me there. and the only argument you gave against my other points is that you think these methods don't make people look 'feminine' enough. does that mean they won't be considered. lots of people dislike breast implants, but thousands of people have them. you yourself show a strong preference for slim women, if they are not naturally slim should they put their health in danger by dieting to reach YOUR standard? you say no, but the fashion industry say they don't promote eating disorders. why are they so much worse than you, neither of you push realism or even acceptance.

and maybe the word 'ugly' wasn't used, but using "sexy" (in inverted commas) and discussing how it is incredible how someone so unattractive could be a model is calling them ugly, you're just being pedantic with how you interpret the word.

you also missed or ignored my point on the skinny models part. yes you explained why you think thin models are bad, but you never got round to saying why extreme hourglasses are any better for the self-esteem.

of course, when you start introducing the AGENDA OF THE GAY MAFIA (!!) you just make yourself sound ridiculous. i know plenty of heterosexual men who are attracted to heidi klum.

Danielle: I am not pushing exaggerated feminine curves or baby-faced women. I also do not have any religious attitudes regarding homosexuality.

8D: Nobody using the name "twistytie" has left a comment at this site. If you are referring to "not from Twisty's" then I have replied to this person's comment.

Radha: I do not have Aishwarya Rai's measurements, and these shouldn't matter because she has never been known for having a good physique. You shouldn't be thinking in terms of ideal measurements because there are plenty of examples of women with similar bust-waist-hip measurements that look quite different with respect to femininity and attractiveness.

so a former miss world has never been known for having a good physique..

..i love it.

It's obvious why most super-models have strangely masculine features---because most of the men who run the modeling business are gay! No big surprise here...

Laura: Reduction of the abdominal/lower rib cage area by the use of corsets renders an abnormal look, not a natural look of a feminine woman. A similar statement applies to breast implants. It is not a question of not looking feminine enough, but, in a number of women as in numerous Victoria’s Secret models, of looking feminine at all regardless of breast implants. Please do not forget the expense of cosmetic surgeries. More complex surgical make-overs are beyond the financial reach of many women, and if multiple major surgical procedures are involved, then few women will be willing to deal with the pain and risks even if they could afford the surgeries.

I am promoting normal-weight women, not underweight women. The only women who would end up dieting after being inspired by these normal women are overweight/obese women. Losing excess body fat will be good for their health, and they will not be promoted to lose fat beyond the normal and healthy range. The fashion world prompts some normal-weight women to lose body fat, which harms their health. So who is worse?

Ugliness is not merely the absence of attractiveness/sex appeal but the presence of physical defects/abnormalities, which fashion models lack. Therefore, talking about “sexy” fashion models does not imply that they are ugly, and I am not being pedantic here.

I haven’t been promoting “extreme hourglasses” and hence shouldn’t have to explain why they are better for women’s self-esteem. I am promoting above average femininity to an extent that most people find appealing, which isn’t close to extreme femininity. Most women naturally assign higher attractiveness to women with above average femininity. Therefore, promoting feminine beauty is not at odds with the aesthetic preferences of most women. Which is worse, promoting difficult to achieve looks that are at odds with majority preferences or difficult to achieve looks that reflect majority preferences?

I have simply made the argument about homosexual fashion designers selecting models based on their preferences. I haven’t talked about some conspiracy/agenda on their part and haven’t described them as analogous to a mafia. A couple of years ago, I would have been surprised upon encountering someone describe Heidi Klum as masculine, but I had seen few pictures of her, and didn’t pay much attention to how masculine or feminine models were. Have heterosexual men go through this site, especially the entries on Heidi Klum, and see to what extent they still think she is good looking.

Try to look at pictures of Aishwarya Rai’s physique when she was a young adult and observe for yourself whether she had a decent physique. Her being a former Miss World means nothing. Go over the discussion of beauty pageants within this site and see for yourself the extent to which they are about beauty as understood by most people.

Be completely honest. Do you believe that most people would prefer the looks of her:

To her looks:

or to hers:

or even hers:

Be really honest now.

^ that first girl that erik thinks is hot is a total aryan goddess warrior! note the thin lips. that is a popular aryn trait- but not a biologically cute one. people like PLUMP lips. such is why lipstick and collagen exists.

Danielle: Your question is already answered within this site. What is up with you posting pictures where the face shape is obscured by hair or if not then showing a small picture? The reader can easily answer your question by contrasting the glamour model with your pictures, especially these clearer pictures of Kate Moss and Natalia Vodianova.

Now it's time for me to give some proper comments on this website.

I had always wondered what was strange about the looks of fashion models and even some actresses or models in men's magazines, and why they were so unattractive. But then I thought, "oh, it's probably just me... maybe other guys find them attractive." I was always perplexed by the skinniness of fashion models, and by the rectangular faces and large jaws of some actresses and glamour models.

Meanwhile, I heard feminists constantly blaming men for promoting unrealistically skinny images of women in the media. "But wait..." I always wanted to say... "I'm not attracted to women like that, so get off my case!"

It wasn't until finding this website that I was able to see the big picture, and realize that what I had been turned off by was a generalized masculinization of the appearance of fashion models towards the look of skinny adolescent boys.

Erik Holland argues in a way that sounds very cerebral and detached; he places an emphasis on facts and evidence rather than how people feel about them (though I see him doing his best to address the issues of body image and discrimination). This kind of communication style makes it easy to to read misogyny and homophobia into his words that isn't necessarily there. If Erik's view of the facts is correct, then he isn't being misogynistic or homophobic; the truth cannot be bigoted. If he is wrong, then the burden is on anyone who believes that to point out the flaws in his use of evidence before any inferences about his motives or biases are appropriate.

Unfortunately, many of the people slamming the guy make themselves oblivious to the actual evidence he provides. Come on, folks, look at the evidence he provides before dismissing his arguments. He has well-documented the points that beauty is not in the eye of the beholder, and that most people (male and female) prefer above average femininity in women. Get over it, or show some counter-arguments or counter-evidence.

I don't necessarily know if Erik is correct, and I would like to see any possible intelligent rebuttals to him. I haven't really seen any yet. Nevertheless, there are some areas where I do think his arguments could be more convincing, and some questions that remain to be answered.


One correction to the previous post. When I said:

I can think up one plausible answer, which is that queer people have systematically different aesthetic preferences from the general population, consistent with their (probably) different prenatal development, gender typicality, and sexual orientation.

...I meant to say "gender atypicality." Erik is free to delete this post and correct the previous one.

8D, why do you keep implying Erik is a white racialist?

Note: The last post was supposed to be after another post, which either didn't post or got caught in some kind of moderation cue. The above clarification post can be deleted. I've re-typed the post it was supposed to refer to.

I agree with Erik that (a) looks approaching adolescent boys is the central tendency in high fashion models, and (b) gay men are over-represented in the fashion industry. A connection between these two propositions makes sense, though what exactly is the connection, and how does it work?

In Erik's view, the masculinized female aesthetic in the fashion industry is primarily set by homosexual male fashion designers. According to him, since homosexual males are more likely to sexually prefer adolescent males, they are presumably more likely to aesthetically prefer women approaching the looks of adolescent males. (I still need to look over the evidence for the link between homosexuality and sexual attraction to adolescents, but lets assume that Erik's characterization of it is correct.) Yet there is a missing link here, which is an explanation of why the aesthetic taste of homosexual designers in women should mirror their sexual and aesthetic tastes in men.

Is there a general principle that if anyone prefers X sexually and aesthetically in the sex they are not attracted to, that they will also prefer X aesthetically in the sex they are not attracted to? If we drew an analogy to straights, do straight male fashion designers prefer feminine looking men, and do straight female fashion designers prefer masculine looking women? We know from Erik's citations that straight women in general prefer femininity in women (though perhaps female fashion designers are different). The principle above doesn't seem to apply to straight women, (and I doubt that straight men typically find femininity in men to be aesthetic), so why should it apply to queer men?

