You are here
Waist-to-hip ratio and attractiveness in women: addressing confounds
A number of women would be interested in what waist-hip proportions are “ideal” or the most attractive as far as heterosexual men are concerned. The purpose of this entry is to show that it is meaningful to talk about an attractive range, albeit narrow, of waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) – as far as the preferences of most people [in Western societies] are concerned – rather than a strict value. In some comparisons, a woman with a slightly thicker waist/higher WHR would be more appealing. This entry should once again help make the case that beauty does not lie in some simple rules of thumb.
We will need to address some of the major papers published on the topic.
The first major paper was published by Devendra Singh(1; pdf). Singh showed, using the following drawings, that men rated a WHR of 0.7 to be the most appealing.
The drawings above have some problems such as a confound between weight and WHR, and also limited WHR range. One could also mention that it would have been preferable to use actual pictures of women.
Subsequently, Louis Tassinary and Kristi Hansen(2; pdf) decided to use drawings where there was greater variation in WHR, variation in body weight, and WHR was varied as a function of both waist size and hip size independently. They used the following image series, and reported that WHR is hardly relevant to attractiveness since attractiveness could be made to either increase or decrease with increasing WHR depending on the body weight, hip size or waist size chosen.
The study by Tassinary and Hansen was subsequently critiqued by Ronald Henss(3; pdf), and also Sybil Streeter and Donald McBurney(4; pdf); both critiques also addressed some of the naïve theoretical assumptions of Tassinary and Hansen.
Henss pointed out the crudeness of the line drawings used by Tassinary and Hansen. He decided to use pictures of actual women, and varied their WHR by digitally manipulating the waist. The pictures that he used are shown below. The middle figure in each series represents the actual picture; the one to its left has a reduced waist and the one on the right has an expanded waist. Based on the photos, the WHR of the women in front view ranged from 0.7 to 0.79. The manipulated WHRs ranged from 0.68 to 0.85. For each of the six women, the lowest WHR was rated the most attractive by the judges.
Streeter and McBurney used the picture of an actual woman, varied the WHR in the picture from 0.5 to 1.2, and varied bust-plus-hip- and waist-sizes independently. Their picture was taken from Ronald Henss, i.e., it was either one of the above images or something similar. They asked their participants to estimate the weight of the woman shown, and then adjusted her attractiveness rating with respect to the weight estimate, thereby controlling for a WHR-weight confound. Tassinary and Hansen’s study had a WHR-weight confound notwithstanding their much more extensive range of drawings. Streeter and McBurney were able to show that both men and women rated a WHR of 0.7 as the most attractive, after controlling for the weight confound, regardless of whether WHR was varied by changing hip size only or waist size only, though the attractiveness ratings between a WHR range of 0.6 to 0.9 did not vary greatly. In short, Streeter and McBurney showed that WHR does indeed contribute to female attractiveness; read their paper to understand more of the shortcomings in the study by Tassinary and Hansen.
Tassinary and Hansen, as well as Streeter and McBurney, reported that variation in hip size made a stronger contribution to attractiveness rating than variation is waist size.
On the other hand, Malgorzata Rozmus-Wrzesinska and Boguslaw Pawlowski(5; pdf) showed that Western men are more strongly influenced by waist size than hip size when it comes to rating the attractiveness of women. These authors used a woman with a WHR of 0.65 and manipulated her WHR from 0.60 to 0.85 by either varying the waist only or the hips only. Men were asked to rate attractiveness in both front and back views. When only the waist was manipulated, as shown below, men most strongly preferred a WHR of 0.6.
When only the hips were manipulated, as shown below, men most strongly preferred a WHR of 0.7.
The ratings above did not vary between front and back views. When WHR was varied by altering waist size, the figure with a WHR of 0.6 was rated as the lightest by 90% of the men, but when WHR was varied by altering hip size, 92% of the men rated the figure with a WHR of 0.6 as the heaviest. Hip size increase beyond a certain point would suggest that the woman is overweight, which would diminish her attractiveness rating, which in turn would explain why a higher WHR was preferred when WHR was varied using the hips only.
When WHR was varied by manipulating the hips only, the most strongly preferred WHR was 0.9 in Tassinary and Hansen’s study and 0.7 in the study by Streeter and McBurney. Tassinary and Hansen’s study obviously had multiple shortcomings, as addressed above, but there are two other issues:
- In the line drawings used by Tassinary and Hansen, they altered the waist and hip dimensions to try to adjust for the fact that the protrusion of the buttocks makes a significant contribution to the hip circumference. However, this resulted in the front-view WHRs to be lower than what they reported. In other words, a WHR reported as 0.9 by Tassinary and Hansen does not exceed a value of 0.8 in other studies such as Streeter and McBurney’s.
- The male participants in Tassinary and Hansen’s study, and also the study by Streeter and McBurney, had an average age of 18 years, whereas the average age of the participants was in the early- to mid-thirties in the study by Rozmus-Wrzesinska and Pawlowski. In Rozmus-Wrzesinska and Pawlowski’s study, men in the 20-21 age range, totaling 30, most strongly preferred a WHR of 0.8 when WHR was manipulated by changing hip size only, whereas, as noted above, this value was 0.7 for the entire sample. In other words, these results suggest that preference varies by age, with younger men preferring higher WHRs than older men when WHR is manipulated by changing hip size only, apparently because younger women are less curvaceous and have smaller hips. A preference for a low female WHR takes time to develop; from childhood to late adolescence, there is a gradual shift toward a greater proportion of children (both boys and girls) preferring low WHRs in women, first noticeable around puberty(6).
Discussion
Body weight, waist size, hip size and WHR all make contributions to the attractiveness ratings of women. If one were to select stimuli where body weight varied greatly but WHR varied to a smaller extent, then it should not be surprising if body weight explains more of the variance in attractiveness ratings than WHR. Similarly, depending on the stimuli selected, waist size or hip size can make a greater contribution to attractiveness ratings. These studies generally show that men and women judge female attractiveness similarly.
Note that in the photos used by Henss, the women do not have physiques as feminine as that of many women in the attractive women section of this site; specifically note their broad rib cages and also their not-too-feminine frames; two of these images were taken from fashion catalogs and the remaining were downloaded from the internet (source not specified). When one uses the kind of images used by Henss, diminishing WHR to 0.6 by decreasing the waist size can make the woman approach cartoonish looks if the rib cage and other features are not simultaneously altered to reflect the global effects of estrogens, which would prevent WHRs in the 0.60-0.65 range from being rated as more appealing than a WHR of 0.7. Of course, the lowest manipulated WHR in Henss’ study was 0.68. Similarly, diminishing WHR toward a value of 0.6 by increasing the hip size of a woman that does not have a feminine frame would make her look overweight quickly, which would once again lead to WHRs closer to 0.7 rather than 0.6 being rated most appealing.
Table 1 shows some lingerie models from the fashion world, with feminine-looking -- some even impressive -- front-view WHRs. However, how feminine do these women look? Table 2 shows some glamour models with unimpressive front-view WHRs; compare their overall femininity with that of the lingerie models in Table 1.
Table 1. Lingerie models (from the fashion world)
Table 2. Glamour models Models featured, from top to bottom: Charlotte from model palace, Vanessa from teenrotica and Julia Cerkonova from karupspc.
The overall appearance of the lingerie models in Table 1 is less feminine than that of the glamour models in Table 2, even though the front-view WHRs of the lingerie models are lower. The lingerie models have more masculine faces, a manlier skeletal frame, greater muscularity, relatively larger hands, etc. Clearly, very low front-view WHRs are neither necessary nor sufficient when it comes to overall femininity/attractiveness. On the other hand, if one were to take a feminine glamour model and digitally give her a very feminine WHR, as shown below for Charlotte from Table 2, one would almost certainly observe Western heterosexual male preference for female WHRs closer to 0.65 than 0.7 in studies. Indeed, in Rozmus-Wrzesinska and Pawlowski’s study, a woman with a WHR of 0.65 was used, and men rated a WHR of 0.6 as most appealing when WHR was manipulated by altering waist size only. In other words, there is surely nothing magical about a 0.7 WHR preference in Western societies as some would like us to believe.
Table 1 on the eating disorders page cites a study where the WHR of Playboy centerfolds averaged 0.68 and that of fashion models averaged 0.71, and the authors interpreted this to mean that fashion models generally have an hourglass figure! The same page cites evidence of increasing masculinization in Playboy centerfolds from the 1960s to 2000, i.e., they are not the best choice to contrast fashion models with, and this page also addresses why the 0.71 WHR, if truthfully reported, does not imply a feminine appearance.
The lingerie models shown in Table 1 above once again show just how tolerant gay fashion designers are of femininity in their models. They know that boyish looks are not appropriate among lingerie models, and they do get non-skinny ones who may also have some curves, but these models generally still don’t look feminine enough [for the job].References
- Singh, D., Adaptive significance of female physical attractiveness: role of waist-to-hip ratio, J Pers Soc Psychol, 65, 293 (1993).
- Tassinary, L. G., and Hansen, K. A., A critical test of the waist-to-hip ratio hypothesis of female physical attractiveness, Psychol Sci, 9, 150 (1998).
- Henss, R., Waist-to-hip ratio and female attractiveness. Evidence from photographic stimuli and methodological considerations, Personal Individ Diff, 28, 501 (2000).
- Streeter, S. A., and McBurney, D. H., Waist-hip ratio and attractiveness: new evidence and a critique of a "critical test" Evol Hum Behav, 24, 88 (2003).
- Rozmus-Wrzesinska, M., and Pawlowski, B., Men's ratings of female attractiveness are influenced more by changes in female waist size compared with changes in hip size, Biol Psychol, 68, 299 (2005).
- Connolly, J. M., Slaughter, V., and Mealey, L., The development of preferences for specific body shapes, J Sex Res, 41, 5 (2004).
Comments
maybe men are responding often to th reality that the average women is not smal waisted.. i have seen numerous article s on the subject. From Ezilon.com
Fashion Articles and News
The shape of things to wear: scientists identify how women's figures have changed in 50 years
By Helen McCormack
Nov 21, 2005, 09:55
(Independent News & Media) The fashion industry is ignoring the changing shapes of women's bodies, a study claims today. Designers and manufacturers still insist on making clothes that fit the traditional hourglass figure, when women's shapes are more likely to be top-heavy, rectangular or pear-shaped.
The research found that although only 8 per cent of women now had the sort of hourglass figure flaunted by curvaceous 1950s film stars such as Sophia Loren, designers and manufacturers continued to make clothes to fit a slim-line version of that figure.
Of the 6,000 women's body shapes analysed, 46 per cent were described as rectangular, with the waist less than nine inches smaller than the hips or bust. Just over 20 per cent of women were bottom-heavy "spoons", or pear shapes, with hips two inches larger than busts or more, while almost 14 per cent were "inverted triangles" - women whose busts were three or more inches bigger than their hips.
The study, by the North Carolina State University, was based on data from a two-year study of American body types, SizeUSA. It was commissioned by Alva Products, a manufacturer of designers' mannequins determined to force the industry to design clothes for the majority rather than the minority of women.
Janice Wang, the firm's chief executive, said: "The majority of retailers are designing clothes for people with an hourglass figure." She added that industry standards for size measurements were out of date. "That needs to change if the industry wants to serve the markets they currently aren't reaching."
The fashion house Liz Claiborne has taken note. David Baron, a vice-president, said it would introduce "gradual changes" to eventually provide "better-fitting" clothes.
Although the study concentrated on American women, its implications were relevant for British women, Ms Wang said, because eating habits and lifestyle meant the shapes of women in the two societies "mirrored each other".
The British fashion designer Katherine Hamnett agreed that women who did not conform to a svelte size 10 continued to be neglected by fashion.
"The fashion industry ignores the true size of women at its peril," she said. "As to why they do, stupidity is the only reason I can think of. It is the result of adhering unthinkingly to a tradition."
And the idea that larger women are not the ideal to design for is a myth. "I have measured film stars who have 42 inch hips, and are still getting a lot of work. It is not how fat you are, it is whether you are fit that matters. People can be beautiful when they are any shape or size."
Breast enhancements and other types of cosmetic surgery could influence the findings, Ms Hamnett said. With breast enhancements likely to create the "inverted triangle" body type, the popularity of cosmetic surgery means there are new shapes that are less likely to be affected by diet or exercise.
The findings concur with a similar study of British women, SizeUK, published late last year, which found that the average woman's waistline had expanded by six inches since the 1950s.
Carried out by University College London and the London College of Fashion, the study found that women and men had shot up and out, with today's woman taller, with a bigger bust and hips than her 1950s counterpart.
Hourglass
Exemplified by the actress Sophia Loren, only 8 per cent of women tend to have equal hip and bust measurements with a narrow waist
The spoon
Just over 20 per cent of women, like Jennifer Lopez, have a pear-shaped figure, where the hip measurement is larger than the bust
Rectangular
Forty-six per cent of women fit this shape, where the waist is less than nine inches smaller than the hips or bust. Mel C is a good example
Inverted triangle
Another modern outline, where the bust is bigger than the hips. The swimmer Sharron Davies is one of the 14 per cent who fits this shape
http://www.ezilon.com/information/article_13954.shtml
Erik,
My Bust is 36 (i have very prominent breasts) my waist is 27 and my hips are 36. My shoulder width is around 14 cm. What group does my body fall into and is this an ideal beauty? or is my build towards masculinity? Do i have an hourglass figure?
i don't think women who don't have hourglass figures are masculine. i think alot of that stuff depends on ethnicity, diet, lifestyle, etc. if you have broad shoulders--then you may be top heavy. sooo. inverted triangle. but i don't think hourglass---but just think.. angelina jolie has that sort of body. she isn't too shabby.
Laurie: Your measurements do not sound like that of a masculine woman, but large breasts and a 36-inch bust imply a rib cage that should not be too broad assuming that you are somewhat above average height, i.e., a 27-inch waist may be because of excess abdominal fat. You could be a somewhat more feminine-looking version of Charlotte in Table 2, i.e., feminine but not with an hourglass figure. Kristin is right; absence of an hourglass look does not imply masculinity. Email me clear pictures of your physique and I will be able to properly answer your questions. If you are concerned about privacy, blur your face or cut it out of the pictures.
Erik,
My height is 5"3ish inches tall. My Bust is 36in waist is 27in and my hips are 36 in. My bust and hips are the same in inches. Does this not imply an hourglass figure as i thought bust and hips had to be roughly the same with a smaller waist for an hourglass figure? My shoulder width from one end to the other is 14cm. I have thick thighs. Isnt having feminine an hourglass figure? are my shoulders too broad for my height? I do not want to post in any pictures but based on this informationa lone what can you tell me?
