awkward facepalm wrote:
^no! don't say that please! she is beautiful. i like her.
The models have become quite masculine in the last 40 years or so. So have many actresses. Actually, it's the ideals which have changed over time. Probably because of the preferences of those hiring these people.
Models and actresses used to have feminine features associated with estrogen and fertility. There was an evolutionary reason to find them attractive.
Feminine features:
Large eyes
High eyebrows
Flatter brow ridge
Smaller nose
Smaller jaw
Smaller chin
Fuller lips
More prominent cheekbones
Shorter height
Higher bodyfat percentage
Waist to hip ratio around .7
Masculine features:
Smaller eyes
Lower eyebrows
More prominent brow ridge (in those races that have them)
Larger nose
Larger jaw
Larger chin
Thinner lips
Less prominent cheekbones
Taller height
Lower bodyfat percentage
Waist-hip ratio around .9
Think of the average female fashion model. Height of around 5'9" to 6'0". Much taller than average. They are usually underweight with a low bodyfat percentage. They often have rather narrow hips, giving them a higher waist-hip ratio. They also have smaller eyes, lower eyebrows, a more prominent brow ridge, larger jaws, and larger chins. These are all more masculine features.
They do tend to have smaller noses, more prominent cheekbones, and fuller lips. Those are feminine features. But compared to the masculine features, these are smaller in number. So the average fashion model is not the ideal of feminine beauty, but a more masculine ideal. Male fashion models often don't look much different from the women, especially when looking at facial features alone.
So I suppose if men want to worship masculine-looking women, that's fine. I don't think it really falls in line with what is best from an evolutionary viewpoint.