There is one plausible explanation that comes to mind, which is that since queer men are different from straights in many probable ways, such as prenatal development, cognitive skills, and gender typical behavior and subjectivity, they might be different in aesthetic tastes from heterosexuals. Yet the aesthetic tastes of a minority of people shouldn't be creating a beauty standard that is at odds with the preferences of the majority of people.

What would settle this question is to perform a study that compares the sexual and aesthetic preferences of gay men in males, to their aesthetic preferences in females. If there was a correlation, then Erik's argument would be solid, rather than merely plausible and interesting. I would also be interested in the shape of the distribution of homosexual male aesthetic preferences in women, to see if homosexual males are over-represented among those who prefer masculine-looking women due to a higher mean preference for that look, or higher variability, or both.

It seems that most of the people who prefer masculine-looking women are queer (or that queers are over-represented among them). But do most queers prefer masculine-looking women? I wonder. There may be plenty of queers who would gladly ally with Erik's pursuit of a mainstream outlet for feminine beauty, and who might display disapproval to their fashion designer brothers who's behavior reflects badly on gay men in general. Also, Erik could make it clearer that he doesn't oppose gay males and their aesthetics in general, just the aesthetics of a small among of gay men in the fashion industry being forced on heterosexuals.

Furthermore, there's a possibility that the phenotype of gay male fashion designers differs from the phenotype of the average gay male in systematic ways. For instance, gay male fashion designers have higher spatial skills, which could be indicative of a prenatal development somewhat different from that of the average gay man, and could be accompanied by different aesthetic preferences for masculinity/femininity.


A lot of posters to the blog complain that Erik's website is disparaging to women, and merely replaces one standard of beauty with another.

Erik is criticizing the placement of women with a certain look in positions of high fashion, modeling, and beauty pageants. It's a mistake to assume that he is criticizing women in general. Some of his comparisons of some models' looks to transsexuals or transvestites sound harsh, but they aren't inaccurate and really drive his point home. Maybe Erik should have two versions of this site; one for women, and one for men, though I know that doing so wouldn't be practical. Perhaps he could do a "message to women" page that would address the emotional reactions that women with various types of looks might feel as they read his website.

I really empathize with women with more masculine looks who read this website. You probably feel terrible. Maybe Erik could sugar-coat things a bit more, but I don't think there is a way he could speak the truth on this issue without it hurting. Here are some reasons for comfort, however (some of which Erik has already articulated):

Most women, masculine or feminine looking, aren't suited for modeling. But that's not the end of the world. Although you might not fit the ideal of straight men, most women won't, and straight men know this and don't really expect you to. They hardly require the women they date to look like they could be in a beauty pageant contestants or models (including a feminine beauty pageant, which is what most beauty pageants should be). Being sexy, being pleasant, being flirtatious, and being interesting are also important qualities than straight men look for in girlfriends. The best gauge of your attractiveness to men is how men respond to you in real life, not what some guy writes on a website.

While Erik doesn't intend his website to critique that looks of normal, non-model women, a lesson to take from his analysis is that women in general can increase their attractiveness to men by emphasizing their femininity. That is not to say that women necessarily should do so, but that women who choose to will increase their choices in men. A book I was recently reading that might be helpful in this area is the "MANual," by Steve Santagati (warning: there is sound on that website).

On the subject of whether Erik is replacing one destructive standard of beauty with another. I don't think this objection makes much sense. First, Erik isn't setting up his own standard of beauty, but rather pointing out what most people already consider beautiful. Second, trying to look feminine is nowhere near as destructive as starving oneself.

It seems that some people are offended by his claim about what most people find beautiful in women. They would only be happy if Erik parroted some of the "beauty is in the eye of the beholder," and "every woman is beautiful in her own way" wishful thinking. Sorry, but reality doesn't work that way, so quit shooting the messenger. Women deserve to be told the truth about what is considered beautiful in them. The only thing worse than being compared to a difficult standard, is being compared to a difficult standard that nobody tells you exists.

Some people also object to the idea of women fitting themselves into men's standards. As if anything that pleases men must be somehow harmful or oppressive to women. Yet as Erik has shown, women generally agree with men that feminine women are more beautiful, so it's really a human standard, not just men's standard. And is it worse for women to please heterosexual men than it is to starve themselves to please elite gay male fashion designers?

Don't forget, women are selective with men too... not so much in the physical area, but in his personality and social status. Read the book Self-Made Man, by Norah Vincent, where the author dressed up and lived as a man, and described the harshness and objectification of trying to embody what women wanted. It's becoming increasingly popular for men to not just physical, but personality makeovers to try to be attractive to women. Look at the phenomenon of the seduction community, which is the background of VH1's show The Pickup Artist, where men spend countless hours reading on the internet, posting, and training in how to attract women. They do this because it works (not all of it, but some parts of it will greatly help increase a man's attractiveness). At least, it shows that many men are interested in increasingly their attractiveness and trying to figure out what women want; working hard to make oneself attractive to the opposite sex is not only a necessity for women in search of quality mates.


Ultimately, I agree with Erik's main point that the looks of high fashion models are masculinized in a way that approaches the appearance of skinny adolescent boys, and that this is a problem. I suspect that this tendency has something to do with the gay male domination of the fashion industry (as for whether gays actually do dominate the fashion industry, if The Advocate says they do, then I find it believable). I agree that most people, male or female, don't prefer the look of high fashion models or find them attractive. Worse, the look of high fashion models creeps into other areas of modeling and aesthetics, such as beauty pageants, Hollywood, and men's magazines.

High fashion, glamour, and beauty pageants should be based on (though not exclusively based on), what most people find beautiful. And what most people find beautiful is femininity. Hence, those outlets should be based around feminine beauty.

The majority of purported representations of female beauty in society should reflect what the majority of people consider to be beautiful in females. What minorities of people consider to be beautiful should only be represented in a minority of cultural representations of beauty. Currently, we are in the reverse situation, which makes no sense. There is no reason why, even if the majority of representations of female beauty become feminine, that there couldn't be simultaneous outlets and venues for what is currently considered beautiful in the fashion people. Yet that atypical version of beautiful should not be inflicted on the majority who doesn't share it. Majorities have rights, too.

Many current fashion models would no longer by so famous if feminine beauty took its rightful place. That is sad for them, but the fault for their predicament lies with the fashion designers who falsely exalted them, not with Erik and others who are blowing the whistle.

Anyway, I endorse Erik's project of promoting feminine beauty, and I guess his goal of having one mainstream outlet for feminine beauty is a good place to start. Good look with this, Erik, and keep us posted.

I'll have other comments and suggestions in the future. If you find it helpful, you could quote parts of my recent posts in a new thread when replying, so other people can see (a) that you do have people who actually read your website and support you, and (b) that someone can present rational skepticism to parts of your argument, while agreeing with the rest, and with your goals. You might also consider a "rave reviews" section of the website, since people who post extensively in the comments (other than me) are likely to disagree with you. Expect an email soon, also.

Hugh Ristik: I appreciate the lengthy feedback. It is very true that the truth cannot be bigoted.

I don’t know why one of your comments was dropped; I don’t have comment moderation enabled. If you take a long time to type a message in the comment box and post it, it may be dropped. It is best to refresh a page before immediately posting a comment if a long time has passed since you accessed the page.

I haven’t argued that “since homosexual males are more likely to sexually prefer adolescent males, they are presumably more likely to aesthetically prefer women approaching the looks of adolescent males.” My argument is that judging by their preferences, gay fashion designers appear to often find the looks of adolescent boys appealing, which is consistent with the greater likelihood of homosexual men to be attracted to underage individuals. Homosexual designers cannot get away with using boys in their early-to-mid teens (and looking like it) as fashion models, and if they need to use models with the looks of boys in their early adolescence, they have to use girl models.