As kirstins hourglass defintion states: equal hip and bust measurments with a narrow wasit.
If i am not an hourglass figure then what is my figure?
i am a fashion fiend and was referencing standards for a hourglass figuure in clothing manufacturing. also using the waist-hip ratio. ideally that would mean 10inchs or more difference between your waist and hips. 9 inchs is sorta cutting it close. i would assume instead of abb fat--that ou are a slim girl who is slightly broader uptop. another person w/ you measurements is raquel welch---who is very foxy. you really shouldn't dwell on this.
as a side note, she is mexican, and many hispanic women are slighlty broader up top. the same i noticed in germanic/nordic women. again--- they are often very pretty regardless.
halle berry has an hourglas figure at 34-21-35. see the difference?
Dear Erik,
I am curious to know what exactly constitues an hourglass figure is it just the bust hip and wasit ratio or is there something more and if so what?
Erik,
I have very broad shoulders, but i dnt know if my hips are narrow. They seem narrow because of my shoulders. I'm 18 and I was wondering if my hips would still become wider. I think I have baby fat in my arms and my waist, and I don't have a very feminine body.
Kristin: It is highly unlikely that a young-adult Halle Berry had a 21-inch waist. Raquel Welch a Mexican? A young Raquel Welch had a reported waist measurement close to 23 inches and she was a few inches taller than Laurie. Please get your facts correct.
Laurie: Your physique is curvy and does not appear to be masculine based on your description. On the other hand, I am reluctant to describe it as an hourglass figure because of your 27-inch waist. Compare your physique to Maria McBane’s, whose pictures I posted here and here. At 5-foot-3, 19-year-old Maria McBane had reported measurements of 36D-22-36, i.e., an hourglass figure, which is evident from her pictures. You do not have to post your pictures here; just email them to me after cutting out/blurring your face; they will be only seen by me, not posted anywhere. Anyway, please note that an hourglass figure is not an absolute requirement for attractiveness/femininity. Once again, notwithstanding lower front-view WHRs, the women in Table 1 look overall less feminine than those in Table 2 above.
Samantha: An hourglass figure is literally approximating an hourglass in front view, i.e., having prominent breasts, sufficiently wide and rounded hips, and a tiny waist plus small rib cage; see Maria McBane’s pictures referenced above and also these rough examples. The top and bottom of an hourglass have the same circumference, but an upstanding hourglass would look the same in different views if you rotate it about its vertical axis, whereas this is not true of a human figure. Therefore, it is not necessary to have same bust and hip measurements in order to have an hourglass figure. A 5-foot-6 woman that is 34D-23-36 would have a more dramatic hourglass look than a 5-foot-6 woman with a 36C-24-36 physique.
Anon: Your hips will become wider. Broad shoulders by themselves are not a shortcoming with respect to attractiveness, which is assessed by overall looks.
umm--u need to get ur facts straight. ---where do u think she got her lovely tan from???
http://www.hispaniconline.com/magazine/2003/april/CoverStory/
"Becoming Raquel
After a 40-year career as a sex symbol, Raquel Welch has found her true identity.
By Sandra Márquez
Raquel Welch, one of the world’s most recognizable faces, began her career in Hollywood in the ’60s, when Marilyn Monroe was the gold standard of beauty and studio executives tried to persuade the young “exotic” to change her name and lighten her olive complexion and brown hair.
At home, growing up as Raquel Tejada in the affluent San Diego suburb of La Jolla, she confronted another, silent form of white-washing. Her Bolivian-born father, Armando, an engineer who fell in love with America’s promise of modernity, did not speak of his heritage or allow Spanish to be spoken at home.
After a 40-year career as an international sex symbol, a movie star in films ranging from The Three Musketeers to Legally Blonde and as a Broadway performer, Welch, now 62, paused a few years ago to piece together her true identity. She needed answers to help explain her father’s behavior.
Sitting at home, surrounded by family photographs, she spoke candidly about this journey into memory—and her real life trip last August to her father’s birthplace that helped her recover her buried Latin roots."
these are here measurements when she is not in a girdle---
measurements 37D-26-36. the 23 waists from the days they girdled her in. its like how supposedly bridget bardot had a 19 inch waist---only with a girdle. secondly halle berry is def. more slim waisted. 36C-22-37 (Source: Celebrity Sleuth magazine) is her measurements when she is more out of shape. for the role in catwoman is was 34c/d-21-35, again according to celebrity sleuth and a host of publications. they love to brag on her stats.
Erik:
I appreciate your grouping together these various studies and this page does indeed address the WHR confound concisely.
All things being EQUAL, it seems like a low WHR is considered the most attractive among most people, but it is obviously just part of a total "beauty package" that includes waist size, hip size, weight, overall femininity, and other diverse factors. Therefore, a woman with a low WHR is not necessarily more attractive than one with a more average WHR (perhaps within certain confines) and there is no hard and fast rule about WHR as it pertains to attractiveness.
To that end, I asked a couple of my male "lifetime heterosexual" friends to look at three photos on this site...and they did seem more than willing to critique photos of naked women!
Two women stood out in my mind as having dramatic WHRs...almost shockingly so...Miss Sweden on your Skinny Fashion Models page..and Marika, one of your Attractive Women. I had them compare those two women with Angelina Valinurova, whom I found to be very average in the WHR category. Both men ranked Angelina as more attractive, due mainly to breast size, legs, and a cuter face overall: That's not to say they wouldn't prefer a more dramatic and lower WHR in Angelina..only that Angelina's other features trumped the hourglass figures of the other two women in this particular evaluation.
Kristin: I have my facts straight about Raquel Welch. She was born in the U.S. to an American mother of Irish ancestry and a father from Bolivia. How does this make her a Mexican? Judging by her face shape, her father probably had substantial European ancestry, though I haven’t seen his picture. I have heard that Raquel’s father was Jewish, i.e., someone possessing a notable Southern European element, which could be the factor making a sizable contribution to the olive complexion of Raquel. I doubt that Raquel has more than a small contribution from Native Americans in her or it would show in her face.
Halle Berry at about 5-foot-7 and looks like this and this is unlikely to have had a 21-inch waist. On the other hand, the magazine that you have mentioned cited a 26-inch waist when Raquel was 43-years-old. The waist size of a young-adult Raquel, prior to childbirth, needs to be considered, and it was easily in the neighborhood of 23 inches. Anyway, the reported measurements of these actresses vary; their pictures are more valuable for judgment, and the front-view waist-hip proportions of Raquel look more feminine than an age-matched Halle’s.
Sandy: I, too, find Angelina Valinurova overall more appealing than Marika and the Swedish beauty queen Caroline Zonath; in my view of the physiques of these women, Zonath’s slenderness counts against her and Marika’s [a little too much] muscle and bone mass counts against her.
Erik,
why what is wrong with the 27 inch measurment of my waist? it is 9 inches less than my breast size isnt thta what is require dto have an hourglass figure?
Erik,
what would you describe my physique as? am i a triangle? oval? what shape is my body?
Laurie: Nothing is wrong with a 27-inch waist on a 5-foot-3 frame. It is just that for a dramatic hourglass effect, the body in between the breasts and hips needs to be narrow, as in the example of Maria McBane above. Shapes such as triangles and ovals do not really apply to a description of the overall physique, and with same-circumference breasts and hips plus a narrower waist, your physique is closer to an hourglass rather than a pear- or apple-shaped body. As Kristin has already noted, your physique from the perspective of dress designers is an hourglass physique; after all, most dresses are not supposed to be skin tight. Your physique description is that of a curvaceous woman, and you should consider yourself to have an hourglass physique. My emphasis on having a narrow mid-section is in the context of high standards with respect to feminine beauty.
Your reluctant to describe it as an hourglass figure because of the 27inch waist however at the same time however from the perspective of dress designers is hourglass and you say i should consider myself too have an hourglass figure but not in the context of high standards. How small does the waist have to be and on what basis to do you come to this conclusion?
Erike,
I gain alot of weight around my stomach, thighs and waist area would this likely change the shape of my body? can againing weight change the shape of your body?
Erik,
Alot of what you have said about not having to have the exact same bust and hip measurments to have an hourglass figure i.e your example of how a woman of 5"6 with more unequal bust and hip measurments would have a more dramatic hourglass look to that of a woman with the same height but with exact bust and hip measurments clearly highlights how deceptive the whole issue of apperances is.
Laurie: In the context of high standards, for your height, your waist should not be exceeding 24 inches, and should preferably be 22-23 inches. Look at Maria McBane again. Does your physique look like hers? Anyway, you should not be concerned if you do not meet high standards; most women don’t.
Anon: Appearances can indeed be deceptive, but what you mention isn’t an example of deception. If you rotate an hourglass in the transverse plane, it will look the same from any angle, but this is not true of the human body, and since the hourglass approximation applies to front view only, it is thereby not necessary for waist and hip circumference to be the same.
Yes, gaining weight changes the shape of one’s body to some extent, depending on the weight gain, but there is definitely something known as unhealthy weight gain, which would be excessive fat in the abdominal region. When you gain body fat, if you have a tendency to disproportionately pack on fat in the abdominal region, then it would not be medically advisable to deliberately overeat in order to pack more fat into your breasts, buttocks and upper thigh region. The only solutions that I can think of require drastic measures such as taking estrogens (prescription drug; estrogens favor deposition of fat in breasts, buttocks and upper thighs) or surgically removing some of the fat tissue in your abdominal region so that overeating results in less gain of abdominal mass compared to what you would gain otherwise (I am not sure how successful this would be).
the one picture you used of halle displays the ablity to hide curves with airbrushing, studio lighting, and posing---as the media tries to fit even feminine women into the beauty standard designated by the fashion industry.
here is some help.
http://img44.imagevenue.com/loc478/th_93956_HQCB.net_Halle_Berry_09_122_478lo.jpg
http://img172.imagevenue.com/loc464/th_94004_HQCB.net_Halle_Berry_08_122_464lo.jpg
http://img168.imagevenue.com/loc329/th_03174_hqcb.net_Halle_Berry_3_122_329lo.jpg
http://img97.imageshack.us/img97/8553/11204874babychoux113200yv7.jpg
http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/5015/11204925babychoux113200tf4.jpg
if you took into consideration how much thinner tshe is than raquel or most other curvy women, her waist line would make sense. while some of your information is interesting, you lack the knowledge of a woman's proportions that a actual woman would know,. as a side note, the reason why on paper, fashion models have .7 whr is they lie--- they all lie. its an industry standard. i know girls who did runway. in person, some are shaped JUST LIKE MEN. they need the hips taken in to fit into women's jeans. they actually are shaped more like 33-27-34. its an industry standard, but what counts is that they can fit into a eu34---which in certain high-end lines, means a 28 inch waist anyway. balenciaga is a great example.
also, by dressmaking standards a hourglass figure has ATLEAST A 10 INCH DIFFERENCE. PROBABLY MORE LIKE 13.
Erik
you still did not answer my question on what basis do you come to this conclusion? what factual evidence? is it just a case of a 24 inch waist looks more like an hourglass figure?
Erik
when im slim as in very slim my waist measures around 25 inches however the more weight i gain my waist measurment slightly increases its now 26 inches so basically what your saying is the dramaticness of an hourglass figure can be changed through weight gain or weight loss ofcourse the physical bpody sturcture itself not being able to change.
Kristin: You mentioned that Halle Berry had a 21-inch waist in the movie Catwoman. Now that I have cited two pictures of her from this movie, you say that airbrushing, studio lighting and posing tricks have been used to make her look less feminine. How do you know this? And why would someone do this? The comic character that the movie is based on is supposed to have a very feminine physique. For some strange reason the director cast a non-white woman as Catwoman, but why would anyone want to make her look less feminine? The small pictures you cited are too obscure, and in the big ones it looks like a corset is being used to squeeze her mid-section. Regarding the stated waist measurements of fashion models, there may be an unwritten industry rule to lie in a specified manner, but unless there is proof, this will remain mere speculation; these women may not have narrow waists in front view, but in side view they are very narrow because of little body fat.
Laurie: I already gave you a basis: Maria McBane’s physique. Your physique is unlikely to look as dramatic as hers given her 5-inch smaller waist circumference. Obviously, a narrower mid-section will present a more notable hourglass effect.
Anon: The extent of body is fat is obviously relevant to presenting a feminine look. Gaining an inch on the waist is not a problem if you correspondingly gain an appreciable amount of fat in your breasts and other places relevant to femininity.
Erik
Maria mcbanes figure looks normal to me, nothing dramitic about it. Perhaps its because a too narrow waist has the opposite effect it is supposed to have i.e reduce femininity? I mean her waist may look slim and the phsyique and curves may be more noticble but if the waist looks too slim the look would be too fragile, wouldnt a thicker waist measument give a more dramatic look than a too slim waist?
Hello.
I found this entry to be interesting since I just officially measured myself for the first time today (my prom is coming up and I needed to shop for a dress).
Anyways, I am 17 years old, and I have more of a small and petite figure. I'm 5'1, and weigh somewhere between 87 to 91 pounds, as it fluctuates a lot. I measured myself today but I'm not exactly sure if I got the correct measurements since I used a measuring tape that's for constructing, and not one of those cloth ones that are typically used when measuring your body. I was also unsure if you were supposed to measure loosely or tightly?
Well these were my measurements I got: 30-23-31.
Just out of curiosity.. would that be considered more rectangular or hourglass? I did the calculations and my waist to hip ratio is about 0.74. I would say I was more in the middle, but I'm not too sure.
hello eric
i asked a question before, (the 18 yr old). sorry if it's trivial.
u said that my hips would get wider. do u mean that in the skeletal sense? or will just they become wider because more fat will be deposited there as i get older?
anon
Laurie: A waist that is somewhat thicker than a borderline-cartoonish small waist may look better, but Maria McBane’s waist isn’t too small, and her physique would look more dramatic if she had a smaller ribcage, i.e., had a 34D bust at age 19. It would be difficult to describe your physique as dramatic in the context of high-standards feminine beauty.
S.H.: Measurements using a tape measure should be snug, i.e., not too much slack or constriction should be involved. If you have an A-cup and not sufficiently wide hips, then your physique will be closer to a tubular look (what you call rectangular) than an hourglass, but if you have sufficiently wide hips, especially if you also have a B-cup, then it will be in the middle of a tubular physique and an hourglass physique. Good luck with your prom.
Anon: Your hips will become somewhat wider due to skeletal growth also.
