Me too, and I’m a straight woman.
Calista Flockhart - Yum.
I will admit that she would probably look better by adding about twenty pounds, but still I think she is adorable and hot.
Jillian Michaels
OK, she’s muscular rather than skinny. And ultra-hot
SS
Agreed. There’s way too much neck tendon and collarbone action going on whenever she’s wearing something revealing. It doesn’t help that her skin looks like a leathery saddle either :o
Well, and also she’s a horrible actress and has no chemistry whatsoever and every time she speaks I want to beat her to death with a broom. But I don’t like seeing her sternum either. Can you believe she’s only 40?
ETA - hilariously, on the box art for the DVD they’ve Photoshopped her so much she’s completely unrecognizable. Wouldn’t that be your cue to recast somebody, when they’re so scary you can’t sell anything with her picture on it?
I’ve always found Angelina Jolie’s skinny legs freakishly scary. And Sarah Jessica Parker seems too skinny as well.
I think part of this is because people in general are really bad at understanding how they and others look. Take a look at this chart, which is used in a whole bunch of body image psych experiments. Inevitably, when the results of the experiments are assessed people fail to do two things properly. 1. properly indentify which of the people on the chart are the healthiest weights 2. identify which of the shapes most closely matches their own body shape. FTR, the healthy weights on both charts are 3 & 4.
I myself fail on both accounts. Though I knew which of the women’s bodies would shake out as healthy, I think that of the men’s 4 & 5 look healthier/more attractive than 3 & 4. And as for picking my own shape, I didn’t realize I was bad at self-identification until I found a different version of the women’s chart here that also includes numerical descriptions of the body shapes. I guessed I was closest to 3, but then did the math to calculate WHR and conversion from cm to in and realized that I’m not…I should have picked 2, which is still slightly larger than my build.
So if people can’t even figure out what a stereotypical healthy person is supposed to look like or what they themselves even look like, is it any wonder that we don’t correctly guess what appeals to the opposite sex?
As for the OP, while I don’t find women sexually attractive, I’m more forgiving of a woman being slight at the aesthetic appeal level than I am men…but not by much. The women who look the best are at a healthy weight +/- about 5%. I have a mental list of actresses whom I’m convinced would look even better if they gained 10 or 15 pounds, and three of them have already been named but also include gals like Emily Deschanel.
Another vote for Keira Knightley. As others have noted, it’s her face which I find to be her most attractive feature. In some pictures, she looks thin-but-toned; in others, she looks positively stick-like.
Jeremy Clarkson (of “Top Gear”) allegedly once described Keira (more or less) like this: “Beautiful face, but it’s a shame that she has an ironing board for a body.”
Those two are people who don’t bother me. With Angelina, I’m sure it’s because I always focus on her face, but with SJP, I generally focus on her legs and think they look rather nice.
And I came up with another reason for the skinny thing: waist to hip ratio. Skinny women tend to have a higher ratio, since they don’t have enough fat for their hips. I guess I didn’t think of it because I tend to like smaller butts.
Keira Knightley. I’m not usually attracted to skinny women, but I found her pretty sexy in Pride and Prejudice.
-XT
The fact that so many of the men in the women’s fashion industry are homosexual may have something to do with this. The industry seems to be pushing an image of a woman that resembles an adolescent boy, a “twink.” Could this be because the men who are coming up with the designs and picking the models are catering to what they find “aesthetically” pleasing in a woman as opposed to what a straight man would find sexually compelling.
I don’t think that’s necessarily true. I think thinner women tend to have lower WHRs, and that most victoria secret model types are actually pretty hourglass, not straight up and down.
Then again, victoria secret types are much curvier than the average runway model, as are mainstream actresses. Runway models might have a higher WHR.
If someone less lazy than me could dig up a cite, that would be great. Otherwise, I’ll grudgingly search for one
If you can find the measurements of some of the women you’re thinking of (which have to be taken with a grain of salt. There’s no way that Christina Hendricks is a size 12 and has 35/6" hips like most of the supposed measurements say. 36" hips puts most women in a size 4) we could tell you what their hip-to-waist ratio is.
I’m willing to guess that may have had to do with a number of intangible things aside from her skinniness. I think how attractive we view somebody is based on a mix of physical and non-physical factors anyway. For example, even if you think a girl is too skinny for your tastes, you might disregard that if she has a pretty face, innate charm, and intelligence.
Well, here are two links discussing WHR, showing that often the “thinner” woman is the one with the lower WHR. Obviously, you can have a small waist and have a high WHR if you also have equally smaller hips, but I think even in modern America we still hold the “hourglass” figure as ideal (we just the waist and hip numbers to be smaller than the beauty ideal has traditionally demanded).
Also, I think Kiera Knightley might be one of the few women they fatten up for “posed” images. Anyways, it seems like her WHR is actually fairly high (because she has almost no hips), but in the posed photos it seems like they tend to tuck in her waist a bit (and add some subq fat).
I almost never say this but I feel like in the bikini pics she looks unattractively thin.
Mildy NSFW.
Natural: http ://www.celebrity-gossips.net/2008/10/keira-knightley-bikini-pictures/
Manipulated: http ://www.picturesdepot.com/wallpapers/4816/sexy+keira+knightley.html
Oh shit, urrrgh. Give me a Beth Ditto anyday over that.
We know that it isn’t healthy to be either too thin or too fat.
Unsurprisingly most men find healthy curves to be the most alluring. My wife is of that body type and I’m always happy to browse her Bravissimo catalogue with her to give my opinions. (It is a tasteful lingerie site, may be slightly NSFW)
Personally I think healthy is everything, purely by coincidence I think GB heptathletes Jessica Ennis andDenise Lewis are about as thin as I’m likely to find attactive. (I like the way I get to make it sound like I have a choice there!).
The thing that really bothers me though is the media’s incessant drive to be thin rather than to be fit regardless of weight or body shape.
Keira Knightly (though I don’t find her attractive) is naturally thin, pies and cake isn’t going to change her. I resent the media implication that her shape is attainable or desirable for most women. I’d equally dismiss the need for her to bulk up in order to fit my own preferences.
As the father of a five year old girl I worry about any such pressures. Thankfully we have always said that our children won’t be spared our own naked and imperfect bodies so I hope they grow up to feel comfortable in their own skin and use exercise and good eating to make the most of what they have.
(we try to make sure that we* eat* a healthy diet and not go on a healthy diet, the distinction is important)
Either that or we are storing up a lifetime of therapy for them!
Isn’t that kinda the point?
I am pretty sure I read this line here at the SDMB, but it sure makes sense to me:
We should tell the fashion designers to just make the clothes and let us pick out the pretty girls