Just as heterosexual women prefer above average femininity in the looks of women, heterosexual men prefer above average masculinity in the looks of men. Regarding homosexuals, you are correct that their aesthetic preferences could be different just as they are different from heterosexuals on many other counts. The one important difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals is the greater variability of the homosexual group on multiple counts. For instance, there are plenty of homosexual men who prefer masculine looks in men, just like the typical heterosexual man does, but then there is no shortage of homosexual men with a preference for teenage or younger boys either.

I haven’t come across studies where a large sample of homosexual men were asked to rate the attractiveness of women’s faces based on how masculine or feminine these women are, but if this study were conducted, I would predict that you will find plenty of homosexual men who would assign a higher attractiveness rating to the more feminine women but a much greater proportion of them compared to heterosexual controls would prefer more masculine women.

It is also a good point that the preferences of gay fashion designers should not be extrapolated to homosexual men in general because the fashion designers are an atypical minority of homosexuals. An aesthetic preference for teenage boys appears to be more common among gay fashion designers than among the general gay population. I can propose a hypothesis for this though it is not feasible to document the evidence for this hypothesis in a small amount of space.


As you have noted, top fashion designers have a sophisticated designing ability. Designing ability appears to be enhanced by higher levels of prenatal exposure to testosterone since people with such advanced abilities are disproportionately men and/or manifest a higher frequency of conditions that have been associated with excess prenatal testosterone exposure such as dyslexia, left-handedness, etc.

There is evidence that many male homosexuals owe their homosexuality to excess prenatal testosterone-induced developmental disturbances.

There is evidence that living organisms offer resilience to being developmentally disturbed, and that depending on the genetic background and the fact that developmental disturbances introduce an element of randomness into development, the same disruptor, acting at the same time and with the same intensity and for the same duration will lead to variable outcomes in affected individuals. Therefore, a greater proportion of homosexual men can be expected to manifest especially enhanced spatial/designing ability compared to heterosexual men because many gays have experienced excess prenatal testosterone exposure, even though this advantage will not be seen in the male homosexual group as a whole because of the disturbed development factor.

There is evidence that homosexuality is intrinsically accompanied by increased likelihood of psychiatric disorders. There is some evidence that homosexual men who are primarily attracted to teenage boys are mentally healthier than those primarily attracted to pre-pubescent boys or those primarily attracted to adult men.

It is reasonable to expect that homosexual men who manifest enhanced spatial/designing ability and owe their homosexuality to excess prenatal testosterone-induced development disturbances are globally better off (mentally healthier), on average, compared to homosexual men who owe their homosexuality to the same factor but do not manifest enhanced spatial/designing ability. Since the mentally healthier homosexuals appear to be those who are disproportionately into teenage boys, this may be why one observes that many gay fashion designers find the looks of teenage boys aesthetically appealing, which manifests in the central tendency of the looks of their female models (not male models because they couldn’t get away with it in a society where pederastic behaviors are criminal).

I have an article on body-esteem, where women are free to leave comments, and this comes close to your comment regarding a “message to women” page.

Your argument that women deserve to be told the truth about what is considered beautiful in them is very true, especially for those inspired by high-fashion models and affected by anorexia. Telling these women that beauty lies in the eye of the beholder or that it is a social construction will not help since they see only a narrow range of looks being rewarded and portrayed as ideal. Why this is so simply has to be explained.

I like your question that if this site were arguing that women should please heterosexual men (which it isn’t), is it worse for women to please heterosexual men than it is to starve themselves to please elite gay male fashion designers? Maybe this can be the title of a future entry, though it has already been answered in plenty of places within this site.

Women are not just selective with men, but overall more selective than men are with women. Women generally emphasize looks less than men do with the notable exception of height, but this not merely a result of their being less interested in men’s looks but also because they have such a huge list of desirable traits that it is inevitable that most women will have to compromise on looks to obtain the best overall package.

I don’t believe I should quote from your post, in a new entry, to show that there are people who agree with this site and are capable of rational skepticism, though I may expand on some of your points later like your attempt to comfort women who are not feminine beauties. Anyone who believes that most people, even that most women disagree with this site, has to be deluded and couldn’t be made to admit that there are plenty of people who support this site’s major goal notwithstanding few comments at the blog praising this site. You have correctly written that people who disagree are more likely to leave extensive comments than those who agree. Most of the comments are by women even though I doubt that most site visitors are women, i.e., an atypical minority of site visitors is responsible for most comments.

Hi, your site has hit me with the startling realisation that regular exercising is making me and has always made me look over-masculine, which is totally crazy considering I was doing these things to try to look more "attractive" to the straight male eye. I feel that, since my teens, I have been trying to live up to the masculinized female body shape ideal which really isn't my fault considering I'm bombarded with it every single day. Even though my boyfriend is disgusted by any amount of defined muscle on a woman and has said a thousand times he prefers me to look curvier and softer and to have no muscle tone, I ignore him because if I turn on the t.v or open a magazine, I am confronted with yet another "slim and toned" ideal. You have a point, a lot of celebs and models do have the bodies of young boys! Why is it only now that I see that this isn't necessarily something to idolise...

For complete gender bender brain fry, watch the film "Swept Away" and check out the scene where Madonna is on the boat in her bikini. She appears to be trying to capture a very feminine 1950s movie star look in the face (big shades to hide her gaunt cheeks)movie star) yet has the toned body of a young man-it's bizarre yet totally accepted by Western culture...


Quote:’s bizarre yet totally accepted by Western culture…

Not truly accepted since the typical person who didn’t find anything odd before coming across this site, like you, just hadn’t come across sufficient feminine contrast, especially presented side by side.

A quick note though...regular physical activity is recommended for health and fitness. Do not avoid it. You could be physically active/exercising without masculinizing your physique.

First off, I respect the amount of time and energy you have put into your research, particularly the effects of estrogens and androgens on facial and body development. I have heard about the ideal WHR indicating high fertility and its evolutionary significance in being attractive to men. However, I think some of your conclusions are a bit off.

Most men agree that fashion models are too skinny for their tastes (runway models in particular) and already appreciate curvy women. However, most of the women under the attractive women section may have feminine, attractive bodies, but their faces look very young. Facially, high fashion models may lean towards the adolescent boy look as you say, but the feminine examples you have provided look like adolescent girls (maybe some of them are, but I assume none are under 18 for legal purposes). Perhaps a better conclusion is that the kind of men you call lifelong-specific heterosexuals are actually inclined to pedophilia? In evolutionary terms, being attracted to slightly immature females wouldn't be a complete disadvantage, so it makes sense. I am not trying to flame you as a lot of people have, but I have consulted several male friends and gotten this response.

It also needs to be stated that in the modeling industry, there are plenty of attractive applicants and only the ones who stand out are going to get high end contracts; modeling isn't just about being attractive, a model must also stand apart from the crowd and many VS models do just that. This goes hand in hand with mens' apparent preference for exotic looks.

Yeah, erica's a fat pedophile whore. DURRR.

Eric, you are so obviously racist though you vehemently deny it. This is a racist website. Your masculine vs. feminine page is disgusting and creepy. You appear to be arguing that non-whites should not compete in beauty pageants with whites because their physical features are too different. Your argument is bullshit because the sole purpose of those lame ass beauty pageants is not to "pick the hottest piece of ass." Beauty Pageants usually involve "talent" competitions.

The images you used to compare white ad non-white physical features are also weird and insulting. You obviously took the time to find fuzzy, black and white pictures of tribal women and compared them to modern pictures of white glamour models. You could have found black glamour models for your first page just as easily. Why couldn't you have compared those tribal women to some mug shots? You can see the faces clearer in mug shots and they illustrate average white features perfectly.

We both know why you wouldn't even put up pictures of average white women. You wanted to be insulting just like you are insulting when you ignore Mexico, central and south america and the Caribbean in your definition of the western world. You are a white supremacist and your site sucks.

Danielle: This is not the place for your feminist PC rants.

You're prolly high on androgens like those mugshot ladies, that's why you are so prone to violence and arguing.
That's why you are so blinded with rage against Erik, you immature envious freekoid.

We can see through you, stop your useless crusade.

by "we" we mean me and my anus. that i lick.