Erik,
I gain alot of weight around the backs of my thighs and also the abdominal/stomach region. When I gain weight my thighs do get thicker and also my breast size does slightly increase so if i gained alot of weight I would like to know will this incease the dramaticness of an hourglass figure if say in the waist region the waist size doesnt not dramitically increase in size i.e the upper and lower parts of the bodies gain extra weight but the waist size does gain weight but not as much would this not make a more prominent hourglass figure? In such instances ands in general how much does an hourglass figure look depend more on weight that on just a basic skeletol structure? because i presonalyl believe that weight gain and loss does play a huge part in the look than just skeltol sturcture alone.
Samantha: Whether it would be advisable to gain fat in the abdominal region in order to also gain fat elsewhere and make your breasts and buttocks more prominent depends on your physique, and I don’t know how it looks. For instance, compare woman 1 to woman 2 and woman 3. Heterosexual men strongly attracted to woman 1 will often not be strongly attracted to woman 3, and vice versa. I prefer woman 1 to woman 2 and woman 3 because a tiny waist is more important to me than large breasts. Additionally, unless you are slender, weight gain may diminish your appeal. It is difficult to advise you without looking at your physique.
Erik,
Yes I am slender and would like to gain weight in order to look and also feel internally better. My question was if i gain alot of weight and most goes on the backs of my thighs and around the breast area but the waist area is not dramatically effected would this kind of weight gain change an hourglass apperance in any dramatic respect? would it look better? My waist at its slimest can be around 24 inches but at its normal is around 25 and as i gain weight especially in the abdominal area it can measure 26 inches and over.
Erik,
As you address the bodys physical structure relating to femininity.What is your opinion of the ideas about the relationship of plumpness and fleshyness to feminity.
Samantha: Women are fleshier/plumper in terms of body fat than men, but the range of body fat level that would appeal to most men is a subset of the medically normal range; look at the diagrams in this study and note the look most appealing to men in the age range you are most interested in. If you are a white female, you would be best advised to keep your BMI in the low twenties; the BMI is the weight in kilograms divided by the square of the height in meters. If you are a tall woman, then acquiring a 26-inch waist would not be a problem if you correspondingly gain an appreciable amount of fat in the bust and hips, but stick with 25 if you are short. Questions like yours are best answered after a photographic evaluation. You should consider emailing me your pictures, obscuring/cutting out the face if you wish.
Erik
What i wanted to know was if i gain weight and my waist generally stays the same size but i gain weight on my thighs and breasts alot then would this make a more dramatic hourglass figure look?
Hi
I am really fascinated by all this! What I was wondering though: for the bust measurement is it standard to add the 4-5 inches as is widely practiced in bra fitting? Or is the measurement taken straight from the body? I have always wondered this!
Dear erik,
What do you think of the past Miss India Aishwarya rai supposedly the most beautiful woman in the world. Is she masculine or feminine and what about her body shape?
Samantha: Given that you have described your physique as slim, if you gain weight such that your waist size doesn’t change much but you gain an appreciable amount of body fat in your breasts, hips and thighs, then yes, you will acquire a more dramatic hourglass look.
Designer: A bust circumference measurement would simply measure the chest circumference at the level where the breasts are fullest. However, a bust measurement with respect to finding the right bra size is a different matter since it requires the measurement of rib cage circumference; here is the detailed procedure.
Barry: Aishwarya Rai looks decent, but she is not an example of feminine beauty. With respect to masculinity-femininity, she is normal. Her face may look feminine in some pictures, mostly from her twenties and especially if they are airbrushed, but her physique is not feminine.
To see that this site is hosted by a guy gives me the creeps!
Ladies, what are you doing? Listening to a straight guy tell you that instead of being a size 0 and trying to look like an adolescent boy for the gay guys, you don't possess feminine beauty unless you have a WHR of 7 and a certain face! Hour glass figures are about as rare as a healthy size 0!
It's one thing to know men's opinion. Like on AskMen.com, it's fun to see men's opinions -- but this site is flat-out scary! This is no opinion, this is a prescription!
We may like men, but we don't need men -- gay or straight -- to "bless" our beauty or put us in these impossible boxes! Here's the first clue --if a guy even starts talking like this, run!
CREEPY!
Erik
I am surprised you say aishwarya rais physique is not feminine it looks feminine enough from most of the pictures I have seen of her unless they have been aisbrused to such a degree to change her phsyique too as i have never seen her in real life.
thanks erik that is what i wanted to know
Angela: What is creepy about this site and why would it be less creepy if women were behind it? Read carefully, the alleged ideal WHR of 0.7 is critiqued above. If feminine beauty is not common, this is how it is in nature; I am not responsible for it. Don’t blame me for conveying this message. There is no prescription here, but an educational attempt geared toward bringing more feminine and attractive women in the limelight. Besides, no guy would talk to a woman in real life as in the article above; I certainly haven’t.
Barry: Look carefully at Aishwarya Rai’s pictures, especially shoulder-width to hip-width ratio, width of rib cage, flattened backside, etc. She is not feminine. I could illustrate by posting her pictures, but it would open this entry to a flood of abuse by her fans, and there are a lot of them! Send me an email and I could email relevant pictures to you.
I had a look at some more pictures of her erik and i see what you mean she has a very odd shape figure
Then you're fine with women creating an identical website prescribing what size, length, circumference, circumcized or uncircumcized, bent or straight and proper head shape your penis should be, and proclaim that as THE definition of masculine? And if you don't meet the criteria, you are not masculine, and then state we are just conveying the message of what masculine is according to nature?
Yeah right!
thanks erik. i thought that the bust measurement you were talking about was the ribcage measurement, rather than the actual circumference where the bust is the fullest.
on a side point i think its interesting how many people take this site personally, when to me it just seems like an objective observation. from a young age, i always knew i was 'sexy' but that i wasnt 'beautiful' like the fashion models - i always knew there was a difference and i think this site has an interesting perspective on that.
i think though, that the reasoning that fashion models have masculine features to their physique is because it is the gay fashion designer's preference is not the whole story. in a photo, masculine features give a more striking angles and more interesting shapes, generally looking more dramatic than women with feminine features. obtaining a striking and dramatic looking image is the aim of the fashion industry, which is more about making a statement, or making art rather than about attractive women. many top designers and model agencies openly comment that the industry is more interested in androgenous or 'unlikely'/'unconventional' beauty because it is more interesting, there can be debate about it. fashion, like any kind of art, is about exploring and questioning the world, and in fashion we see a lot of questions being asked about the nature of beauty, just like how this site points out.
i think that the point is that whether you are a feminine woman (closer to hourglass) or one who has more masculine features (like the fashion models) is not a point of one is good and one is bad!! if you are a masculine woman you can still be more pretty or beautiful than a feminine woman!! theres good points to both, just like there is bad points to both. the sooner we accept that, the sooner we become happy with what we've got and the easier it is to accept our differences and celebrate our uniqueness.
Angela: I am totally fine with women coming up with a comparable site telling men that they are not masculine unless their phallus conforms to a certain size and shape. I could even help these women by directing them to literature about masculinity-femininity in men. The site would also be more interesting on one important count, namely that it is more challenging to figure out who is a more masculine man in a number of cases. After all, an overall less masculine man could end up with larger muscles than an overall more masculine man by regularly lifting heavy weights or taking anabolic androgenic steroids. Human growth hormone supplementation can even make facial bones grow so as to add a more masculine look to the face without making the supplement taker more masculine. In addition, beyond a certain amount of testosterone exposure, male fetuses may end up developmentally disturbed and manifest a strange mix of hypermasculine, feminine, hypomasculine and normally masculine features. Interesting, isn’t it? You have my blessings to set up a site on masculinity among males.
Designer: Is the masculinization of high-fashion models partly explained by it resulting in more interesting and dramatic looks? Who finds the resulting fashion imagery more “interesting” and “dramatic”? Certainly not most people, a number of whom are disturbed by the looks of high-fashion models. “Unlikely/unconventional beauty” comes in many forms that will never be seen as the norm among high-fashion models; why does the standard of unconventionality bear an uncanny resemblance to the looks of adolescent boys? Anyway, you are right that a more masculine woman can be more attractive than a more feminine woman in some cases.
Erik: purely from an artistic point of view the shapes of faces in fashion and cosmetic ads using female models with masculine features give angles that are interesting. like you said on some pages of this site, the faces of feminine women are more rounded, with cheekbones not as prominent. this may be more attractive, but for many feminine looking faces means there are less chiselled angles for the photographer to capture. to me it is the difference between taking a photo of a fluffy lamb which may be very cute but is not as striking or interesting visually as a crocodile or armadillo.
i agree that the appearance of some current fashion models is disturbing, but i am wondering why you think that other forms of unconventional beauty will never be the norm in the fashion industy. all it takes is for someone to see something in a new way, and to take that look and build it into something saleable.
on that point, i have to wonder if the female models look masculine because they are selling to a primary audience of women. i have heard it commented that many male models are slightly feminine so maybe this is because they are being marketed to men. in fact i saw a male model in a magazine the other day that was strikingly female, so much so that it was almost a shock to see it. but then, if something is shocking our eyes are drawn to it, and we remember it and isnt this what sales and advertising is all about? i certainly found the look of the male model in question disturbing, but then when i think about fashion i see it as a make believe world, not like the real world in any way, it is more like an out of reach fantasy which represents the desirability and perfection of the product. maybe it does represent a warped reality where men look like women and women look like men, but i think this demonstrates how valuable the fashion industry can be in exploring our perceptions of the world around us.
i also have to wonder what would happen to the fashion industry if purely feminine models were used. given the low percentage of true hourglass figures in the population would more women be alienated by truly feminine models than those that are currently used?
Designer: Fashion models are selling clothes, and their facial features are not important in ads. Even if a chiseled look to a face is required, one could find women with this look that are not more than slightly masculine, but gay fashion designers will usually desire a greater level of masculinity. As long as the fashion industry is dominated by homosexual men, why would the industry be switching toward an alternative form of unconventional looks? The skinny and masculine unconventional looks reflect the aesthetic preferences of the dominant gay fashion designers, not looks that help sales. Men and women judge female attractiveness similarly; see the references in this comment. Therefore, it is surely not the case that the looks of high-fashion models reflect the fact that they are selling to women. Also, in controlled laboratory settings, exposure to images of skinny high-fashion models has generally been found to worsen the body image of women. What is the bright idea behind using models with looks at sharp odds with the preferences of women in general and also looks that disturb many women? There is no bright idea; it is simply a matter of gay fashion designers getting away with their aesthetic preferences because they dominate the fashion business.
I know that there are some effeminate male models, but it is the gay fashion designers again, a number of whom find adolescent boys appealing, but such models are not likely to become very common anytime soon since the gays wouldn’t be able to get away with it. If feminine women were used as high-fashion models, whereas some women would not be pleased, appreciation for feminine beauty is intrinsically harbored by most women, i.e., they would be much less disturbed than by the use of skinny high-fashion models.
erik,
i disagree that facial features are not important in ads. it is often said that the face is what sells.
i agree with the bulk of this site, i think you have identified an interesting and significant perspective on the appreciation of feminine beauty, but i want to know why do you complain about the domination of the fashion industry by gay men? many women will vouch that gay men are some of the best people to go shopping with because of their eye for fashion and style. i think it is salient to note that fashion is not solely about making oneself attractive to men (though this might have been the case in the 40s and 50s, when models had hourglass physiques to show off feminine styled clothing) but it is about creating 'a look'.
i think your site is valuable in helping people realise that the fashion industry is not a showcase of feminine beauty and as such helping women not to be alienated by the models, but i think it is us who need to change our perceptions of the fashion industry, rather than the fashion industry that needs to change. the fashion industry is not the one that says 'you should look like this', it is people's own minds that say that. couture is about creating a garment, gown or look of interest and beauty, not about dressing up beautiful women. the fashion industry never claimed to be about the most beautiful women in the world - it is and always will be about the most beautiful clothes in the world.
maybe the trend towards using masculinised models is down to the growing acceptability of being openly gay rather than any sickness in society or the fashion industry. i think your problem with the industry misses the point and takes on a personal dimension at odds with the objectivity of the site. isnt it the craving to be like others rather than just being ourselves the real sickness here?
what is feminine is feminine but what is feminine will not necesserily be beautifull when you look at the final picture i.e when you come to the final conclusion about beauty.
I mean what good is an hourglass figure with an ugly face and what good is an ugly body with a beautifull face.
exactly whats the big deal about a curvy body if the rest or the whole of ya is ugly!
James / Andrew: Overall looks are important to attractiveness and being attractive on one count but unattractive on others will diminish overall attractiveness, but this entry is specifically concerned with waist-hip proportions, not overall looks. Sex hormones have a global effect, and a woman with a feminine physique will also tend to have a feminine face, and facial femininity is a powerful correlate of facial beauty in women. In other words, if the body is beautiful, then the face will also tend to be beautiful though this is far from guaranteed.
Designer: The face is not necessarily unimportant in ads, but we are specifically talking about ads selling clothes. If you were to ask fashion industry reps to explain the odd looks of high-fashion models, they will give you the “clothes hangar” excuse. Facial features are not very important for “clothes hangars.” Besides, please take a look at the faces of the current top-50 high-fashion models and ask yourself if they have the facial features that would more strongly persuade women in general to buy clothing.
The answer why I have a problem with the gay domination of the fashion industry is that this is responsible for 1) the skinny and masculine norm among high-fashion models, which prompts numerous girls and women to diet unnecessarily and thereby undermine their health, fertility and fecundity, and 2) the absence of feminine beauty in the limelight; I have explained the details on the FAQ page, in the answer to this question.
I agree that the purpose of women’s fashion is not solely to make women more attractive to men, something that need not be relevant at all, but the typical looks of high-fashion models cannot be justified by any need other than the aesthetic preferences of gay fashion designers. Do you seriously believe that the use of feminine and attractive women cannot create a “look”?
You are mistaken about the fashion industry never claiming to be about the most beautiful women in the world. The industry primarily uses models that gay fashion designers regard to be the most beautiful in the world. For instance, homosexual designer Tom Ford has called boyish Natalia Vodianova the most beautiful woman in the world. Didier Grumbach, head of the Chambre Syndicale, the body that governs French fashion, has said, "Let the health ministry take care of health problems, and let fashion designers choose models according to their taste."
Regarding the fashion industry not saying “you should look like this,” here are some relevant quotes:
Quote:
Of course, the growing acceptability of homosexuality has allowed gay fashion designers to increasingly bring, in the second half of the twentieth century, the norm among high-fashion models closer to their aesthetic preference for an adolescent-boy look. There is no societal sickness implicated; people are not sick for wanting something regarded as highly desirable, as in designer clothing. Girls who come to believe that given the high status of high-fashion models, surely people in general find their looks to be of aesthetic merit or these models wouldn’t end up occupying the highest status among female models are not at fault. It is very clear who are at fault, and pertaining to sickness, I will leave it to you to figure out how normal it is for men to be attracted to adolescent boys.
