Culture and the Design/Modeling Industry: Making Males from Females
Subtropic Pixel
Posts: 2,388
So I know it can be done; I've seen some products in the store; males made from Victoria or one of her sisters. From the examples I saw, I didn't think Victoria's form worked well as a man, but this topic came to mind when I read a recent news/human interest story about a female model who has added extra years to her career by posing as a male model.
She always had a wider jaw than she would have liked, and since female models are considered past their prime when they get into their mid-twenties while men continue to model into their thirties, she decided to try it to see if she could still find work.
This is subjective of course, but I think she's a good looking lady (as a lady), and from the article and my observation of the pictures, she has had no surgery done. She simply cuts her hair short and styles it as a man's. She wears clothing to constrict her bust so that she can pose and catwalk (I guess) with the men. In this guise she has the appearance of a slender male model, which probably aptly describes 85% of fashion models, whether they are men or women. It's a subjective call again, but I think she looks good (as a man) in the men's clothing made by today's elite designers for that body type.
When "off the job", she still dresses as a man; she says it's just easier. Her boyfriend/husband doesn't seem to mind, although some people think that he is with a man and not a woman.
Sorry, I didn't think to save the link; but the story is out there and probably is easily found via a strategic Google search term. I just found this interesting and thought it would make for an interesting conversation here.
As the saying goes, necessity is the mother of invention/ingenuity. If it's in your blood and DNA as your life's passion, you'll find a way to keep working no matter what the norms of the industry may be.
Respect.
Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
7533 S Center View Ct #4664
West Jordan, UT 84084
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2025 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
When I was involved in reenactment (ACW) I felt it was unfair that women didn't get a chance on the battle field, so I would dress as a soldier, young Johnny Reb. Was even funnier when my son grew older and was taller than me, people on occasion did stop us and ask if we were siblings, or even twins, as he does take after my side of the family.
Someone once saw a photo of us together in uniform, and asked Neil which one was his Mum, and he just looked at them and said, straight faced, "She's the one who shaves every morning"
LOL, cute!
Well, some women did get a chance on the battlefield - by doing exactly what you did. :D
Source articles:
Gal finds success as a male model (NY Post, about Elliot Sailors also contains slideshow of Sailors' different looks -- she looks REALLY young as a male. And the images where she's dressed as a man wearing women's glam makeup are nicely mind-bendy.)
Male Models: The female of the species (TIME, about Casey Legler (Legler's model page at FordModels. Looking through Legler's portfolio, I think she doesn't look quite as convincing as Sailors, but I'm not sure why. Also, I think one of the photos in Legler's portfolio is of Legler and Sailors together, the smoking photo.)
And, just for the mirror view: The Prettiest Boy in the World (about Andrej Pejic, a European model. And just in case you were wondering: Gaultier bridal and Rosa Clara bridal. The Gaultier looks nicely Martian, but that's Gaultier.)
The truth is we're a far less gender dimorphic species than we tend to think. There are very few structural features of our species that are gender exclusive compared to other primates. This makes it difficult for forensic anthropologists to identify with absolute certainty the gender of a human skeleton. You end up making an informed guess based on what features outnumber the others. Basically we're all a mix of what we consider male and female traits. In fact, odds are pretty good there may be users on this forum who are chromosomally not the sex they think they are as we now know it's possible to be born a fully functional male with XX chromosomes or a fully functional female with XY chromosomes depending on what happens with the hormonal soup we're exposed to while a developing fetus. Estimates range between 1 in every 2000 births to 1 in every 10000 births may not have the chromosome make up typically associated with their sex. We don't really know the exact numbers because we don't often test for sex chromosomes.
In many species of animals the Y chromosome under goes cyclical extinctions (it's really just a defective X chromosome). XY born males decrease and are eventually outnumbered and replaced entirely by males who are born XX. Then over generations an X chromosome mutates and becomes a Y again and there's a rise in XY chromosome males. There was speculation that the Y chromosome was headed for extinction in human beings but it has since been indicated that out Y chromosome is much more robust than that in animals that experience cyclical Y chromosome extinctions.
It's always been a question and a discussion of great interest to me. We have strong feelings about gender and the body, not least because this applies so directly to each of us personally - am I all that a woman should be, or a man should be? What does that mean? Does my biology really tell me the right thing all of the time, and if not, how do I know what the right thing is for me? And of course there are sociocultural models intended to deal with these ambiguities, but they can be very harsh and limiting to a person whose natural place is more ambiguous than the rigid gender binary.
Also, damn, he fine. ;) But you knew I was going to say that. Part of the reason this is even possible is that some of the things we find attractive are attractive across genders. We might find things equally attractive that represent far ends of the curve: Daniel Craig's very rugged, very "male" face, Zooey DeSchanel's very rounded and big-eyed, very "female" face; but that doesn't invalidate these more androgynous mid-curve examples. To many of us, a sharply-defined bone structure and big deep-set eyes are just as attractive in a man or a woman.
funny, I saw women who happened to dress in a western masculine fashion, I didn't think they looked like men though.
Perhaps I know too many people who live their lives being themselves, who ever or what ever that may be.
To elaborate: Given a complete adult pelvis, accuracy is near 100%. Given a complete adult skull, accuracy is fairly good, though older females can be misidentified as male, and young males can be misidentified as female. Without either complete, or in the case of non-adults, accuracy drops sharply.
To elaborate: Given a complete adult pelvis, accuracy is near 100%. Given a complete adult skull, accuracy is fairly good, though older females can be misidentified as male, and young males can be misidentified as female. Without either complete, or in the case of non-adults, accuracy drops sharply.
Just owing to the shorter/wider shape of the female one versus the taller/narrower male? Or going by birth-related change in the shape of the pubic symphysis (does it still work with the skeleton of a female who hasn't given birth)? I'm not arguing with the original statement, just curious about specifics.
Just owing to the shorter/wider shape of the female one versus the taller/narrower male? Or going by birth-related change in the shape of the pubic symphysis (does it still work with the skeleton of a female who hasn't given birth)? I'm not arguing with the original statement, just curious about specifics.
Trying to remember back to school days, I seem to think that male bones keep growing longer than female ones, so are relatively larger (or longer) with more pronounced "corners" compared to female bones. The other major difference is the space between the main 2 pelvic bones (to accomodate child birth). However this can be a very subtle difference, so it is not easy to distinguish sometimes.
Just owing to the shorter/wider shape of the female one versus the taller/narrower male? Or going by birth-related change in the shape of the pubic symphysis (does it still work with the skeleton of a female who hasn't given birth)? I'm not arguing with the original statement, just curious about specifics.
Note that I'm not an expert in this field; just going by various things I've read over the years. There are a couple of dozen sex-corrolated pelvic traits that anthropologists look at. Individual traits generally have 60-90% accuracy, but all of them taken together almost always give the right answer. Most of the traits do work regardless of whether the subject has given birth.
Interesting to know!