Yes, I like to slurp some chicken soup now and then.
You got me there.

Der Führer, I really don't know why you insist on replying to every one of my posts. You never have anything useful or remotely entertaining to add to a discussion. Why do you feel the need to defend Eric's honor at every opportunity? Will Eric give you a prize for sucking his dick on the internet? Your androgen induced lust for Eric's man meat has addled your brain. Go and satisfy your lust for him and then you can come back and try to intelligently address my posts.

8D: This is your last warning. Do not impersonate others or post under multiple aliases (including The Donald, which is another example of impersonation). Also do not leave foul commentary.


Do you want me to address stuff like this? :

> Your argument is bullshit because the sole purpose of those lame ass beauty pageants is not to “pick the hottest piece of ass.” Beauty Pageants usually involve “talent” competitions.

So, tell me, hunny bunny ...

Where are we supposed to find the "beauties"?
On "Spelling Bees" contests?
I have better things to do with my time than "argue" against that, LOL

Der Führer, As usual you haven't really made a point though you think you have. You are so mind-numbingly stupid that you believe you have somehow bested me. You can't argue against anything. You're an idiot and you think you're clever. I never suggest that you start looking for the beauty pageant bimbos at spelling bees. The pageant people should continue picking their contestants from the morons that enter these competitions. Are you suggesting some open call for beauty pageant girls? As I said before beauty pageants are more than "hottest piece of ass" competitions. You never really understand my posts. You really need to work on your reading comprehension, hunny bunny.

[...] beauty pageant bimbos [...]

[...] the morons that enter these competitions [...]

You are obviously a heterophobic deranged feminist banshee who hates beauty.
Why are you here ?

And no, I'm no "Führer"

I'm a progressivist, I'm a Stakhanovite:

"On November 14-17, 1935, the 1st All-Union Stakhanovite Conference took place at the Kremlin, which emphasized the outstanding role of the Stakhanovite movement in socialist re-construction of national economy. In December of 1935, the plenum of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) specifically discussed the aspects of developing industry and transport system in light of the Stakhanovite movement. The resolution of the plenum said: "The Stakhanovite movement means organizing labor in a new fashion, rationalizing technologic processes, correct division of labor, liberating qualified workers from secondary spadework, improving work place, providing rapid growth for labor productivity and securing significant increase of workers' salaries"."

Division of labor...

That's the key.

Let the homos do the designing and let the straights choose the models.

It's that simple.


> Well actually, I was talking about the UK’s sexiext poll in which Keira was number one.

Huh... what can I say.
Poor Brits.

Keira Knightley is rather unimpressive, to put it mildly:

Geeeeeeez, vhat vas dat !

Jaco Pastorius meets Natalie Portman ???

Der Arschloch, I don't know how you might have formed the opinion that I am a heterophobic feminist banshee who hates beauty. I know that your reading comprehension is abysmal and you have difficulty understanding arguments so maybe you just made that up in your twisted, little head.

LOL! I don't hate "beauty." I think beauty pageants are dull and a waste of time and money. I don't like beauty pageants and I think the contestants are plastic zombies but I don't need them to be kicked out of competitions or try to "educate the public" about their "masculine" looks. I won't do this because unlike you and Eric I know that the world is a remarkably diverse place. I can easily find people or things that I find beautiful and interesting. I don't have to demonize gay people or feminists in order to make my points unlike some people on this site.

I wasn't bashing the looks of the pageant contestants. I had no idea that you though that the beauty pageant contestants were beauties. I thought you shared Eric's opinion that the contestants were too "masculine" and non-Aryan to compete in beauty pageants. I guess I was wrong.


I don't know if you live in a world of fantasy because it sure seems like you do, hunny bunny. All the high fashion houses are privately owned businesses that provide luxury goods for the people that can afford them. They all have their own designers, CEOs, manufacturers and workers. They are not providing a public service. They are not given government subsidies or funding. They don't the general public a damn thing. I don't know what gives you the idea that "straights" can and should start picking the models from now on. Exactly which "straights" are you referring to? Are you talking about Straight people already involved in the industry or are you talking about freaks like you and Eric?

You are much more deranged than I could ever be. Now stop your politically incorrect babblings. Take my advice. Start getting in touch with your femininity.

They don't the general public a damn thing

oops. I meant to say that they don't OWE the general public a damn thing.

Ok i have read some of the articles on this website... are you trying to say that woman who have high cheekbones, don't have much of a butt and are skinny aren't attractive? Yea thanks alot *sarcasm*. I am 5'9 and weigh 110lbs have a B cup & i don't have much of a butt so am i unattractive?? personally i think we should all just accept our bodies because in my eyes high fashion models and glamour models are attractive, just a different type of attraction if you get what i'm saying? Let me tell you a small story from last year. My mum has always told me that i should be proud of my body because i had what lots of girls didn't, height, skinniness and long legs. I never felt confident and even when she said that i wasn't proud mostly because of this one chick and her mates. So anyway it's PE and some girl in my class goes "you know girls are supposed to have curves" so what? am i not a girl? the maker of this site reminds me of those bitchy girls who constantly bitch about my body. now i don't care, i've grown up alot. i love my body, i'm proud and i should be. curvy girls, skinny girls whatever you are be PROUD

I understand your point about only wanting to use one race to determine facial masculinity, but when it came to marking femenine beauty across cultures, you did a disgusting job of representing non-eurasian cultures. I noticed that 90% of your examples of black physiques and faces came from exploration journals from british colonial times. I'm sure you could have found a picture of a senegalese woman that didn't make her look like a savage. Same goes for your Australian and islander women.

The premise of your site is interesting. However, I still think that "striking" looks have some value in attracting men. To say that men who are attracted to the likes of Penelope Cruz or Amanda Peet have gay tendencies is just unfounded. Ok, MAYBE bisexual men will be more attracted to these types than to the super feminine women you depict, and so what? And European men not liking women with dark complexions and robust features? I find the opposite is true, these days, and though perhaps deep down they do find their own women more attractive, it is still possible to find women of all races attractive.

There have also been studies done that said women with "slightly" masculinized faces were seen as more faithful by men, though you report that masculinized women are promiscuous (!)

I will agree with you that people of a certain race can hardly compare themselves with those of a different race. To do so is sad because it imposes a set of unrealistic standards that shouldn't be there. However, I will add that it's important not to say that one race is "less attractive" than another race, for that same reason.

How did Ana Beatriz Barros's butt went from flat to a perfectly round butt ??

i have a feeling you are slightly homophobic. thats all. there are plenty of gay designers that find beauty in the female form. many clothes reflect feminine silhouettes. don't blame the gay designers for the prevalence of "masculinization" of models. what if it was the patriarchal society we live in. fashion draws from the military as well...

I am somewhat amused and somewhat appalled at this website. Your comical and uneducated implications about what is "feminine" and what is "masculine" are, frankly, a bit tragic. I sincerely hope that women who come across this site do not take any of the information as 'fact.' Women do not have to have massive hips and chubby faces to be beautiful, and having high cheekbones or a slim figure do not make one look like a, and I quote, "transvestite."

which face shape do you consider to be the most beautiful or/and feminine? i usually consider diamond, donno why though?

btw, what do you think of Haifa wehbe? Also, what about 'beauty spots' as she has two!

we live in a time where women's role is not longer limited to child bearing, which its quality is advertised by feminine physical features. women nowerdays do many jobs that requre physical strength etc, and thus why women with masculanised features are thought to be more attractive. maybe this point has been spoken on before, but i do not know as i have no read every comment, if it is, then plz egnore it if not then i would be interested on your thouths on the matter. thanks

FIRST of all, sorry for my bad english.