I used to have the hourglass shape. My waist to hip ratio used to be a 0.7 My friends told me so. But these supernatural forces said they made my figure less attractive in a miracle. Now my waist to hip ratio is a 0.8- which sucks! My waist is now 28 inches and my hips are 35 inches. That is not curvy anymore and it's less feminine. I am furious! Some say it's because I gained weight but I only gained 8 lbs. And besides I think the waist to hip ratio doesn't change when women gain weight. For example- a woman with 24 inch waist/36 inch hips and a woman with 28 inch waist/40 inch hips are equally attractive because they have the same waist to hip ratio. A 0.7 waist to hip ratio means the waist is 70% if the hips. When women gain weight they gain weight in the same proportions. I am 5ft 0 in tall and 110 lbs by the way. What do you think happened? I think this change in my body wasn't natural- a miracle from the supernatural forces made this change.
When women gain weight their waist to hip ratio doesn't change because they gain weight in the same proportions. So I think gaining weight doesn't cause a women to lose her curves. But I lost my curves. That's why I think this change in my figure isn't natural and the supernatural forces changed my figure in a miracle.
Anonymous: Use a different pseudonym. I believe you are joking. Anyway, it is a mistake to believe that gaining weight does not alter WHR. When food intake exceeds the body’s needs, women vary with respect to the proportion of body fat deposited in the abdominal region and the hips region. In addition, WHR by itself is not sufficient to characterize the attractiveness of the waist-hip region as the discussion above clearly shows. If you increase the size of both the waist and hips and keep WHR constant, the woman will appear to be heavier and beyond a certain point, this will undermine her attractiveness. WHR tends to increase with childbirth and aging. You have not provided any information about your age or how long it took for your WHR to increase by 0.1 or whether this increase occurred after childbirth.
Erik,
i am around 5'5 and i was wondering what are the ideal waist and hip measurememnts for this height?
i mean for a feminine physique.
After reading the entry, you shouldn’t be asking for ideal waist-hip measurements since the waist or hip measurements could vary by a couple of inches and you would still overall look as good or as bad depending on the rest of you, i.e., how it all fits together. If you have a body mass index between 20-21 and the difference between your waist and hip circumferences is 10 inches or greater, you would look great, but depending on the rest of your looks, you may still look great even if this difference is 8 inches.
sorry i meant that in relative terms. an attractive 5'5 woman surely cant have 40 inch hips, this would look rather disproportionate, even with an hourglass shape. so what measurement would be ideal for such a height? i suppose taste differs. what would be you ideal if i may ask?
Erik,
what if you have two or say even a group of "overall feminine looking" women, on what basis do you decided which one is the most attraactive over the other given that they are overall feminine, does it not beconme a subjective decision as in your choice is determined by simply by what you feel when you "look" at them? and therefore isnt beauty on some level simply subjective?
Please do not use “anon.” I already mentioned body mass index (BMI). A 5-foot-5 woman with 40-inch hips is unlikely to have a BMI in the 20-21 range. Within the aforementioned BMI range and for a given waist-hip differential, your hips could vary within a couple of inches and you would look equally good or equally bad depending on your overall looks. My personal preferences are not in terms of measurements but in terms of what appeals to the eye.
Andy: If I had to pick the best looking among a group of women, I would base the choice on my personal preferences, just as others would, and there would obviously be disagreement between the raters, i.e., individual differences in personal preferences do matter, but most people will rate the women similarly, and based on studies reporting the central tendencies of the preferences of the public, it would not be difficult to describe why a particular woman in a group of feminine women will be considered most attractive by most people.
erik
I under stand what your saying so it is to some degree subjective you can say in the final assessment, so there is by what you are saying some common notion which may be innate in us that we prefer or rate one woman over the other in terms of attractiveness.
Erik you wrote above in one of the responses about the actress aishwarya rai "With respect to masculinity-femininity, she is normal. Her face may look feminine in some pictures, mostly from her twenties and especially if they are airbrushed, but her physique is not feminine" so if aishwaryas physique isnt feminine then in what sense is she normal with respect to masculinity-femininity?
Anil: Aishwarya Rai’s physique is normal with respect to masculinity-femininity in the sense that it is about average, neither feminine nor masculine.
Erik
How feminien is the model daniella lloyd?
i have not been able to find it - but is it commonly accepted on this site that a whr of 0.68 is ok but anything above is pushing it? i have a whr of 0.71 which im not happy with my measurements are dd38-29-41... dont you think it has more to do with your waist size - i know if i lose weight i will likely keep the weight on me breaks going down proably a half to a cup, but i will probably lose my weight off waist minimally - i have large ribs to some degree but then again have areasonable amount of weight all over... i want to lose weight but think going to the gym may improve me more.
aria giovanni has a whr of 0.71. and she is exceptionally curascious - unlike myself
In regards to the hourglass figure, so long as you're not carrying excess fat (and you wear a B/C/D cup bra) with hips at least 34 inches, you'll attract men.
Having hips a few inches wider isn't all that significant, so long as you're overall proportional. It may even exaggerate the hourglass shape, just as having a slimmer waist would. But, you don't have to be skin and bones -- men like a little cushioning. Women naturally store fat, it is a sign of fertility.
The ideal measurements are 36-24-36, but slight variations aren't extremely noticeable (even 40 inch hips) so long it falls generally within this range, and you're a healthy weight.
When any of the numbers get too high you'll just look overweight. At that point it's time to reevaluate your life choices and consider diet and exercise. Not for the sake of men but rather for your own health and well being.
so can any female with a whr 0.71 tell me if they think they are curvascious
Joe: If you are talking about Daniella Lloyd the fashion model, then she looks masculine.
Susan: There is no thumb rule of a 0.68 WHR threshold within this site. Beware of reported measurements of other women. They are not necessarily reliable. Crude measurements alone don't help. If you are a short or average height woman, then you will look heavy, but could look reasonably good if you are tall and with the same circumferential measurements.
Shawn: I disagree that 36-24-36 is somehow the ideal. High-fashion models are supposed to conform to 34-24-34, and are often close, yet I don't need to describe how feminine their physiques look typically. Lisa Welch (see another picture) had reported measurements of 34-22-34 at around 5-foot-7 at the time of the photography, and her physique looks pretty feminine.
Erik
Daniella lloyd ex Miss britain/England Model.
Also please respond to the other comment left by me in the other part of this site.
Erik,
In reference to the above comment namely "Fashion models that dont look bad" and "No comment needed".
SHAT BEGAN AS INTEREST IN THIS SITE AND SPENDING TOOO MUCH TIME ON IT..
I have concluded the author of this site is pedo philish
often showing very young looking models(porn) AND DESCRIBING THEM AS 'CUTE"
ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwe
Erik: You sound like a pervert. Anyway i'm 38-27-38 and i consider myself an hour...
erik: and why would i call you a pervert? probably b/c what kind of a guy (or a girl...maybe you're pretending, who knows?) asks a girl to post nude pictures of herself, regardless of cutting off her face? obviously she'd feel uncomfortable about it. or maybe you're gay, you wouldn't care...:S
laurie: yeah, you ARE an hourglass ... i don't what this loser talks about - 'high standards'. when i'm thinner, my waist goes down not my bust or hips... i was 25 last year but i don't think i'd compromise my health to fit the absolute 'ideal'. in past history, most women wore corsets, hence, their freakishly narrow ribcages ... and since we're becoming healthier now, the waist size is bound to go a little up.
oh btw erik the creepy pedophile/homosexual who's prolly thinking of getting transplants himself: ummmm, you keep emphasizing on the fact that tall women are heavy. well, you loser, short women are biologically more advantageous! i'm tall and all my tall friends agree! all the short girls get the really tall guys! think why that may be true? btw, you're probably a short guy with a tiny dick, which is why you're so hung up on women and making them feel bad. get yourself a therapist...
I just wanted to point out that WHR is also affected by a woman's age, as women tend to get thicker around the middle as they get older. I know this because it happened to me. My WHR at this weight used to be .7 but now at age 49 it is more like .74. Also, the statistics indicating that women's WHR has generally increased might be affected by the increasing age of the population. More of us are living longer these days than we were in the 1950s. Also, as my mother never let me forget, a tiny waist was highly sought after in the 50's extending back to at least the latter part of the 19th century. A lot of women achieved a desirable WHR via the use of corsets and waist cinchers, NOT diet an exercise. It was not so common for women in any great numbers to exercise to maintain their figures until Jack Lalanne came along on TV.
Erik how small should the waist of a girl who is 5'1 be?
im 5'1 90lbs slim (i have tiny bone structure) build and the following measuremnts
32 B-C chest (the cup size depends on if i put on weight being 94 pounds will make me a c cup for some reason but being 87-90 will make me a b)
I have a 22-23 inch waist
and 33.8 inch hips with a rather full bum
would that put me hourglass? should i have a smaller waist for my height?
the author of this site is a fucking moron with revolting taste in women. maybe one day when i no longer have a life and a functioning relationship, i'll dedicate an obsessive, meticulous site to prove why my subjective evaluation of his taste is the right one.
As far as I know to be an hourglass figure, the waist/hip ratio should be less than 0.75 and the bust and hips (measured around the bum) should be around the same size. Just because a woman's waist/hip ratio is not dead on 0.7 doesn't mean she is not an hourglass. It's only once they go over 0.75 that they become more straight in body shape.
I've got a 0.68 waist/hip ratio but my bust is several inches smaller than my hips and my BMI is 23...guess I'm not fitting in with the author's idea of the perfect female body...oh well.
That means you are a small hourglass shape. If you gain weight you can fill out.
erik, i'm really intrigued by this. is there anything, short of plastic surgery, that can be done to basically enhance your hourglass figure? or is it just something you're born with? as an adolescent(about 13) i had scoliosis so bad i had to have surgery. it fixed my crooked spine, but left me with kind of a lopsided figure. one side of my body has a nice curved in waist, while the other side is straight like a rectangle. so it leaves me with kind of a bigger waist than i think i'd ought to have, because from the side i'm very slender. anyway, my waist measurements as of now are about 36c, 29, 38. yeah, i know, not very impressive measurements. but is there anything to be done about it? i got my body fat percentage checked and i'm at 27%, which is a bit higher than ideal.
Joe: I don’t know who this ex-Miss Britain Daniella Lloyd is. If you have pictures of her, then there is enough information within this site for you to judge her femininity, and if you can’t, then you should post links to her pictures. I don’t have the time to be searching for her pictures.
Jill: I haven’t asked any reader to post nude pictures of her.
Ronnie: An increase in WHR over the years has been seen in all age groups from late teens to the elderly. The reason is increasing prevalence of overweight or obesity.
Statik: How small should your waist be is not the right question to be asking. Your waist measurement could vary by a few inches and not make much of a difference to your overall attractiveness. Your measurements sound fine and your figure appears to be an hourglass figure.
Dee: The definition of an hourglass figure you stated was that the bust and hip measurements should be the same. This definition is used by clothes designers, but not relevant to this site. If you turn an hourglass around, it looks the same from each side, but this is not true of the human body. In the human body, an hourglass figure applies to front view and hence circumferential measurements are not especially important. If you have a small rib cage, a small waist, prominent breasts and sufficiently wide hips, then even if your bust circumference is a few inches smaller than your hip circumference, you will have an hourglass figure, and nothing in your self-description rules out this possibility.
Liz: 27% body fat is not bad; avoid going over 35% body fat if you can, mainly by watching your diet. A 29-inch waist does not necessarily mean unimpressive figure since you could be a tall woman, and even if you are not, waist circumference by itself has a small impact on overall attractiveness. In your case, some kind of surgical correction would be helpful because it would not be solely cosmetic but have functional benefits too. Speaking of functional benefits, there should be corsets specifically intended to provide better postural support for asymmetric torsos while also enhancing looks, and you can expect a 2-inch or more reduction in waist circumference by wearing them on a regular basis, though going for a greater than 4-inch reduction would not be recommended.
get a life!!!!!!!
u got a thick waist...deal with it or loose weight!
"erik,erik,erik,erik this,erik that,erik,erik"
it doesnt matter if youre hourglass or not...your fckn annoyin and therefore not attractive!
How can you tell a 16 year old from a 22 year old apart? Both haven't aged much, and some teenagers have more wrinkles than older people, yet they still look younger? What is it exactly if you know? Also, what changes does the face make as a woman/girl matures. Some women say that they're faces have 'filled out' more, whatever that means, once they hit their thirites. Maybe they mean it gets more defined..?
Does the chin get squarer, bigger? Do the eyebrows raise or lower? Do lips get smaller, stay the same..? does the jaw get wider?? etc.
do some girls drastically change appearance over a few years in their teens? Say there's a girl who is 16, looks older, and throughout the years, she stays the same looking pretty much. Is it possible for someone who is 15 to all of a sudden at 17 start getting very different looking in the face?
Is the way the facial fat distributed much different? Also, some peope's face jiggle when I see them walking. I see it so often, and even people with thin faces have it. Is it skin or fat?
hi i was just wondering what shape i would be, im 5'6'' and a half and im 20 and my bust is 43inches, my waist is 34inches and my hips are 47inches but i think itd be a lot less because my butt sticks out a lot and doesnt make a lot of difference from the front..if that makes sense. so does this make me a pear? or something? help a brother out?
103 lbs:
[small A chest]
27 waist 33 hips am i a rectangle?
DS: 103lbs in my opinion is not enough weight to determine your body shape unless you are very short, like around 5'1. This is because hormones influence body shape a lot, and your hormones tell your body in which areas to store the fat. If you are a true rectangle, when you gain a bit of weight your hormones will tell your body to distribute the fat evenly. Hourglass for example have more fat distributed everywhere else besides their waists. Pear shapes have fat distributed on their lower body more than their upper body. Apple shapes get more fat distributed on their upper body rather than lower body.
DS: 103lbs in my opinion is not enough weight to determine your body shape unless you are very short, like around 5'1. This is because hormones influence body shape a lot, and your hormones tell your body in which areas to store the fat. If you are a true rectangle, when you gain a bit of weight your hormones will tell your body to distribute the fat evenly. Hourglass for example have more fat distributed everywhere else besides their waists. Pear shapes have fat distributed on their lower body more than their upper body. Apple shapes get more fat distributed on their upper body rather than lower body.
