Masculinity in women is seen as more attractive than in 1940s

Indracelly

Indracelly

recessed subhuman
Joined
May 5, 2024
Posts
1,338
Reputation
1,724

1722733552330


Commenter Ben left a link in the comments from this post to an anthropology blog written by a guy named Dienekes, who posed the above question in a post comparing the beauty of top models and actresses in 2008 to leading actresses from the 1940s.

The pictures above are computer generated composites of, on the left, eight hot babes from Askmen.com’s Top 99 Women of 2008, and on the right, seven Best Actress Oscar winners from the 1940s. If you go to the Dienekes link, you’ll see photos of the individual women used to make the composites.

A couple thoughts…

Both women are attractive. This isn’t a comparison between beautiful and not beautiful; it’s a comparison between two beauties of nuanced facial differences. My jizzbombs would travel impressive distances with either woman in my bed of sin, though I’d feel more emotional satisfaction — more OWNAGE — spackling the woman on the right because she has the look of Bambi-fied innocence. The woman on the left is only superficially penetrable.

The 2008 composite hot babe is more masculine than the 1940s composite hottie. 2008 woman has smaller eyes, slightly thinner lips, more angular jawline, and a heavier brow ridge overhang — all indicators of masculinization. She has a smaller nose, which is more feminine, but with nose jobs being standard operating procedure for modern women in the looks-based industries (actresses included) it’s not revealing to compare the natural noses of past beauties with the manufactured noses of present beauties.
 
  • +1
Reactions: 97baHater

Similar threads

Zenis
Replies
80
Views
8K
SubhumanForever
SubhumanForever
rubberduck
Replies
60
Views
3K
rubberduck
rubberduck

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top