You are telling us how girls who don’ fit in your “feminine” shapes are worthless and not worth being loved or to love!? that’s how i get it. See, if i compare myself to your “feminine woman” i think i have feminine body, except fot the breasts which are rather small.. my face is both feminine and masculine. i have serious and loving relationship with a MAN very straight one, who of course, like every man and woman, questioned his sexual orientation once in his childhood. but he is more straight than most man i know, who fall for all those manlike supermodels you describe, he likes widw hips and full botties, he doesn’ care much bout breast as long they exist and are not ugly-shaped. he gives mine his full attention.

i’m a bit of bisexual, with many homosexual experiences, maybe that’s why i don’t find models unattractive? because i’m bisexual? so they all should be with girls or with bisexual men?
i mean, they have features of both gendres, so they can’t be good enough for straight oriented men?!

i think sexual attraction is more than that!

ofcourse it is about physichs, but it is about smell, about brains, about getting along…

i mean, you are right and agree with you when you’re talking about extremes, and anorexia because of media…

but attraction and stuff.... you are blowing of self-esteem of skinny and not-so-feminine girls who can’t do anyting about it while are you pumping it up for the big-boobed and wide-hipped girls.

and yes ofcourse i wish i had bigger boobs!!

but i can’ be perfect, and what is perfect?

Posted by krisa on December 02, 2007 at 10:07

What is the main factors that make narrow bridge nose shape, long oval face, big rounded eyes occured only among people whom live in the west. from the northest of scandienavia to India. but couldn't find in other part of the world like far east asian, american Indian and all oceanic people?




Make it below average WHR rather than ideal WHR.


- the feminine examples [in the attractive women section] you have provided look like adolescent girls [faces]...

This is not true. Their faces mostly range from late teens to mid twenties, though there are a few older women.



Wrong. Pedophilia applies to attraction to pre-pubescents.


- In evolutionary terms, being attracted to slightly immature females wouldn’t be a complete disadvantage, so it makes sense.

Wrong. Immaturity implies reduced fertility. Heterosexual men most strongly prefer women in their early to mid-twenties. Your complaint is about the faces; there is no way you can say that the physiques of the women in the attractive women section are anything other than those of young adults.


- This goes hand in hand with mens’ apparent preference for exotic looks.

A great deal of research shows that having average features is a correlate of beauty, and when it comes to deviation from the average, the most powerful correlate of beauty in women is above average femininity. Feminine and very attractive women will easily stand apart from the crowd. The selection of VS models isn’t just because they stand out from the general public.



- Your masculine vs. feminine page is disgusting and creepy.

To you, but my concern is whether it is factually correct.



The argument is that people of different ethnic backgrounds should not be competing with each other with respect to attractiveness because an objective comparison is not possible.



Beauty pageants should be about beauty, not talent or personality. In international beauty pageants, the only way to maximize the focus on beauty is to split them into ethnicity-specific mini-pageants and have a personality contest grand finale for the winners of these mini-pageants.



There are African glamour models in the section. So what if there are some pictures of tribals? They are needed to show how the Africans look without European mixture. The pictures are just illustrative examples; my arguments are not based on the pictures and the pictures on the first page of the 7-part section emphasize the necessity of referring to average differences rather than solely relying on pictures.



The first two individuals in your mugshots do not look like women. How can they represent average white women? They also committed crimes unlike the average white woman.



I am no white supremacist. Why do you keep coming back to a site that sucks? Am I being insulting by excluding “Mexico, central and south america and the Caribbean” from the Western world? Whereas “Western” is derived from geography, it refers to a specific people and their culture/achievements, namely the Europeans. In the Old World, Europe lies in the West and hence Western is used for European. If the current predominant natives of central Africa were the predominant natives of Europe, there would be nothing “Western” about Europe.


- I think beauty pageants are dull and a waste of time and money.

I wholeheartedly agree, but this is because they are not genuine beauty pageants. There would be nothing dull about the genuine ones.

Der Wanderer:


- Let the homos do the designing and let the straights choose the models.

I second that.

i'm just a GIRL: I am not saying that slender women with high cheekbones and not so prominent backsides are unattractive. Attractiveness depends on many factors and women with this combination could range from unattractive to attractive. The premise of this site isn’t that “women should look like this” but it is about appropriate looks for various modeling scenarios and beauty pageant contests marketed to the general public.




This is not possible because I have not attempted to show feminine beauty across cultures in the 7-page section you are referring to or anywhere else at this site. The pictures in the 7-page section are supposed to illustrate the argument in the text. It is necessary to show examples of population differences without a focus on showcasing attractiveness to address whether the attractiveness of individuals from different ethnic groups can be objectively compared.


- I noticed that 90% of your examples of black physiques and faces came from exploration journals from british colonial times. I’m sure you could have found a picture of a senegalese woman that didn’t make her look like a savage. Same goes for your Australian and islander women.

Current pictures don’t show different looks. I will post current pictures at some point.

Anoynymous posting on Oct. 21, 2007: Please use a different alias.


- However, I still think that “striking” looks have some value in attracting men. To say that men who are attracted to the likes of Penelope Cruz or Amanda Peet have gay tendencies is just unfounded.

I haven’t said this. It should be obvious that with increasing masculinization beyond some point, the odds of nonheterosexual men being attracted to the woman increases.


- And European men not liking women with dark complexions and robust features?

Where have I said this?


- There have also been studies done that said women with “slightly” masculinized faces were seen as more faithful by men, though you report that masculinized women are promiscuous (!)

I am interested in these studies. Please point them out.


However, I will add that it’s important not to say that one race is “less attractive” than another race, for that same reason.

I agree.

Oliana: I don’t know how Ana Beatriz Barros’ backside went from flattened to rounded. Perhaps you can provide links to pictures so that we can see and try to figure it out.

Mixed feelings: To espouse unflattering facts about homosexuals is not to be homophobic. How can patriarchy be responsible for the typical looks of high-fashion models? The feminist perspectives are addressed here. What do you mean that fashion draws from the military also?

Tyler: The nature of feminine and masculine variation described within this site is drawn from the scientific literature, and there in nothing uneducated about it.



I agree. I haven’t argued to the contrary.

m: Face shapes such as diamond, round, square, oval, etc. are not feminine or masculine by themselves. I personally prefer oval faces in women, but this doesn’t mean that such faces are more feminine.

Haifa Wehbe looks feminine. Beauty spots may look good, depending on placement.

Regarding your point about women no longer being limited to child bearing and doing jobs requiring physical strength, why should this make masculine physical features in women more attractive? Look at video game female characters. The fighters look very feminine. You can see similar examples in the artwork of Sperlonga.

Krisa: You posted the same comment elsewhere, and that is where I have partly replied to your comment. I will address the rest over there.

Zonneschin: The factors that make broad face design from Scandinavia to India similar and different from faces in other groups such as East Asians, American Indians and Oceanic populations are shared genetic materials. How the genetics got selected for and spread over such a broad region are different issues.

I'm suggest you erik. I like your ideal but you better post the pictures of model like Grace kelly, Janne wissenner, Diane Kruger etc. it's better than the picture of porn models. I got also a lot of pictures of the beautiful modest caucasian actresses too. I will post their pictures on here sometime.

About Kiera knightly, will you believe or not she is the most actress I dislike. her face, her character is really nerved me.

Janne Wissenner

Grace Kelly


Grace kelly

How do I post pictures ? Its not working for me

Do you take all of your photos of "Glamour Models" from pornography? It seems like it, they look horrible.


I don't visit this site very often anymore but I have a couple of comments/suggestions to do with as you see fit...or to ignore!

I would reiterate the purposes/goals of this site on the blog portion of the site as I feel they have somehow been lost, especially for regular readers who don't go back to reread your initial purposes, introductions, etc. and who just look in for the occasional update.

While I believe in freedom of speech; squabbles, insults and on-going battles between contributors (having nothing to do with you or this site) DO annoy your readers and add nothing to what you are trying to promote. I don't know what you can do about it, but to ME, it lessens the impact of this site and is tedious at best.

Okay before someone screams at me about agreeing with some of the things in this site, let me have my say.

I've been browsing this site for some time now and while at first, a lot of the things insulted me...that's really not the point of what Erik is trying to get to. And coming from an apple-shaped, overweight, broad shouldered, flat-butt woman, that's quite a bit.