Erik,
At what age do your hormones start telling your body to put more fat in the stomach area rather than the hips and chest? I heard that women lose their shape when they age because of this. So if you were an hourglass, you will now be straighter, rather than curvy. My mom is almost 50. She still has a very obvious hourglass figure. She doesn't excercise or anything, just a bit. She takes dance with my dad. She does put weight on her stomach more often but she still maintains that hourglass shape. Does that mean I will most likely maintain my shape as well, or is she just not old enough for the effect to have taken place?
I think this is inaccurate bs, even scientifically. the beauty is in the eye of the beholder 100%, even if some biological measurements may lead us to this individual beauty.
but on the WHR thing; obviously men like some curves in women, but the matter of curviness is totally individual. a 0,63 waist is not at all better than a 0,76. women come in all forms and this is what makes people beautiful, in a 100% easthetic way. I´m an artist so I should know. some have large breasts, some have pretty smaller breasts with an apple form, some have pear-shaped midsize breasts etc etc..and they´re all sexy! some girls have broad shoulders and quite a big WHR like 0,78 but still look amazing. some are heavier and some are skinnier, and they are look pretty because you also have to consider volume and not just whr. volume, that is, which parts that catch your eye and make you relay on it, shapes is more important than WHR. and all women have different volume parts/shapes that are all beautiful. think which parts that catch light when shined on with a lamp in the dark.
also, a very small whr like 0,63 might just as well look unhealthy and not very pleasing. most girls have measurements around 0,74, and most girls are pretty whatever whr. everyone, especially if healthy and eating well, have beautiful and perfect bodies. this is unquestionable and the truth
My Waist-hip ratio is about 0.63. Would that be considred less attractice than 0.7 which apperently is ideal?
//Olivia
I agree Kristin. A woman can look athletic and still look sexy.
I believe it is the fat content that makes a big difference in attractiveness. Some women have thicker or more muscular bodies, but they maintain themselves in good shape and still know how to be feminine. Beyonce Knowles is a perfect example of a thick-bodied woman who maintains a healthy body (no tires of fat around the middle) and puts out an extremely sexy, feminine vibe.
My wife and I were talking about this very thing last night during a television show. There were some ladies in their early 20s who were good looking and had decent bodies. However, the noticeable fat around their waists was in stark contrast to the rest of their body. When I see a woman with a good body, but fat rings around their waist (especially in young individuals), it leads me to believe that the person is lazy and will only add more weight as time goes by, leading them down a path of health problems that come with slight or gross obesity. There are, of course, exceptions to every situation. But for most, in today's Obese USA, this is more the norm, than the occasional exception due to diabetes, missing thyroid, etc.
I think a woman should work to stay healthy by having an exercise routine and staying away from fast-food places. The exercise routine doesn't need to be heavy. It should actually be light, so that the person can enjoy doing it. If they feel the need, they can increase it as time goes on. Staying away from high grease, high fat foods will really help. There are tons of foods that are healthy and good. We just have to break the habit of eating pizza, hamburgers, fried chicken, etc.
i am 5'7.5, my bust is 32C, i hate 28 waist and 37 hips. does that make me hour glass?
i mean i have, not hate.
I am 5'6'' with a 42 inch bust 27 inch waist and a 42 inch hip circumferance. Does this make me an hourglass shape?
PS I know that the hip and bust sound rather large but i guess i am big boned in those areas because I have only a 19% body fat percentage. I am a DDD cup and a pants size 8/10.
My height is 5'6"
& I have a waist measurement of 24inches, & my hips are 33inches, & my bust is 32inches
& I have a .73 WHR, but I don't really understand what shape this makes my body.
Pear maybe??
Since my hips are bigger.
You sound like a wonderful shape! If you eat right and get enough exercise, you are perfect! Have fun and wear a bikini.
-Bob
erik,
i'm 5ft 3, my waist is 24 inches, my bust is 27 inches and my hips are 33 inches. this makes me a pear right?
Erik I like your site, just found out about it today.
I would like to point out a few things when gaining weight:
(1)weight gain can be due to fat or muscle, BUT it is even more important to know what muscle groups are being trained.
Deep Squats, Romanian Deadlifts, Lunges, and (high) step ups, build muscle in the lower body. Especially in the glute+hamstring area, and give a fullness to the thighs along its entire length.
Jogging on the treadmill is NOT lower body training. And machines do little and take too long compared to free weights.
(2)The TYPE of food the woman eats will also determine the type of fat she will carry on her.
Fats derived from a high-carb, low protein, low fat diet is the worst kind. It is very flabby and tends to sag easily. Worst still if the diet includes lots of simple carbs.
(3)Also important is the combination of muscle + fat cells on a woman's body.
For some reason, all the athletic women I know who carry considerable bodyfat still look better than slimmer non-athletic women.
This is becuase (I've noticed) the fat does not sag. This is especially true in glute/hip/thigh fat. It is my observation that athletic/muscular women who carry significant bodyfat do NOT have "Flabby/Soft" butts. This is because the butt does not loose its shape when moved around rapidly. And when it is squeezed there is pressure acting against the hand.
I measure 36-28-36, 5'2 and 125 lbs.
What is my shape?
I want to thank you very much for this page.
Yes, some things are more healthy, more attractive and desirable than others. Everything is not the same, things are different, and differences are healthy and desirable. It is important to realize and to accept that some varieties are more attractive, healthy and desirable than others.
What creates the polarity and the resultant attraction between the sexes are the differences. An androgynous world is not a desirable world, since it is the differences and the polarities that create attraction and bonding. The stronger the polarity and differences between the sexes, the more powerful and intense - and more satisfying - the bonding.
The differences in body shape between women and men, most strongly shown by the most feminine and beautiful women having a true hourglass shape with a swinging gait and a soft, curvaceous appearance to the whole body is not caused by fat deposits. It is caused by a feminine anatomy and skeletal structure. The reason why this shape is existing in the population is that it is attractive, so that it has been selected for. Because differences are functional and enhance attraction and bonding, they will continue to be selected for. There is nothing wrong with this, in the same way as there is nothing wrong in selecting a partner with other desirable qualities. Or for that matter, seek to develop good qualities within oneself. Some might feel that "it is a low proportion of all women who have this shape" or "it is wrong/unfair to say that something is more attractive and desirable." But Life is not about misunderstood human notions of "fairness." We may feel that it is not "fair" if someone is running faster than us or is better than us at this or that subject, but differences and competition is crucial to Nature - as is cooperation and interdependence. It may also be argued that the proportion of humans with what is defined as high intelligence is low, but does that make the quality "unfair" or less desirable? In fact, we enjoy our qualities because our forebears have selected for them. In that sense, we are all winners.
To honor, respect and love Nature's manifestations also means to honor, respect and love the best manifestations and be able to genuinely appreciate the highest quality. Nobody should be disappointed with him/herself, but that statement is no ground for rejecting the idea that we should have ideals. In subtle ways, healthy ideals enhance life, particularly in the long term. The feminine hourglass shape is such an ideal. We should all honor the feminine, soft and immensely beautiful curvaceous shapes and be thankful towards Nature for providing this beauty which certainly serves a purpose.
Again, thank you very much for your valuable and impressive work!
Per Inge Oestmoen.
Women with hourglass shapes are not necessarily being selected for. You have to consider the fact that nearly any woman that wants to bang someone and have kids can. This is because men in general will screw anything. Perhaps they wouldn't particularly choose the women they screw as life partners whom they would need to commit to. It doesn't matter. Once you screw someone you screw them and women these days are strong enough that they overall don't necessarily need to be dependent on the male to ensure their offsprings survival. Therefore, that offspring survives and the less-than-desirable genes are carried on.
So certain women are not being selected for. No one is dying out here and therefore no genes are dying out.
You can argue... Well, the most attractive men will select the most attractive women. Therefore, in a sense they ARE being selected for.
Well...
You have to take certain things into consideration. I am not convinced that the most attractive male and the most attractive female will produce the most attractive children. Erik claims on this site that masculine men should mate with feminine women. That's great and all, but in all honesty the offspring would result in not being as masculine as the male or as feminine as the female. Therefore, whether the offspring is male or female, they will not live up to the looks of their parents. I feel that it IS possible for masculine men and feminine women to have extremley attractive children. However, this would require them to have extremely specific features and genes to compensate for the hormonal problem in the equation. Therefore, offspring like this would be rare.
In my opinion chances are if you take a feminine woman and a kinda feminine guy or not very masculine guy, you will have more feminine female children and they will have an advantage over the female child from a very masculine man and a feminine woman.
Therefore, nature just sucks. Although from our perspective evolution is a climb and a positive things going into the direction of positiveness and sunshine and all... I doubt evolution has "perfected" us to the extent we so naivley believe. In addition looking around me evolution has stopped, is actually regressing, or is still going forward but taking a slightly different path related less to looks and more to qualities like humor, intelligence, etc.This isn't surprising considering now we can communicate and therefore judge each other on more than certain behaviors and physical appearance.
However, I don't believe that even in the old days sexual selection was as strong as scientists claim. Let's say that blue eyes were sexually selected for. Please do tell me, when we were cave men what kept the men from screwing both the blue-eyed chick and the brown-eyed chick? Why screw one and not both? My observation is that usually, and obviously more so thousands of years ago than today, men have this almost impulsive need to screw almost anything in sight. Therefore, I highly doubt most women were "sexually selected" for, because what I can observe from males even today is that if they don't need to commit they will screw all. Sorry to speak of men like this, but come on, it is true. What is one of the top sexual fantasies of males across the world? Multiple women. Nuff said.
This is actually probably the product of evolution as well, which isn't a bad thing. I'm not judging anything here.
Either way, I would also like to ask: If the hourglass is so "selected" for, why is it so rare among women today. Around 8% of women across the world have an hourglass figure. I don't even think I have a "true" hourglass figure. This figure is so rare! If it were SO sexually selected for, it occur more often. To me, a few pieces of the puzzle are missing.
I understand that you are saying, "Hey, life is not fair." There are people that are smarter than you, more athletic than you, etc.
However, women will easily get offended because we are wired to depend on our looks for validation. Afterall, in the human species the FEMALE must attract the male. The male was dominant in the olden days and women didn't always necessarily have a choice. The way nature works is that a human female must attract the male for the most part. Yes, I to prefer the bird's way, where a male should have colorful feathers and perform a dance to attract the very plain female. Why? Because we have holes, thats obviously enough for you men so why do we need to be pretty too? I think the men should look good and attract the women. But whatever. You know evolution caused us to be the way we are, and the birds to be the way they are.
I'd like to say its only natural for a woman to get catty when you suggest she is literally less of a woman then the next girl. If anyone should understand it should be men, because they naturally have huge egos and always feel the need to OVER compensate for their shortcomings. Men just don't care about their looks as much as women. They are not wired to. However, in today's society they are slowly starting to care. Doesn't matter if they aren't wired to, they can take notice that women enjoy eye candy as well. In addition attractive men to women will have a certain build and certain qualities related to masculinity and high testosterone levels which would be related to a male's athletic ability which is connected to how competitive the male is. It is here that the way a man looks is connected to his survival and therefore at one point males too will become concious of their looks.
So its not a fair world, but our identities greatly depend on our sex and sexual roles. When you tell a woman she looks closer to a man and is not woman enough this will crush her view of herself because she is wired and then in addition socialized and conditioned to make her sex a HUGE part of her identity and the way she views who she is. So don't pretend like it is not going to effect people when you say these things. Life isn't fair, but I was it were more fair. If I were the most beautiful women in the world I would gladly subtract beauty from myself and give it to other women to equal us all out. But then there would be little to go from there and evolution would halt.
Life just fuckin sucks! There better be a heaven where this shit doesn't matter.
Oh and Erik,
I have to call you out on this. The women in from the "fashion" world look much better than the women feminine but unimpressive waist to hip ratio "glamour" models you have in the second table. Are you kidding me?
I think any man would prefer a slightly more masculine woman with an nice hourglass figure to a woman that has the body of a little girl/boy? and a little girl/boy face to go with it thank you.
I think you butchered this one.
Please oh please try to convince ANY man that the more feminine women are more attractive. PLEASE! I want to see you try....
I think this just goes to show that OMG I can't believe I'm saying this, but WHR and overall good bone structure and genes make up for some lack of femininity and can even compete and win against more femininity with unimpressive WHR. However, the true competition would be between feminine women with good WHR and less-non feminine women with good WHR. Of course the more feminine women would outcompete the less feminine ones, however it depends on other factors too like bone structure. In addition, some feminine women are overly feminine and even appear matronly. There has to be a delicate balance, and I doubt a lot of women fit in this criteria. The perfect woman doesn't exist guys, but keep on looking if you want. In all honesty, I doubt that even if you found her she'd be worth much to you considering you probably don't stand a chance with her anyways. Who does? Who knows!
I'd also like to add that I wouldn't be surprised if in the future some crazy scientist or world leader or racist or something decides he wants to propel evolution, which seems to be dying. He would probably forcibly match people up, on which he percieves to be the best matches to create the best humans. In addition he would use the new technology in genetic engineering to further select for certain genes. We then would evolved perhaps to even a new species or something.
I mean good could come out of it. Of course everyone would just be... better. Or would they? Because should we trust our logic, research on what is "good" and what is "bad". We might just be selecting out some very very important genes we percieve to be negative. So it could be very very bad, disastorous.We might even create monsters out of ourselves eventually.
You know and the worst part would be lack of freedom and all...
But like I said, I wouldn't be surprised. There are some crazy people in this world. You know the kind that get rejected from an art school or something, turn emo because nobody appreciates them, spend too much time alone and come up with certain ideologies which aren't even necessarily their own personal ideologies but ones they can use to easily manipulate masses of people with. Thats all.
I preferred the fashion models. Curves win the day for me and the second table doesn't have much of anything going on. The faces didn't even fascinate me.
Godis,
You must've had some really bad experiences with men if you think that most guys would screw anything. Those are called desperate men which there are women like that too. That is not to say that having a very active sex life with many partners is what this is, rather it is actively having sex with another people regardless if you actually dig them or not. I personally cannot get it up for a woman unless I find them attractive.
As far as women with an hourglass figure not being selected for as you say... you have to consider the massive influence the media has on many people which is directed and guided by the fashion industry. Everything from movies, television and magazines have been following the guidelines of the fashion industry for decades now. This has programmed generations of men into thinking that more feminine bodies (wide hips, prominent backsides, etc...) are not desirable and are "fat". This is also a main reason why people of color are more vocal about desiring more feminine women because the fashion industry is not really advertised to them and thus many have not fallen victim to it.
Also, I asked this in another reply of mine but I assume you haven't read it, was it you that made that comment about Christina Hendricks and that she should lose weight to be more feminine? If it was, then I'd have to disagree with you greatly. That woman has an amazing figure and I think she is drop dead gorgeous. If she were to lose 20 pounds like was suggested in that post then many, many grown men would cry. Trust me. Take it from a heterosexual man.
Paul,
I'm sorry but no, I really don't see much sexual selection going on today. Even though there are 2 women to 1 man, almost no woman is going to be totally left out of sex and almost every woman will be able to produce offspring unless there literally is something physically or mentally wrong with her. In all honesty, I do not think it is just desperation on a man's part. Men ARE selective, but on the other hand they aren't. They are selective when it comes to the women they decide to commit to. They aren't necessarily selective when it comes to the women they have sex with in general. If no protection is used, all those women are potential mothers and therefore, whether the male found her extremely attractive or not, she will pass on her DNA. There are tons of single mothers out there. Tons!
In addition, sexual selection today is based on a lot more than physical characteristics. Back in the old days when we lived in caves we were just starting to develop a system of communication. We could only attract eachother by certain sounds lmao, behaviors and physical appearance. These days we can effectivley communicate. I will have a better understanding of who is intelligent and who isn't, who is funny and who isn't, who has a good personality and who doesn't. Women base who they are attracted to on qualities like intelligence, humor, etc. more so than men. However, men too base their ideal woman on more than the way she appears. A woman may look really really good but if she turns out to be a complete idiot, a man will not commit to her. He'll bag her for sure, but he won't commit to her. He would probably commit to a slightly less attractive woman with a higher IQ. Why? Well, I would assume we are hardwired to find intelligence very attractive considering it is what our great success as a species depends on almost solely.
And I'm sure you'll be like, well what about smart and attractive women? Well, yes they do exist, but from my experience, especially lately they are not as frequent as we think. Most of the intelligent women I know are not very feminine, and just not very attractive. I mean even the ones that take care of themselves. And I know they have all these theories about how women with lower WHR are smarter and more attractive and more fertile etc. I bought into that, a lot. Now, not so much. Because experiences tell me over and over again, that it turns out masculine women tend to be more on the intelligent side. I don't like this personally because I'm not masculine. But I have to admit, I have average intelligence. But then again so do most women. Just from my observation the more masculine women are the more unintelligent or really intelligent they are, but no real intebetween. Normal to feminine women seem to fall in the middle towards average intelligence. Those are just my personal observations from my personal experiences, but they are very repeated observations.
So, therefore everyone has to take into consideration that other factors these days contribute to sexual selection besides physical appearance. And when sexual selection does occur it usually happens because a man has committed to a women and WANTS to have children with her and wants his children to display her qualities. However, generally, men aren't that picky about women especially if its just a one night stand, or two, or three. This isn't new either. Men have always been like this.
Now yes, I have said Christina Hendricks would look better if she lost a tad bit of weight, because she would. Why? She has probably the best hourglass figure I've ever seen. However, she has too much fat covering it up. If she were to lose just a bit of weight her hourglass figure would be even MORE defined, which is amazing actually because she has a very defined hourglass figure to begin with. Her breasts, in my opinion will appear more to men with a fetish for overly large breasts. They look good in porportion to the rest of her body, but they are just too big! I know the majority of men would not necessarily like breasts that large. In addition, although a woman should be feminine I personally think that men do find a subtle element of athleticism in a woman. This isn't surprising because to ensure her survival a woman has have some athletic ability. If I saw Christina Hendricks even try to run I wouldn't even believe it. She would just look gross if she ran. She needs to tighten up a bit. Sorry, but she does. A woman CAN be at least minimally athletic and feminine and in fact this is ideal. Think of it in terms of survival.
Besides, why are you calling me out? Call Emily and "Barberella" our for calling me fat.
I've lost weight, but looking back I'm not THAT fat.
Anyways, look at Christina Hendricks. A thinner version and fatter version. Which one do you like more?
I mean fat can make a woman more feminine OR more masculine. It depends on the woman. I think fat adds bulk so it masculinizes a woman by making her look thicker, more husky like. However, fat has certain qualities that femininize women, even men. Look at any overweight male, and they will appear very feminine. But I think that if Christina loses weight she would have more of an advantage because she would be more defined and delicate looking, which translates to appearing even more feminine, which is just wow for her.
See when I gain weight I become more masculine looking. I mean because although I gain it in the right places, like the hips, etc. that fat still catches up with you and eventually makes your waist less defined and just overall bulkier looking. A thinner version shows a better hourglass figure, smaller waist etc. See she looks better.
BTW, looking at her now, I'm not impressed with her face. AT ALL.
BTW, she is also additionally totally touched up and airbrushed in that gray dress. They did a little "smoothing" out.
Oh and excuse all the mistakes in my writing. English is far from my first language and for some reason latley my English has really be regressing I don't know why:(
"Now yes, I have said Christina Hendricks would look better if she lost a tad bit of weight, because she would. Why? She has probably the best hourglass figure I've ever seen. However, she has too much fat covering it up. If she were to lose just a bit of weight her hourglass figure would be even MORE defined, which is amazing actually because she has a very defined hourglass figure to begin with."
You really need to quite projecting your issues on to other people. It's painfully obvious you have no idea what human beings look like. I've told you this before. Fat is not covering that woman's hour glass figure SINCE IT"S PAINFULLY OBVIOUS SHE HAS AN HOURGLASS FIGURE SO HOW IN THE HELL COULD FAT BE COVERING IT?! We can see it, obviously it's not covered.
"Her breasts, in my opinion will appear more to men with a fetish for overly large breasts. They look good in porportion to the rest of her body, but they are just too big! "
Could thing it's just your opinion, liking large breasts is generally not considered a fetish in the DSMV.
"I know the majority of men would not necessarily like breasts that large. "
Now you claim to speak for the majority of men? You need to quit while you are ahead. I doubt you know what your own man wants let alone anyone else's.
And godis, no offense but your eyes do not work. Those two pictures you posted are of the same woman, at the same weight. She admitted to losing a few pounds for her wedding I think two months ago. Those pictures are at least a year old and she proclaimed then she had lost no weight. Know what you are talking about before you start typing. Most of the people who work with her say she is a size 6 or 8 u.s. That's not even close to big. As for photoshopping, you can find candids and she has the same figure.
See? That's from a few weeks ago. No photoshopping, no smoothing. As for you ever being fat, your an idiot. We get it. Just stop putting yourself out there if you don't want the insults. Your going to get them because you are too silly to see how catty you are. You get what you give and you deserve it. If you think your worth to men is what you look like guess what you are going to attract? Enjoy your bed silly, cause you made it.
Excuse my typos educated people out there. I'm tired and I don't have the energy to do thing right at the moment.
I'm not going to respond to this right now because I am really busy, but all I can say is that if you do not notice a weight difference between the first and second photo I posted of Christina YOU need to get your eyes checked, not I.
Are you a female or male Rawr? Because in my opinion you are the one that was just acting catty.
However, looking back I guess I do kind of project my issues a tad bit. I mean I did gain weight in the past few years and it really took a toll on me for some reason? I just felt incredibly unattractive even though it wasn't all that bad. Even now that I've lost like 10lbs of that weight,(and actually don't want to lose anymore, orginally I wanted to lose 20), I like the way I look but I still feel like my old self. It's weird.
Anyways, Christina Hendricks looks good at that weight. Yes. Very good. However, if she did lose weight I don't think she'd look any worse. In addition it still would make her hourglass slightly more defined. Also, I still think her boobs are too big. Sorry, I just do. I'm sure males don't mind breasts that large, and the majority of males prefer large breasts. However, I just don't think a girl needs boobs that big! haha
Just look at them:
She must have horrible back problems
"I'm not going to respond to this right now because I am really busy, but all I can say is that if you do not notice a weight difference between the first and second photo I posted of Christina YOU need to get your eyes checked, not I."
If the woman said she didn't lose any weight I'd buy it. Most women are happy to say they lost weight. It came from her own mouth. If you don't like how fat she is go take it up with her but the fact remains you are an unhappy, not very bright young woman bitching on the internet about how fat a very successful, loved woman is. What do you look like? You look like a stupid, catty female. Then you tried to make the whole issue about yourself "Oh they called me fat". Well, you deserve it. You keep calling so many other women fat who are not fat. What do you expect? You are just getting what you give.
I think you are just dumb. You keep calling people fat who aren't even close to it. Fat in medical terms means a BMI of over 25%. That's the medical guideline. There is no way this woman's BMI is over 25%, she is tall (5'7 to 5'8) and weighs around 130 to 140 pounds according to most of the people who know her. That's not fat, to even proclaim it is stupid. Bottom line, you are discussing something of which you have no knowledge. Go learn the facts before you make an ass out of yourself. There are plenty of girls who come to this site who have problems. You do realize you may be contributing to someone's screwed up image of themselves? Frankly, I don't you'd know what fat was even if a 300 pound woman came and sat on your face.
Oh and Godis, I hate to send to into a tailspin of self-loathing, but your boobs aren't much smaller than hers. She's wearing a pushup bra and arching her back, of course they look big. Your breasts are not small, better get worried. You are attracting all those nasty men with fetishes and you won't be able to run.
"I think you are just dumb."
I have at least average intelligence actually. In fact according to a few standardized tests I am pretty above average in intelligence.
"I have at least average intelligence actually. In fact according to a few standardized tests I am pretty above average in intelligence."
Note I preface with "I THINK". I don't care what a standardized test you took says about your intelligence. Dumb does not correlate with an actual number on a standardized test. I think you have no understanding of the world around you. The mere fact you think your test scores prove you are are not dumb shows how little you understanding testing. Modern education is not about intelligence it is about the regurgitation of information.
Rawr,
I think you're being a bit mean here, why the bitterness? You sound like a rational intelligent person and I admire the way that you've posted your rebuttal and argued your case but I sense a lot of bitterness towards others, I can understand if you posted the bitterness towards deluded bigots such as Emily and others, and to a lesser degree Erik but I don't think Godis or VC deserves that sort of treatment.
Godis,
You come across as reasonably intelligent and your figure is reasonably feminine bordering on the plump side, but then you seem to seek affirmation and that in itself is a sign of insecurity. If you wish to be truly happy, you would be happy with the way you are.
I am probably going to open a whole new discussion here but for me Christina Hendricks is clearly fat and that's the practical truth, she's not morbidly obese but she's still fat.
"I think you're being a bit mean here, why the bitterness? You sound like a rational intelligent person and I admire the way that you've posted your rebuttal and argued your case but I sense a lot of bitterness towards others, I can understand if you posted the bitterness towards deluded bigots such as Emily and others, and to a lesser degree Erik but I don't think Godis or VC deserves that sort of treatment."
I will choose who I feel is worthy of my tongue lashing. Worry about your own life. From your pronouncements on who happens to be fat it would appear you aren't anything more then a not-so-bright, deluded and programmed female yourself. Christina Hendricks' BMI is between 19.8 and 22 Percent. Either you are just a harpy or you seriously want to see this woman medically underweight.
Rawr,
You clearly have some issues, firstly you've got self esteem issues, you've said you're very ugly, that's in your own words before you start accusing me.
Also you've got some kind of hatred for women, you've just dismissed me as another harpy, I guess I touched on a nerve when I pointed out the bitterness I sense in you which is misdirected particularly at Godis and VC. Worry for my life!? Lol this is the internet, are you going to fire cyber bullets at me?
As for being Christina being fat, that's how she will be judged by the media and the public and the men in her life, not me. And her BMI, you're clearly a LIAR, I am 5'6 and my weight is 115 lbs, my BMI is 21 so there is no way she is below 22, she is double my size at the same height!
I would normally recommend that people be happy with the way they are but I'm afraid her weight is an issue and has been as evidenced by all the negative press. Maybe you're fat as well, no wonder you'd like to believe Christina Hendricks is thin which is the last thing she is. Don't delude yourself!
I'm 5'7 and 135 pounds, if I was fat i'd have no problems telling you. I have no problems with being ugly. It's not a death sentence and it's not a bad thing. It's just a part of life. You get over it. Furthermore the listed height for Hendricks is 5'7 or 5'8 If Hendricks was twice your size she'd be 235 pounds. I'm going off what has been said about her in the media. She's said to be between 130 to 140 pounds. She has not been getting a ton of negative press. She's being doing quite well.
Yeah, tell her that when she gets the health problems, psychological issues that are associated with being overweight.
She's become a synonym for chubby girls, you see Christina Hendricks type everywhere particularly so because the media says it's okay to be that way and I find it a bit wrong.
I am in two minds about it because on one hand you do want people to be happy with the way they are, but then what about the health risks and all the issues that come along with being chubby? How can you ignore that?
Stand her next to January Jones who is more normal sized and there's clearly a size difference.
"I am in two minds about it because on one hand you do want people to be happy with the way they are, but then what about the health risks and all the issues that come along with being chubby? How can you ignore that?"
Except she's not medically over weight. You clearly have no idea what the standards are. All you know if what you look like and it's not helping your perspective any.
Violet Corpus,
First of all I thought you were a dude?
Second of all, the woman standing next to Christina Hendricks in your photo is a toothpick.
Third of all, yeah I got really sensitive about gaining weight and being "plump" haha.
Fourth of all, Christina Hendricks is not necessarily fat. However she's got meat on her and in my opinion although she appears healthy she could always be tad bit healthier.
I'm a firm believer in proper diet and exercise. I don't think people look good fat or skinny. I think they look good at the right weight, where they are the healthiest and exercising a little bit.
I think almost everyone gets fat at some point in their life. Well, not everyone, but you know, this is the U.S.A. I got fat from bad college food... no really people don't believe me they think its the alcohol, which I don't even drink a lot of, the food is really that bad. They soak everything in butter or deep fry it.
But, I think everyone should get up and work out and eath a tad bit healthier. That is hilarious coming from me too, because I eat junk. But really, for your own good, everyone should be trying a little to be heatlhier. It's not about being fat or thin, but healthy.
"Fourth of all, Christina Hendricks is not necessarily fat. However she's got meat on her and in my opinion although she appears healthy she could always be tad bit healthier."
You are nitpicking. If you have a problem with other women looking good you need to take some time out and come to terms with how you feel about yourself. Good looking women don't hurt you. Quit projecting your issues on to other people. You don't what she does, you don't know how she eats. Quit judging because you just look ignorant. We don't all look the same at our healthy weight.
First I'll reply to Voice of Reason:
Christina Hendricks is not "fat". If "fat" you mean by the distorted media and the society it grooms then sure. But if by "fat" you mean from a sane and healthy educated mind? No. She is not fat. She looks really good to me and if she were fat I'd know and wouldn't be attracted to her as much as I am. She seems to be more or less in the middle of her healthy weight range and she looks very good to me (I am a heterosexual man). And because she is curvy the weight distributes beautifully on her frame accentuating her femininity.