First, let me get some points out:

1. Erik is right in saying that the modeling and fashion industry is prejudiced and biased towards women who look like men and have the physiques of men. I've been watching various modeling reality shows on tv and based on my observations, saying that would be true. On the first season of America's Next top Model, a woman with a pear-shaped body (full hips and butt) somehow made it to the top 4. How that happened, I don't know seeing that now all that show gears to are straight boyish looking women. I watched "A Model Life" with Petra Nemcova and there was a model who looked very feminine from a facial and physique standpoint. She expressed that she's been told to lose weight because of her curves and was thrilled to be told that she had a swimsuit body. And lasty, I've also seen the Janice Dickenson Modeling Agency where her best picks are girls who are very masculinzed with straight bodies and no curves. Even Janice's clients are requesting these bodies, with Ashley Paige coming in and saying she didn't want any curves, but girls who were very stick-like. And looking at how Ashley Paige looks like, that shouldn't be a surprise. I know what I've mentioned are only a handful of how modeling is, but it's a good impression of what the modeling/fashion industry gears towards.

2. All of the arguments made for having models who are tall and masculinized are flawed. I see it all the time. "They need models who don't have figures because it would take attention away from the clothes." If that was true, then why do these same models have to have striking, chiseled, and sculpted faces? Doesn't seeing a model with very prominent cheekbones and forehead take away attention from the clothes just as well? "They need models who are clothes hangers." If that was true, then why are only 25% of the "clothes" presented actually wearable? "High fashion is more of an art than anything". If that was true, why does the "canvas" of the bodies matter? If fashion is supposed to be so "artistic", wouldn't it be better to have women with shapely models than nasty straight lines?

3. The majority of women (in the hypothetical situation where all women were a healthy weight, had healthy body fat levels and were not overweight), 75% of women would be pear-shaped, or at least shaped where they have prominent buttocks and wide hips. Breast size is a non-issue. With this, why isn't the fashion industry trying to cater to the majority of women? Wouldn't you think that would boost sales, or are they really that elitist? I would have to say the second.

Erik is not trying to offend anyone here but being a woman with a less than feminine body, I can see how it would be very easy to take offense. But the truth of the matter is, the fashion industry sets unrealistic standards for body image and type, and it discriminates against women with realistic bodies and faces. Let's take a look at a couple of examples:

Kelly Brook:

Her body may not necessarily fit the .7 ratio for an ideal figure, but her physique is a lot more feminine than most of the high fashion models mentioned. So is her face. So why isn't she used for lingerie modeling and high fashion modeling?

Take a look at the woman on the left. Her thighs may be a bit big, but look at her figure. Why is it that she can't find work? Yet look at the emaciated, pinched bird standing to her right. Apparently, THIS is what people want to see modeling? You can count her ribs.

Look at Keely:

She may be a bit meatier, and her waist is 26 inches, but her physique is much more feminine than Giselle's. Her face is in a different ballpark compared to Giselle's. So why isn't Keely being used more for high fashion modeling and lingerie modeling than Giselle?

Clearly, the modeling industry is against feminine looking models unless you have a big chest. But science has shown that it is not your breast size that is a determinant of health and femininity, it's your waist. So why isn't the fashion industry "modeling" that?

All in all, when it comes to those things, I have to agree with Erik. I see nothing wrong with wanting to pursue a feminine figure or look feminine. I am. All it takes are the proper diet and workout. I don't want a flat butt, even if it looks like Heidi Klum's!

To Erik:

I wanted to point out some inaccuracies regarding corsetting. A properly fitted corset is not unhealthy as long as it is tailored to your body exactly. I'm using a corset for body modification and to acquire a small waist and I'm healthy. Just thought I'd mention that.

Interesting site and i can agree with some ideas, for example, that most models don't have feminine body or that Gizelle is not pretty at all).And it always makes me wonder - why is she the most beautiful girl(or Carmen CAAS??) But Adriana Lima, Keira Knightly - masculine????? I'm not sure))))
You can call them MEN- but it doesn't matter, cause they are beautiful(ok- very pretty). Not only to me, but to the whole world. it is obvious.
And comparing beautiful models to mostly AVERAGE or even not very attractive looking girls from adult sites is ridiculous. if you wanted to show real beauty you should use other faces- in my opinion) I see such girls every day 100 times and they are AVERAGE(not ugly, some pretty, but mostly average). I live in Russia(sorry fo my english))
And also abt models - the high cheeckbones also are provided by make-up. If you look at them, you will se that rouge is not under the cheecks but on them. It is professional make-up. Becuse it make the faces more photogenic... IMO. Because it is fashion.
And i'm sure that if you put such mak-up on faces that you consider feminine - they will look in other way.
And it is interesting - what you think is BEAUTY? That girls from adult sites?????? Please give some examples, - models, movie stars, old movie stars.
And what abt Monica Bellucci(i think the most feminine creature - What abt the fact that she was modelling and she is the muse of Dolce&Gabbana))????), Laetizia Casta or Cindy Crawford(very much man like features lol) -Are they Masculine?????
And please give you opinion to Marquet beauty mask. Because i believe in it))(And i didn't see high cheeckbones in his mask. His mask shows feminine face. But he has other mask for men - and it has high cheekbones.)
hi, from russian beauties))

Okay so I came across some crap "study" that was done in England or something where women viewed "average" weight women and thin fashion models. Apparently, women would rather use the superskinny/mannish models to model clothes because they didn't like the other women featured. I have a feeling this study was rather biased, in fact that they probably used overweight women (or Plus-size)who have no curves instead ofhealthy weight women. Your website has many healthy-weight women featured, but obviously this was probably just another propaganda set out by the media to promote rail/mannish models.

As for Nastya...yea right, she's probably some guy posing as a woman who can't speak fucking english who got mad that the VS models are men. Sorry people, but they look like men! There's no getting around that. People have been brainwashed to see that masculine facial features are more "beautiful" than feminine. You see it in beauty magazines where women get mad that they don't have huge jutting cheekbones and try makeup techniqes to put more angles in their faces. What's funny is that any good plastic surgeon will tell you that women don't want high cheekbones, but instead soft, low and full cheeks because as we age, women become more masculinized. So you can imagine what some of the VS models are gonna look like at 50.

Justanothergirl, let me answer you) I'm not guy and you definitely didn't understand my opinion(may be because of my fucking english)))
So i can tell you that i agree with you on point that most models on catwalk are masculine. b

Hi, Erik.

A few things. I've found your site to be quite interesting, although I haven't agreed with all of your points. I'm perplexed in regards to your stance on high cheekbones. As a feminine woman with high cheekbones, I've only ever heard sparkling, positive remarks, and in addition I've always been under the misconception that high cheekbones were in fact a FEMININE trait!? After discussing this with some friends, they all agreed, and I doubt they were trying to spare my feelings. We also came to the conclusion that high cheekbones on a man are too "pretty" looking and none of us could even think of a man (other than a male model) that had this "typical masculine trait". We could all be wrong, but I looked up high cheekbones online, and found many sites exclaiming how they make a woman MORE feminine and MORE beautiful.
I agree with all other traits you claimed as masculine: square jaw, wide or petruding nose, square chin, but high cheekbones? I'm confused, as I've always been under the "misconception" that they are quite feminine and pretty. I've never heard a square jaw, or large nose praised on a woman, but your site is the first one that has brought to my attention that high cheekbones are unattractive. Frankly, hormones aside, I disagree with you!!

I agree with E, high cheek bones make a woman MORE feminine, but I think in a very classic way and posh way. But I do disagree when she says men with high cheek bones look too pretty. *Gasps* what about tough Spike off Buffy The Vampire Slayer he has high cheek bones, he's walking sex! I know another guy with high cheek bones and all the chicks LOVE him.

You may find this fascinating:

It deals with how madonna and models like Gisele Bundchen claim much more hourglass and busty stats/measurements then they actually possess.