You seem to have this distorted sadly. I say sadly because I think it was you who went up against Emily in numerous posts and seemed to be of a far healthier view then her on race and such. But perhaps when it comes to body issues, you are misguided.
I see the problem immediately in your report on your own BMI. You say you are 5'6 and 115 pounds and declare this gives a BMI of 21. I don't know where you got this from because on no BMI chart or calculator I have seen does a 5'6 and 115 body appear as healthy. Depending on what chart you use, it's either a 18-19 and on each of those charts it's identified as underweight. Ironic, since you mistakenly suggest that Hendricks will have health problems but on your stats it is you who will if you don't gain some pounds.
Godis,
No offense, a lot of what you are saying seems to come from your mental consumption of stereotypes. First, single mothers out there have nothing to do with your argument. That is related to practicing bad sex habits and poor standards of responsibility on the parts of the fathers (assuming they are still alive).
As a man I can tell you for a fact what is going on from a man's perspective. Men are selective but it's mostly only when they have the opportunity for choice. If they don't, then they tend to get desperate and lower their standards. Mind you these "standards" are relative but trust me if you were to ask any man, especially the ones you see that would go to bed with anything, that if they had the power of choice of who to sleep with then they wouldn't be sleeping with just anything that comes in their way. Too many men don't know how to approach women and that's why so many depend on liquor and other "social lubricants" at parties and such. Women do this too, although perhaps for different reasons mostly.
I also want to stress that having many sexual partners and not wanting to commit to them is not directly related to lowering of standards. A person can be at a point in their life where they are not interested in a relationship beyond sex even if the person's personality suits them.
The reason for me "calling you out" is because you seem to be more level headed than people like Emily and others. There is no point in even engaging in a discussion with people like her on an internet blog. However, you seem to have some insecurities and project them into your discussions and some are misguided.
I've already tackled a bit on Hendricks with Voice of Reason in this post, but to specifically respond to your comments. I am going to guess that you are very fashion oriented and/or have been very inspired by fashion industry like mindsets. From your comments on wanting thinness or at least thinking this is best suited to all woman, erroneously claiming that Hendricks breasts size would only appeal to people with a fetish to even using the dreaded "in proportion" argument that I see so many fashion fans use... you are very misinformed.
You are also not appreciating the perspective I am giving you as a man. You are wrong to assume that only men with a fetish would find her breasts attractive. You are wrong to assume that she lacks femininity because of "fat" which she is not. As another poster pointed out, you can clearly see her frame and it is much accentuated as is. If she were to actually become overweight then you would not see her hourglass figure.
Finally, this "athleticism" argument of yours is not relevant because not every person, man or woman, needs to be athletic which is different then just being in shape or healthy. You say, "Think of it in terms of survival." This concept is irrelevant and out dated in our day and age. We don't need to hunt for food anymore for example. And even in those days, the more feminine women were needed in order to bear healthy children. And to this day they are desired and I can tell you for a fact that it is no fetish to find a woman like Christina Hendricks attractive by many men. Being a women you have no idea what she does to a man's mind much like a heterosexual man would not understand what a George Clooney (or insert any male celebrity who turns you on if he doesn't) would do to a woman's mind. The fact that you keep pushing on what you think she should look like would be just as silly as me suggesting what Goerge Clooney should look like. She is not built for someone like you like a Clooney isn't for me.
I see a lot of women taking this position and it's pretty obvious where it comes from. The media "informing" women on how they "should" look and what is supposedly correct (all directly and indirectly guided by the fashion industry) is nonsense and I see a lot of that coming through in your posts. I hope you stop paying attention to this kind of source.
I believe that that the role of "man" and "woman" have largely been negatively influenced by male dominated societies and cultures. The fact that there are very "masculine" women and even "feminine" men prove that the traditional gender roles do not apply all of the time and should not be always expected to. There is nothing wrong with this except to those still stuck in the out dated concept.
P.S.
You posted a picture of your body. Not sure if that was the "before" or "after". In any case, was this what Emily and others referred to as "fat"? You aren't fat at all there. But you should know by now that people like Emily are about the worst kind of people to be treating seriously considering how mentally twisted she is.
In that picture, you look quite good. Nice bust too. ;)
I don't think Christian Hendricks will have any issues with medical Problems.There is a tendency for the Medical Industry and the media to say that all people over a certain weight will have medical problems including heart disease,cholesterol etc but this is a fallacy.
This only applies to some people.It depends on how the weight is carried.
For example one person can carry extra weight but have no breathing difficulties and be full of health and vibrancy-take some large Opera singers for example.
On the otherhand though there can be some people that are large that dont carry the weight well & they are too large for what their frame is meant to be and they get health problems including breathing difficulties and extra work placed on the heart.
I do think that unless shes strong and really likes herself that she could possibly get emotional problems because of pressure from the media because there a tendency for the media to say that someone like her shape is overweight and needs to slimdown and the media is very harsh,cruel,overcritical and often unrealistic.
Her size is fine for her and January Jones size is fine for her.Neither of them look like they are about to collapse from either obesity or anorexia.They both look within healthy range limits just both different.
There is a tendency i feel on this site for people to project their own issues instead of looking at things objectively.
The media is similar.It has basically one ideal ok weight that everyone is meant to be a cardboard copy of each other and there is no room for acceptance of different body types and that they all can be equally attractive.
The media attempts to equate womens value and worth with their body shape,or breast size etc and makes it harder for all of us.
I dont think that Christina Hendricks will have any health issues from "obesity"-shes just heavy set, and i am by no means an overweight women just saying that to make myself feel better.
I am 170cm and 59kg so i am by no means large, i just have an issue with the lies spread by medical industry that all larger people are unhealthy & cant breathe or that all super slim people are unhealthy and anorexic.Thats not the case always.
People are individuals and some are naturally heavy set and some are naturally skinny but without health risks.
We are all different and cant be all measured by the same tool.
Aesthetically wise,Christian Hendrix look is a bit too large for what i consider aesthetically beautiful but aesthetics is different from health.
Also i dont know whats going on with her lips here?
Why do some people get lip enhancements when sometimes they end up looking worse and stranger when their lips looked perfectly good before
mary,
I don't know what "lies" you mean that are spread by the medical industry. When it comes to health, the only real lies I see are what is pushed forth from the media which is sourced by the fashion industry. Even if people aren't avid followers of the fashion industry, the influence is all over the media. In the last few decades, women advertised as beautiful have become underweight and only very highly masculine women are shown while physical feminine features like wide hips and prominent backsides being labeled as undesirable.
Healthy weight ranges are relative to the height of each person, but thanks to the distortion of the media and what it promotes and declares many people don't know what they are looking at anymore that is healthy. This is why member "Voice of Reason" for example thinks she is a healthy weight when she is not and yet she sees a very healthy woman like Hendricks and thinks she is overweight.
Even though you have a better stance on this issue than her, I see the influence of the zeitgeist in your reply when you describe Hendricks as "heavy set". Even though you then claim you don't mean it as "overweight" that is how this term is correctly used as. In other words, even though you don't mean it as such you give off a negative slant. This is directly connected to the fact that you say you don't find her ascetically beautiful but it wouldn't be so far as for me to suppose how much of what is and has been promoted as beautiful that you have been exposed to has influenced you to believe this.
Also, we need to consider here the perspective. Assuming you are a heterosexual female, your view of Ms. Hendricks would be of less importance than someone like myself who is a heterosexual male. Earlier I used the example of how silly it would be for me to comment and criticize a George Clooney since I am a heterosexual man and therefore what would I really know compared to a straight female? The reason we (men) don't engage in these kinds of discussions and comments about other men is because our culture doesn't dictate that we should. Women however, are subjected to tons of nonsense from the media on how specifically to dress to how they should look to what they wear, etc... from mostly an ignorant and selfish group of marketers. Many think this is correct information and therefore express this to each other as if they are imparting real knowledge.
As far as aesthetics and beauty the only difference between them is that beauty is not only subjective, it can be manipulated by the media who can groom a society to believe what is attractive according to how they see fit. People who are not influenced by the media can identify health and this can increase the chances of physical attraction. Heterosexual men for example are wired to find healthy women with very high feminine physical features attractive. Thanks to the media however, this has been subdued considerably.
I personally don't find Angelina Jolie, as she looks now, attractive whatsoever. She looked better many years ago. Now she is very underweight and her face looks more "manly" to me which could be a combination of the lower weight she is at now and possible plastic surgery. The media though promotes her as the ultimate woman and many fall victim to the propaganda. It is no coincidence that for me Christina Hendricks as she looks now is far, far more attractive than Angelina Jolie. She is at a healthy weight while Jolie is not and that plays a big role.
P.S.
It is interesting that you gave your stats. From my conversion calculations you would be 5'6 and 130 pounds right? Therefore you would be of the same height as "Voice of Reason". She claimed at 115lbs her BMI is healthy and at 21 which is incorrect and she is underweight. However, you at the same height but with 15 more pounds on you. That funny enough averages to a BMI of 21.
Paul,
You're delusional, if Christina Hendricks is healthy then according to you Marilyn Monroe would be skin and bones? Marilyn's body shape is supposed to be the ideal female body and clearly she is much more healthier so why do you insist Christina Hendricks is healthy? Like Godis said, she might be healthy but clearly she can be healthier and she is definitely not a healthy role model.
And as for me, I've already posted my picture before, have a look and you will see I am not skin and bones but actually healthy and curvy. I am a size 8, 32 C 25 35 which is obviously not anorexic but not fat like Miss Hendricks either who is size 14, 38DD (keeps changing and I suspect she uses padding) 30 40.
This is the picture I'm referring to, do I look like a skeleton? Unhealthy or healthy? You can clearly decide.
"Marilyn's body shape is supposed to be the ideal female body "
Says who?
And while I don't think you are a bad looking woman I think you are trying a wee bit hard to prove you are somehow better looking than Hendricks. She's the one with an acting career, magazine spreads and awards. You are the one spreading vitriol on the internet. Catch the big difference?
I also find it laughable you claim to hold feminist ideals yet cling to patriarchy when it suits you. You can't have both worlds. Pick and camp and stay in it.
Monroe doesn't look that much different than Hendricks. Then agian I'm not projecting any issues I have with my own body on other people. I do remember you mentioning you were a model once. That is all well and good but you need to come to terms with the fact you are so deeply entrenched in an industry that demands unnatural thinness from women you cannot make an objective calls on anyone's weight. I also find it funny someone who admittedly would have no medical trianing is making calls on anyone's health. You don't know anything about it.
Paul,
My height would be 5.7 but i dont know weight in pounds.
I gave my height and weight for the specific purpose of pointing out that when i was saying that Christina Hendricks looked okay and healthy that it would be known that i was speaking from objectivety and not because i was a larger woman unhappy with my weight & trying to defend my self or project my issues etc.
Actually when i said heavy-set,i meant it exactly as that.She is heavy-set or heavyboned.That is a fact and wasn't used as an underhanded comment to really mean that i thought she was fat,obese,tubby,huge,enormous etc.If i thought she was i would have just come out and said that,i wouldnt have used "tactful" words.
Your reading things into my comments that arn't there.
Emily sometimes did the same.
You need to accept that you personally like women of that body shape and know thats ok but at the same time not denigrate women of other body shapes because your unsure about yourself whether it is ok to like women of that body type.She has a nice body type,so feel assured in your self that it is ok to like that, even if the media tries to say otherwise-who is the media to know anything?
At the same time though you have to accept that there's other men & other women that consider other things beautiful and not put down slimmer women.
Just because you like one body type doesnt then mean that all others are unattractive,or unhealthy or anorexic etc.
There is more then one body type that is attractive eg:curvy,petite,slender,athletic & people appreciate different types of beauty regardless of whether they are men or women.
Saying that Christina Hendricks looks ok and is healthy doesn't then make it automatically that a more smaller or petite woman,like a Chinese woman for example is unhealthy.They can both still be healthy & look good but in different ways.
A a man,you should never want to put any womans body down & make her feel bad or less no matter what her body type is.As a man you should want to protect womens feelings from hurt & not be a contribution to hurt or a woman then feeling inadequate.
Im not going to go into comments of "if your a woman your opinion is less important regarding women" or viceversa for men-nobodies opinion on earth is less important then anyone elses.All humans of same sex plus other sex can appreciate beauty.Beauties not just about sexual feelings,it is a different matter,we all know beauty whether it is in people or nature etc so to me the male vs feeling importance of opinion thing is without relevance.
When i say lies by the medical industry i don't mean intentional lies but i mean the methods they are using of the BMI are false and inaccurate.We cant use a simple one size fits all scale to determine whether people are healthy or not.This method is too simplified and incorrect & doesn't take things like peoples frame into consideration.
Sometimes healthy athletes find themselves out of the Normal Weight range on the BMI.
Angelina Jolie is attractive but so are 500 other women in hollywood.I dont know why the media seems to single her out & talk about her like shes the most gorgeous women in the world.There are other women in Hollywood that are just as equally or more attractive.I guess the media does that with men too like saying that about George Clooney but i find other male actors more attractive then him.
Voice of reason,
You look great and clearly very far from underweight in that photo.
"If you have a problem with other women looking good you need to take some time out and come to terms with how you feel about yourself. Good looking women don't hurt you. Quit projecting your issues on to other people"
What do you mean if I have problems with other good looking women? I find myself an attractive individual, but I have flaws as does everybody. And in the end there WILL always be women that are MUCH better looking than me. Don't you think I've realized that in my 21 years? I mean seriously, I have friends that are more attractive than me. I have a friend who looks freakingly unrealistically good. However, I can still hang out with her knowing that she will be getting more attention from guys everywhere. Does it bother me, annoy me, make me feel bad sometimes? Yah. But I like myself with flaws and all, and although my friend is just gorgeous I think I'm just fine and I can deal with it.
And as for you, I feel like this whole, "I'm ugly" thing is just an excuse. A truly ugly person wouldn't be so quick and blunt to admit it. They would know they were ugly for sure, but they wouldn't act "proud" of it as you do. It's something you hide under. It's a "Well, I can't control the way I look" type deal. It makes you feel better about yourself.
You probably look fine. You may even look good. You might have good bone structure and potential, but instead you want to hide behind your "percieved" ugliness.
Go get your hair done, go to the gym, put a lil makeup on, buy some cute clothes, and smile.
You don't have to spend a lot of money on looking good, feminine, and classy.
You were clearly blessed with intelligence, but I highly doubt you are lacking so much in the other department.