Here is also a great blog post by Super Amanda:

Scroll down.

You have a wonderful website.



To the web designer: Are you a white nationalist or white supremacist? I ask this with complete seriousness.

There are indeed disturbing white supremicist under-currents in this website. I slowly began to realise this the more i explored it. I work in a scientific field and I often find both peoples prejudices and also their sensitivities cloud issues. I always like to deal in facts and obviously there are differences between peoples and what each group of peoples consider attractive. A close friend of mine with whom I lived while at college was from Beijing, China and we would often discuss the differences in both her and my (western europe) societies attitudes on attractivness. I find the attempts to explain the noticible absence of non white women on this website almost laughable if there were not so pernicious. The feeble attempts to intellectualise this attitude is transparent.

Definitely Debra. I retract what I said about this website being wonderful. For a male to be this obsessively detailed about beauty that he does not possess or inhabit shows deep psychological issues. my guess that you are a white nationalist or racialist Erik and thsi is your way of spreading Social Darwinism disguised as beauty theory. You are NOT female so unless you're really a woman you are essentially of talking out your ass regarding something you can never experience or really understand.

Zonneschijn: Please stick to a single alias. I mostly avoid porn models. I have Grace Kelly among the randomly shown images on the intro/home page. Diane Kruger isn’t feminine and I found no woman by the name of Janne Wissenner. If you have pictures of feminine and attractive mainstream actresses, mention their names or send me their images and I will have a look.

Oliana: To post pictures, upload them to sites like or Then post the urls of the images they give you or the codes for displaying the images at blogs/forums. You may also email the images to me.

Worried: Most women shown within this site are not porn models. There are a lot of nude models, but I have few alternatives at the time being.

Sandy: I recently improved the intro page, and on this page I ask people to read the FAQ. So the site purpose should be within easy access for people stumbling across this site.

I apologize for people squabbling at the blog, but there are few such instances. Please ignore them. If you read this site every now an then, you know who they are. If it gets worse, I will ask people to take their petty disputes elsewhere.

Justanothergirl: I appreciate your comments especially since they are coming from a woman whose looks are not flattered by this site. Don’t be surprised if you occasionally see a feminine contestant in America’s Next Top Model competition or something similar. To make these contests more palatable to the general public, they may throw in a few feminine ones, but the feminine ones will be eliminated.

Don’t believe that an ideal wait-to-hip ratio is 0.7. This was hyped up in the 1990s, but there were methodological shortcomings in the studies by Singh and others; some studies have shown an optimal preference for lower values. Attractiveness is a matter of overall looks. A woman with a higher WHR can look overall better than one with a lower WHR.

You mentioned an English study where women preferred thin models to the average woman. This may be because the average females the participants saw were overweight and the models thin but not too skinny. In Western societies, somewhat thin women are generally preferred to somewhat overweight women. On the other hand, there have been some studies where women preferred thinner models, but these have been in specific contexts discussed here; the overall find is that women are made to feel worse about themselves after viewing thin fashion models. If you find out who did the English study, let me know and I will have a look.

People haven’t been brainwashed to see masculine features as more appealing or else how would controlled laboratory studies generally show the opposite?

Nastya: I am not describing masculinized female models as men. If high cheekbones are selected for to facilitate make-up, why should the face be important for “clothes hangars”? The high cheekbones simply add a more masculine look, which the designers are looking for.

My idea of beauty is not women from adult sites. The issue is how women look rather than what they do. I don’t have much of a choice but to heavily rely on adult sites for the time being. Your own examples are not of feminine beauty. Monica Belluci is an attractive woman, but not a feminine beauty. Laetitia Casta isn’t an example of feminine beauty either; I will address her at some point. You can find pictures of her where it is clear that her backside is somewhat flattened and hips not sufficiently wide. Try others, and you will see that there are few prominent mainstream examples of feminine beauty, but there will be lots of them when I am successful with this site.

Marquardt’s mask has high cheekbones, is invalid, and has been formally refuted.

E: My argument isn’t that high cheekbones are unattractive, but that masculinization is associated with a higher placement of the cheekbones on the face. Since attractiveness in women is strongly associated with above average femininity, a greater proportion of women considered attractive by most people will have lower cheekbones than higher cheekbones compared to average. On a similar note, even though you haven’t heard of people praising square jaws in women, it wouldn’t be difficult to find pictures of square-jawed women who would be regarded as attractive by most as well as admirers of square-jawed women.

I hope that you are not confusing more horizontally prominent cheekbones (irrelevant to high cheekbones) with the vertical placement of the cheekbones (what matters to whether one has high cheekbones).

Size Queen: Thank you for mentioning the youtube video. I haven’t been interested in models’ measurements. See enough pictures of them and it is obvious what kind of physiques they possess.

I am not a white supremacist/nationalist. Even if I were one, all my arguments backed up by empirical evidence would still stand. It is a shame that you would retract your initial good impression of this site based on the perceived racist beliefs of the author. An argument stands on what kind of evidence backs it up, not the motives or proclivities of the author. I do not have an obsession with detail. I need detail to have an impact, and I will have an impact.

Debra: I am pleased that you like to deal with facts. So do I, and you will find facts aplenty within this site. Judge this site by the facts presented, not by the omission of non-white women, the reasons for which are clearly explained on the FAQ page.

I would like you to consider an alternate view regarding your article "Why are fashion models so skinny?" As you correctly pointed out, the women in the men's magazines have hour-glass figures because they are specifically selected to appeal to men. However, I believe you are asserting a non sequitur by stating that the women in women's magazines (high fashion models) are tall and skinny because they are selected by gay men rather than the obvious conclusion that they are specifically selected to appeal to women. I wonder whether the "adolescent boy" observation is a spurious similarity and what we are really observing are remarkably skinny women being selected because they approximate adolescent girls. The model as adolescent girl appeals to certain aspects of a women's psychological desires; to be loved and protected as a child. Certainly, we observe many aspects wherein women attempt to achieve an adolescent look both through make-up, hair-style, and fashion. Women routinely exhibit a desire for maintaining adolescent or girlishness in behavior and appearance throughout adulthood. Studies of adult anorexic women show that a primary drive is to retain their child or "little girl" status relative to their parents and society in general. Rather than being imposed on them from an external source (gay male designers, advertising media, etc.) the desire to emulate adolescent girls and attempt to be an adolescent continually through adulthood is a fundamentally part of women's psychology. Emotionally, women want to be little girls because it frees them of adult responsibilities and confers a special protected "innocent, helpless, and vulnerable" status that elicits help, concern, and assistance from others. Being an adolescent girl means others care for you, protect you, and help you.

Likewise, the appeal of very tall women as models is easily explained within women's psychology of how they assert superiority and personally define an unworthy of excluded class of men. Women view men who are shorter than they as unworthy and consequently themselves as superior and dominate. The taller a woman the greater the relative number of unworthy-status men and the greater the feeling of superiority when in a group. This is also the true function of high-heels for women. Rather than the oft cited reason that the taller shoes help to visually elongate the legs (to appeal to men) the deeper psychological desire for women is to increase their height and thereby create a greater number of unworthy-excluded men. The psychological benefit of excluding results in a feeling of superiority and self-worth; for a women, this is more emotionally rewarding than any concern that they may be filtering-out possible mate selections.

Erik : if u really wanted to promote white beauty? it's stupid to u porn star models. after a long time I tried to figure out what style of the women u like? the mixturing betwen Tschapperl, Hascherl, and Patsherl. here the pictures of women that erik is very fond of.
I hope u'll like the pictures I posted? stupid innocent blondy, unreality princess in the fairytale, as u wish.


Screaming baby

I know now she is names jane wisener

With the baby face she has cooperating with hugable booby.

I sure u'll likeher erik.........


I sure you wish she'd exsist in real, enchanted 2007.


dream world



Oh, any males who falling in love with her, he'd be really childish.

No brains......



DReam like.

Make believe.......




afraid of everything.