And you don't even have to TRY to look good or be someone you aren't. But I believe every woman should take care of herself. Nurture yourself. Spend time on yourself. Enjoy your body, no matter how "ugly" you feel it to be. Look for beauty in it.
Godis wrote above, directed to Rawr.
Oh and Violet Corpus, I thought you were a guy?
"But I believe every woman should take care of herself"
Do not assume I do not take care of myself simply because I do not find myself attractive. That is a very stupid thing to assume.
This is a reply to both "mary" and "Voice of Reason". Tim89, if you are reading this I will reply to you at another time.
mary,
You say that I am reading things into your comments hat are not there which is untrue but are replying to me by completely misreading and re-interpreting comments I have said. I'll take them one by one:
First, your comments about BMI. You are misinformed when you say that this inaccurate. You say:
"We cant use a simple one size fits all scale to determine whether people are healthy or not.This method is too simplified and incorrect & doesn't take things like peoples frame into consideration. Sometimes healthy athletes find themselves out of the Normal Weight range on the BMI."
The BMI chart is not a "one size fits all". You don't understand what it is as it is clearly not that. It is calculated healthy weight ranges that correlate to the specific height of the person. People's frames don't change this because the weight of a person will be distributed as their natural frame intends it to be.
Also, about the athletic comment, well this is you not understanding the issue. There are people that bulk up way too much muscle and that is not healthy for them either. Too much muscle can lead to problems in the future as well. There is a reason why bodybuilders for example lower their muscle mass considerably when they retire.
"You need to accept that you personally like women of that body shape and know thats ok but at the same time not denigrate women of other body shapes because your unsure about yourself whether it is ok to like women of that body type.She has a nice body type,so feel assured in your self that it is ok to like that, even if the media tries to say otherwise-who is the media to know anything?"
There is nothing I need to accept because there is nothing in denial on my end. There are women that aren't as curvy as Hendricks and I still find attractive but that isn't even the issue here.
What you need to understand is that we live in a society where the media is dominated by the fashion industry and has been for decades. Because of this physical feminine features have been considered not elements not desirable and people have been brainwashed into finding females who are very masculine as the only kind of attractive female and women who are underweight are advertised as healthy and sexy. This is why you have people who will look at Hendricks and think she is unhealthy when she clearly is not or think she is not attractive because of how she is when this is mostly an influence of the media because it promotes the opposite image.
"At the same time though you have to accept that there's other men & other women that consider other things beautiful and not put down slimmer women.
Just because you like one body type doesnt then mean that all others are unattractive,or unhealthy or anorexic etc.
There is more then one body type that is attractive eg:curvy,petite,slender,athletic & people appreciate different types of beauty regardless of whether they are men or women."
You go off on two more paragraphs after this that run on the same lines. This is nothing but rhetoric mary and none of which applies to me. I expressed I think Hendricks is extremely attractive. You are taking that fact and replying to me as if I said only women that look like her are attractive. Ironic that you wrote earlier that I was the one supposedly reading into things that weren't there when you are doing so here.
"Im not going to go into comments of "if your a woman your opinion is less important regarding women" or viceversa for men-nobodies opinion on earth is less important then anyone elses.All humans of same sex plus other sex can appreciate beauty.Beauties not just about sexual feelings,it is a different matter,we all know beauty whether it is in people or nature etc so to me the male vs feeling importance of opinion thing is without relevance."
You're going off on a bit of a tangent here. First of all, yes... there are times when certain people's opinion and perspective's are more important and are of more value than other's. If I read 6 pages of a book but another person read all 200.. is there not one opinion between the two that would carry more value?
Beauty is subjective but at the same time it is relative. A straight man and a straight woman will never see another woman in the same way. This must be understood and accepted. Therefore if a man finds a woman attractive there is no argument that another straight woman can have with the man on the same level. They are not coming from the same angle.
I repeat again, it would be just as silly for a man to criticize another man's looks with a woman who finds that man highly physically attractive. Unless the man criticizing is gay, what is he playing at?
Many women engage in these kinds of conversations without realizing how silly it is thanks to the culture that has been established. Women's looks are far more criticized than men's are and it has become free reign in the media circus to do so. Since many women read these trash sources and sadly believe them wholeheartedly, they start to mold their minds to this and regurgitate it to others as if they were imparting good knowledge.
And this is a topic specifically related to physical looks. We are not talking about personalities and emotions which are separate. A person's looks are related to sexual attraction and interaction. This is not vulgar or ugly. This is the name of the game. This is why a straight woman's opinion of another woman is not as important as another man's because they are not wired for the same thing and vice versa.
"Angelina Jolie is attractive but so are 500 other women in hollywood"
I am surprised you completely missed every point I brought up in regards to Jolie. It was quite explicit.
Voice of Reason,
If we are going to be talking about delusion, then between the two of us only you can be the subject of that topic. You said that you are 5'6 and 115 and said this is healthy and you have a BMI of 21. This is just plain wrong. No BMI chart gives that number with those stats and in fact it gives a number that is signifies being underweight.
You also claim Hendricks is overweight and unhealthy but she is not. Yet this erroneous perspective is not surprising when you don't even have an accurate assessment of your own BMI.
In regards to Marilyn Monroe being "skin and bones" I would have never have said that about her. In fact, it is irony of the highest order you even mention her as the "ideal female body" because had she been of this generation looking exactly how she did in her actual time, people like you would've called her "fat". It is further proof of how media influences other people when it is quite obvious in pictures that Monroe's body type is different than what is seen in the mainstream nowdays and yet someone like you still sees her as beautiful. This is because Monroe is still kept as an icon in the media and people like you follow the propaganda closely and yet don't see how it obviously clashes with what you think "fat" is on other people.
The reason we don't see this "ideal female body" as common in the mainstream as we used to is because after her time the fashion industry rose to new heights of power and influence and changed the image advertised in the media of female beauty. This kind of image is now what people like you are influenced by and subscribe to which is deformed information.
I'm not sure what kind of modeling you did, if you even did at all, but chances are quite high that you were involved with companies and people that subscribe to unhealthy ideas and images of women. All twisted and distorted by the influence of the fashion industry.
As far as the photo you posted, there are several things wrong here. First, the photo seems to have been taken from a youtube video. If so, why not link to the whole video itself as the image is not clear (a black dress worn in front of a mostly dark background)? Plus, there is no proof that is even you.
All I know for a fact is, if you are 5'6, 115lbs then you are underweight. From those stats, you would do better to gain at least 5 pounds more.
Paul,
Its good that your also attracted to women of different body types.You claim i have misread into things but if you be honest with yourself i don't think this is fully the case.
You did give the impression that you had a black & white view that a body type like Christina Hendricks was healthy but said that a Voice of Reasons was underweight.
Media gives the impression that the only ideal type is the skinny model look but in your comments you seem to give the impression that the only ideal type is the Marilyn curvy type.Both opinions are incorrect and black + white.
I disagree with your opinion about anyones opinion being more important then anothers and im not going to change your mind and your not going to change mine.
Beauty is about aesthetics not pornography.There is nothing beautiful about porn.
Sure,there is a sexual aspect to beauty too because men are attracted to women & viceversa however overall, beauty is much more larger then about sexual feelings and encompasses nature,architecture etc.Beauty=art.All opinions are equal.
The BMI is wrong and inaccurate.By "onesizefitsall" i didn't mean that there was one measurement for all people but instead that all people were measured on a "onesizefitsall" scale of height+weight only without considering other factors.Read these articles.
http://www.naturalnews.com/020040_body_mass_index_BMI_disease.html
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/64577.php
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2006/nov/28/healthandwellbeing.health1
You shouldn't change your weight to fit into a bunch of stats.Measurements like BMI can be and are often wrong as i mentioned.
All that matters is how a person looks visually and feels.
If someone says they feel healthy and have no breathing problems,heart problems or feels like they are weak or dizzy etc-in otherwords if someone is in good health and they dont have 50 people everyday telling them they are obese or anorexic-then you dont then lose or gain weight just to fit into a bunch of ridiculous numbers.You should trust your mirror and health not numbers.
Its somewhat strange for you to say that Voice Of Reason needs to gain weight because actually in the modelling industry Voice of Reasons body from that photo would usually be considered too large
(no offence Voice of Reason,you look great,i just mean the industries stupid opinions)
and only suitable for plus-size modelling or promotional work.
These are the type of body type and weight that the usually want.
Regarding Angelina Jolie,It was you who misunderstood.I was surprisingly actually agreeing with you that the medias high opinion of her was overrated.
"You did give the impression that you had a black & white view that a body type like Christina Hendricks was healthy but said that a Voice of Reasons was underweight."
No, he did not give that impression. I'm sorry but you are just inferring data from the absence of data. That is a completely illogical argument. He was very correct in questioning her BMI as her measurement would be inaccurate. At best she just doesn't know how to do math. At worst she is lying. Which is it? Furthermore the average size 8 is not a 35 inch hip. It's closer to 38 in most clothing lines. If you are going to put yourself out there as a "body rolemodel" you are giving others free license to question you about that body. I think it would have been smarter had she just kept her mouth shut and not put herself out there.
BMI is not woefully inaccurate for the general population. The correlations between BMI and longevity are there. While there are some people for whom the BMI does not apply the measurement in and of itself is not faulty. Exceptions do not prove a rule to be false.
I think you are reading a lot into what Paul was saying and projecting certain issues you have with the people around you. Paul didn't say any of what you claim he did. You cannot infer an opinion simply because none was given.
Rawr,
My comments were to Paul.I dont know why you took it personally and wished to start an argument.
If you say thats not what you were doing,but your comment did seem to come across with some anger to it.
He did give that impression because he still said that after he saw her photo in which shes clearly far from underweight/anorexic looking.
Even if by some chance i was wrong and did read something into Pauls comments that he didn't mean,i still dont see why you would take this personally.
BMI is inaccurate.While there may be some value and merit to it, its a far from perfect system and something better needs to be used in its place.
You might argue that its correct alot of the time or some of the time but to me thats not good enough.Something more accurate needs to be developed in its place.
Thers is some confusion about the accuracy of my BMI and yes I do admit I wasn't particularly accurate but I wasn't lying about my BMI, no one's weight is constant, it can shift a kilo here and there, usually it is 115 lbs, it was 120 lbs at the time the picture was taken. This makes my BMI 19.5 which is in the middle of the normal range ( between 18.5 to 24). Christina is nowhere near this mark, she is at least 160 lbs to 170 as mentioned in a magazine and if she is 5'7 then her BMI is 25.5 which falls in the overweight category.
Also my dress size is UK size 8 not US size so I'm probably a size 2 in the US standard.
Paul and Rawr,
Miss Hendricks is not a role model for healthy women. And stop attacking me, my weight, the authenticity of my picture you're only making a fool of yourself by attacking every woman that posts here, first it was VC then Godis then me and now Mary. You're clearly both sexists and it's evident that confident women intimidate you. This is about Christina Hendricks weight and whether she is a healthy role model. You're both a bit deluded if you think she is because the woman is clearly fat and in doing so you're promoting OBESITY, DIABETES, HEART and ARTERY diseases.
You can eat yourself to death if you want to, I am not going to, at least not when someone in some other part of the world is dying of hunger.
Mary,
Thanks Mary, clearly you can see where I'm coming from. I am not underweight and it's bizarre when some random stranger on the internet tells me that I am unhealthily anorexic and Miss Hendricks is healthy. I was compelled to post this picture because I am being told I am anorexic lol.
Godis/Visitor,
I'm sorry if I called you plump, you look healthy and sound intelligent. It's good that you take care of yourself and eat healthily because I think that's very important.
Mary:
"Even if by some chance i was wrong and did read something into Pauls comments that he didn't mean,i still dont see why you would take this personally."
I took nothing personally. You need to stop pinning things on people they did not say. If i took it personally I would tell you.
VOR:
"And stop attacking me, my weight, the authenticity of my picture you're only making a fool of yourself by attacking every woman that posts here, first it was VC then Godis then me and now Mary. You're clearly both sexists and it's evident that confident women intimidate you."
LOL! You are a confident woman? You can't even handle criticism and you are a confident woman? Paul is far from sexist. If anything he is trying to get through all the layers of brainwashing most women are subjected to on a daily basis. But women these days like their bondage. They think it gives them power for some odd reason.You pulled out an illogical fallacy as your defense. You cannot prove we are sexist simply because we questioned you. That is much like Democrats who simply accuse people of being racists because they don't agree with Obama. I am a woman genius. Obviously not a mainline, brainwashed, thin obsessed, beauty obsessed woman but still a woman. Hell, I even get laid too imagine that? The subject matter is in front of you. Debate it or go elsewhere. Frankly I'm not inclined to take anything you say seriously. I've been 170 pounds at 5'7 before. It's bigger than what Hendricks looks like for certain. I won't give you the time of day anymore because it looks to me you are just another human being looking for something to lord over someone else. Your stance against Racism is much the same. You just like being better than others but when it comes down to it, if racism benefited you, you would be as racist as most middle class whites are.
"You can eat yourself to death if you want to, I am not going to, at least not when someone in some other part of the world is dying of hunger."
Don't equate what you do with somehow being socially responsible. What you care about it looking good. That's not a problem but quit acting like you are Mother Theresa because you are thin. It's stupid considering there are obese people doing more good for their community than someone who is just keeping themselves thin. As I said before I'm 135 pounds at 5'7. I'm not fat and I would readily admit it if I was fat. I've got no reason to lie about it cause I don't look down on fat folks. Life is life, there are worse things in this world than being fat. Bottom line: Hendricks ain't fat. And please don't bring Monroe into these conversations. By today's standards she is considered a grande dame fatass.
Also normal bmi is 18.5 to 24.9.
My height: 5'6
Bust measurement: 34 DD
Waist measurement: 27
Hip Measurement: 37.5
Medium frame, 125 lbs.
What body shape do I have?
@ Grace Kelly:
Could be a heavy bottom hourglass, slightly on the edge of a pear shape.
What are my measurements?
Bust: 34C
Waist: 23
Hips: 34
Frame: 6.25 (medium) and I weigh 122 at 5' 6½".
***shape, not measurements lol. It's near 3AM and I'm very tired
Quit listing your cup size if you want the answer. Take a tape measure and measure all the way around the fullest part of your bust. This is your bust measurement. Your bra size equates to something different depending on the brand. A 34DD would be 39 inches, a 34C would be 37 inches (depending on the brand). See the problem? None of you would be an hourglass. There's nothing wrong with that but then again I don't know because you haven't measured correctly to begin with.
Im 36/25/36.
My bust to waist looks more hourglass front on than waist to hips because my butt is peachey so i measured the fullest part, but hips dont look that wide. From bihnd i look very hourglass with butt to waist lol
Pages