Always easily to get aggressive.




like to show nude.

Pale and unattaction.

Boring's look.

[...] stupid innocent blondy [...]

Woah... that was pretty defamatory , wasn't it ?

Call The Anti-Defamation League of W'hitey B'rits immediately !

Master: Most women, like most men, prefer feminine beauty. Hence it cannot be argued that average female fashion models’ looks cater to women’s preferences. The models’ looks lean toward adolescent boys’ rather than adolescent girls’. This would be clearer if you focused on the face since adolescent girls have yet to develop the hips and breasts of adult women. Your hypothesis of many adult women aspiring to an adolescent state isn’t very plausible, especially since many people do not have fond memories of their adolescence.

There is plenty of evidence that anorexic females are often influenced by the thin fashion ideal.

Women tend to have relatively longer legs than men, and hence the obvious reason why many wear heels is to make their legs appear longer and thereby more feminine. Your explanation of why high fashion models are so tall is not very plausible. Women will generally tend to maximize the number of men that are attracted to them so that they can be as selective as possible. Providing an appearance of having longer legs for their height helps them achieve this by increasing the pool of men attracted to them. If women want men taller than them, then tall women have fewer men to choose from. Why would the general female population then want to be tall?

You are ignoring the simplest, most obvious and most powerful explanation of high-fashion models’ general looks.

Zonneschijn: How many times do I have to tell you that I mostly avoid porn stars? I have explained very well why this site has to at present largely rely on nude models, the vast majority of whom are not porn stars. You can verify this reason for yourself by trying to come up with 50 women comparable to the women shown in the attractive women section (except pages 5 and 6, which feature somewhat masculinized women) but from a mainstream setting (no nude modeling on their part). I have no doubt that you will be able to come up with a few women, like Jayne Wisener (you again got her name wrong), and this is because I am not into movies and the kind of movies I like usually do not feature feminine beauty. But you will have a very difficult time finding a large number of women similar to those in the attractive women section from mainstream settings unless you were to spend a huge amount of time digging them up. If you are able to do this, you will help me make this site more mainstream.

I don’t like lolitas. The women in the attractive women section are all young adults and look it.

You posted a bunch of pictures of Amy Adams. She looks like a mature adult and is an attractive women, but isn’t feminine enough to be a suitable example of feminine beauty.

I don’t especially like the looks of Scarlett Johansson (e.g., not very European profile view of face in relation to this site’s context) or the Swedish contestant (e.g., broad nose; unimpressive physique (clearer in other pictures)) or the black-haired mixed-ancestry woman (e.g., broad nose). I would not put the nude model shown by you in the attractive women section. You have my preferences wrong. And the woman whom you have called pale is not pale; she is pink. Find something better to do than browsing this site and insulting white women.

You must also understand that this website has little to no relevance for non-European societies and is targeting people of European ancestry. This is the reason why there is a focus on white women.

Really now, Erik, you don't think Kristin Kreuk is beautiful just because of her nose? And her nose does not even look bad at all! In my opinion, she looks far more attractive than most women in your Attractive Section. Facial beauty-wise, that is.

Erik : you are fucking uses your biases don't u see yourself? u said u promote only white beauty? but what u are trying to attempt is not what's ordinary in white people? such as your waist ratio article. u trying to say "women with short waist are more feminine??" even u know it in your mind that very short waist women normally are from far east asia. u know I always tell I'm half european and south east asia. I know every asian women wish to have slender low waist, it refer more of caucasian waist. u could see the ordinary local chinese women are tend to have high waist ,and short lenght of legs. I have never heard any women'd like to have that terrible high waist. hour glass women are also not that high waist. their body appeared to look like "8" and the waist is in the middle. not higher than half of their body.

If u really waned to find feminine women, u know I find this site is only biases. some asian guy seen the feminine women u posted as masculine. because in asia the women are not have that thick noses' bridge like in caucasian women. even the pinked skin woman I post above, I also do not find she is feminine. her face appears to look more like male if she has the short hair. u also has said yourself that "projection forhead" made face look more masculine? so u have to agree that caucasian women are always masculine than far east asian women. because every caucasian have projected forhead? don't they? and that make deepset eyes, ( wish I find it quite attactive and look more caucasian).

haven't u ever studied? that from all three races, caucasian, mongolian, and negroes. asian are the most feminine and have low male hormone than in caucasian. that's why they have hairless, do not get stink even don't take a shower for a year, baby, small nose, chubby cheeks and no deepset eyes? haven't u ever study this?

u know I do not say I find far east asian women are most beautifull, because I like deepset round eyes more than small eyes and no nose bridge like in the kid, or high waist, or piggy nose. but what I trying to say to u all the time? why u trying to promote white beauty?? but u uses the logic of other's race beauty then? can u give me the reason? how many baby nose women in scandinavian? why I always meet only the women u called hooked nose? walking around in scandinavia?? where is the baby flat nose u then?

Also one thing, I really do not understand? what's fine nose for u then? well, if u wanted to say small nose? I'd say almost of european people are not have small nose. what do u mean about board nose on kristen kruck's nose? I really dont see that??? I think her nose quite small. if I'd argue her with something disproportion I'd mention her eyes than her nose, she got thick skin above her eyes like in far east asian people, but that's no matter to focus on as unfeminine. anyway I think u find only pure caucasian are the most feminine? or not?

( many of your models tend to have thick nose's brifge than kristein kruck much? but why u said kristin has board nose? just because she is dutch half chinese then? why u are so biases like this?? and please answer me, unless I'd call u are the loser?

I really don't understand, do u think all women must have the same shape face just like clonning then? so u'd find they are pretty?

And I wil answer u why I always middle on this site, because I find it very nerve and very bad of u that u put the names of many women up to insult them??don't u start that before me? don't u know how herrible if someone do like this to u or your family? at least everyone who entered this site got doubt in their confident to some superstars and models they like? why u doing this erik?

Well, I got the pictures of half european-south east asian girl. I'd like to ask u what do u think of her, is she feminine?
at least I still try to find out what's beauty women in your eyes?
and I got a few of pure caucasian women, who I find both of her mind and face are feminine.

but first, the girl half european-south east asian.

and the least white girl, do u find is she pretty?

P.S why I so interested browing this site because I'm still making my own websit, to get deloma. but what's different between u and me, that I make the websit to describe the beautifull of different nations, and how each race are related to each other.

And u still have answer me, do this german-south east asian girl and the chinese girls are feminine or not? infact I got a lot of feminine oriental women pictures.

HERE, the picture of japanese girl's shape. u could notice her waist is quite high and the legs are plump and in the short lenght. ( personally I do not find this is good shape because I prefer slender shape women, like ballerina. but this is what u are calling to see isn't it? women with high waist? which all asian people also do not find high waist is pretty. everyone wanted the shape like ballerina, abit low waist, long slender legs.

Comparing to ballerina waist.( very feminine waist,legs and feeths)

Feminine enough?

Jayne reminds me of one of my dad's relative, I think her face looks feminine like oriental women. if e could immegin the picture she has dark hair and asian skin.

I think this woman looks cute.

brenda :


It's more than just her "nose"

Learn to use Google's image search.

It's your friend =)

I found your arguments fascinating, but the poorly concealed racism put me off entirely.
The most obvious example is your laughable attempt at comparing the "typical" white female to the "typical" black female. Your "photographic evidence" is utterly ridiculous (but, at the very least, absolutely hilarious).
I don't think I need to explain any further.
You are perfectly aware of what sort of pathetic argument you were trying to create.
I thought I'd let you know that no person with any shred of sense would buy it.
You need to be a little more subtle and more intelligent, by FAR, if you want to persuade people to embrace your racist ideals.

De wanderer : I believe not all the time that u and erik got the nice angles on photograph also. the picture of kristen kreck u posted is the result of timing and angle. this also depending on the photographer'd set the pictures into which way. even the most white women also can look like african by photoshop and photo technic, makeup face etc.


Click here to post a new comment